Monday, February 12, 2018
Highways and Protests
In On Liberty, Mill vigorously defends the right of citizens to assemble and express their views. Yet how far does that right extend? A bill in Iowa proposes making protesting on a highway a felony subject to as much as five years in prison. Its proponent cites safety concerns around the obstruction of police and fire vehicles. However, civil liberties claim it and similar laws have a chilling affect of free speech and the right to protest. What would Mill say about all this? Which side of the debate is correct (or is there some third or middle position that is correct)? Is there a right to protest even if it prevents me from getting work on time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mill would say that this is fine because these people have the right to protest no matter where they choose to do it. I think that somewhere in the middle is the correct place to be. Here's why: I think that citizens should have the right to protest in public places because that is their right to protest. I think that it is wrong to form your protest on a highway because your asking for one of your fellow protesters to get hit by a car. I also think it is wrong that it is a felony because every citizen has the right to protest. The fact that it is a felony is crazy because the government is going back on the right of protest because it is convenient for them. This is not how laws should work because every citizen has the right to protest! The logistical side of this argument is that many people would be late to work, or not be able to get to work if these protests happen. Although that is a fair point these citizens have the right to protest where they see fit because that is the only way that the believe there will be change. Some could argue that it interferes with livelihoods which it does, but these people need to understand that the protesters have the right to do so. I believe that it is perfectly fine to protest, but is wrong to protest somewhere that interferes with someones livelihood. I think it's the stupidest thing that the government can put one in jail for protesting on the highway just because it is more convenient for them to throw someone in jail then to deal with our bigger problems in the country. This is a small sample size of the government changing or not following there own rules because they don't want to see change that will hurt them.
ReplyDeleteDue to the statements and ideologies that Mill has portrayed in his writing, I believe that he would feel as if highway protests are in fact justified. Mill is an advocate for individual liberty, if they are not harming other individuals. While I believe that individuals have a right to individual liberty, such as protests, individuals should not be allowed to involve violence in their protests nor should they be allowed to negatively affect outside individuals. Highway protests violate this in the sense that people peacefully going about their day, driving to work on their typical route, the highway, are now put at risk for not only being late but are also more vulnerable to get in an accident due to the protests if they had not known about them beforehand. If protesters are parading in the middle of the highway, cars are more likely to hit these individuals, resulting in injury or death. Not only is this highly dangerous for the protesters, but it is also dangerous for the drivers. If they hit someone, the drivers will be prosecuted, and possibly put away in prison for an extended amount of time. This is not just nor safe. If the highway protests are well advertised beforehand, so that individuals who may be taking that route in their day are aware of it, and police are notified beforehand to ensure that all safety precautions are taken, highway protests should not spark a major issue. However, if these precautions are violated or not completed, highway protests are putting people at risk. As Mill believes, I am also an advocate for peaceful protesting, as a way and a right to demonstrate your thoughts and freedom of speech; however, some parameters, as described above, need to be inflicted in the law in order to ensure safety and justice for all.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, the ability to protest is one of the most important parts of this nation's identity. Beyond that, the value of expressing dissent regardless of race, color, identity, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status allows for constant change, which in turn allows for progress to occur and society to evolve. Mill agrees with this when he states, "a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.” Not only is it the duty of someone who is attempting to penetrate the barriers of injustice to fight for what they believe in, but it is also the repsonsibility of others who may not be directly affected but agree thta changes must be made. However, there is still some confusion regarding how to be civil when going about starting a protest. At the most basic level, a highway is typically a public road intended for connecting major towns or cities. As we know it, speeds reach up to around 80 miles per hour as people travel without having to worry about stopping given ideal circumstances (i.e. no car crash nor a fire). While protesting in its own right requires gathering attention from the public, it should never be at someone else's expense. In this case, it is fair that the government steps in and rules it illegal for citizens to publically protest on the highway. Regardless of the legality aspect, it should and will be illegal to purposefully kill someone on a highway regardless of whether the person on the highway is comitting a crime or not (unless they are posing a threat to others). Mill believes that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Protesting on the highway not only puts the protestors in harms way but also the drivers as they must manage to either come to a halt or do something else that may pose as a serious threat to their lives. As such, peaceful protests are legal whereas uncivil protests are not. Uncivil protests do not necessarily require weapons, but simply putting themselves and others in danger is enough to violate Mill's belief regarding harm to self and others in a civil society. The ACLU reaffirms this when they claim, "If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit."
ReplyDeleteFor any law to be considered just under J. S. Mill, it cannot violate the Harm to Others Principle. This principle, when applied, allows for any civil liberty to be exercised as long as practicing that liberty doesn’t interfere or harm other’s in society. Protesting is a right that we all have as Americans but similar to the laws in the state of Iowa, sometimes certain places or times should be restricted zones for public protest. Highways are the fasted route to take by car, bus, or any other motor vehicle, and on highways in Iowa protesting is illegal and if one is seen protesting on the highway there can be up to a five year prison sentence. Firstly I don’t think that this punishment fits the crime in this case. Protesting on the highway is a risk that the protestor takes to exercise their right of free speech. However large protests can cause traffic jams and can possibly prevent others from exercising their liberties. I think that instead of fully outlawing protesting on highways, there should be restriction as to when and where on the highways protestors and can go. During rush hours and other high traffic times, mass protests should be illegal because they can possibly endanger the lives of those on the road. If one would like to conduct a mass protest they should have to inform the public of when this would take place and have certain carved out areas that don’t interfere with traffic but still allow for the protestors to get their message across through the use of words and signs. Without setting these restrictions, the protestors not only put themselves in harm’s way, but also endanger the lives of those on the road. One scenario that immediately came into mind was an already injured individual who needs immediate medical attention. From this, one restriction I would make is that protesting on the highway should never be allowed to prevent one from visiting the hospital or any other physically urgent matter. The right of free speech should never be prohibited but when exercised on highways, should have strict guidelines that prevent endangering the lives of drivers and passengers.
ReplyDelete