By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Tuesday, May 10, 2022
Noticing that there is outrage about the protests in
front of the homes of Supreme Court justices, some commentators have pointed
out that protests in front of the homes of other public officials haven’t
attracted these objections about intimidation. For instance, a protest in front of Chuck Schumer’s home recently.
The Supreme Court has vindicated the rights of citizens
to protest in the streets but has often held up ordinances against protesting
in residential areas. Further, protesting in front of a judge’s home to
influence the outcome of a pending case can be charged as a criminal act of
obstruction.
The implication of one commentator about the difference
in reaction to protests at Schumer’s residence and those at Supreme Court justices’
homes has been that somehow “suburban spaces” are felt, wrongly, to have a
certain privilege or immunity from politics that we don’t accept in urban
spaces.
I’m not sure that’s right; more likely the reaction is
driven by a perception of vulnerability.
Chuck Schumer lives in a large apartment building on
Prospect Park West. The building has a 24/7 doorman and may even have a
security guard of its own. The protesters likely did not know which floor or
apartment Schumer owns. Being in an urban environment means that a much larger
police force can quickly converge on that space if things get out of hand.
The Supreme Court justices who are being protested this
week live in single-family homes in environments that feel like suburbs. It’s
not hard to understand why observers (or occupants) feel they are more
vulnerable to a large gathering just outside their door. Just as, say, a home
in a rural area would, if surrounded by protesters, feel yet more vulnerable
than a suburban one. For that matter it would be very intimidating to launch a
loud protest in front of an apartment door in an apartment hallway.
As a matter of civics, I would recommend not protesting
at anyone’s residence. The families of our elected officials do not deserve the
discomfort and terror this can bring. And, insofar as public officials are the
proper object of protest, they should be protested at their public offices, or
at their public appearances as the holders of those offices, not at the place
where they put these roles down to be fathers, mothers, spouses, friends, and
neighbors. Recognizing that people do play these pro-social roles in their
lives — often playing them well — even when we gravely disagree with their
judgments, is what makes living in a republic tolerable and easier.
Relatedly, I think Samuel
Alito’s dissent in Snyder v. Phelps vindicates the
principle that some forms of cruel and injurious speech — such as the
loathsome Westboro Baptist Church gathering outside a funeral to shout
homophobic obscenities at mourners — should not be protected by the First
Amendment. This is a dissent that will be vindicated in the long run. It may
even be vindicated now.
No comments:
Post a Comment