Laserfiche WebLink
10/22/2020 <br />David Schultz: The ethics of protests at people's homes — Twin Cities <br />Under what conditions, if at all, is residential picketing a form of legitimate <br />protest or expression of ideas? <br />Recently in response to the death of George Floyd the streets in front of the <br />personal residences of two police officers and their families have been the sites <br />of public protest. So too has the Minnesota governor's mansion, also located on <br />a residential street. <br />First, no reasonable person should disagree with the proposition that racism is <br />wrong. Nor should a reasonable person endorse unwarranted use of force by <br />police, especially when done in a racially discriminatory way. What happened to <br />George Floyd was a tragedy and whether the police officers are guilty of a crime <br />is a matter for the courts to decide. <br />Regardless of legal verdict in the pending trials, individuals have a First <br />Amendment right peaceably to assemble, protest, and present their views on <br />public streets, however much we agree with them or find their views repugnant. <br />There is also a right, whether prudent or not, to use language, symbols, and <br />speech which many might consider to be uncivil, to express their ideas. None of <br />us should be expected to use perfect grammar or prose, and sometimes the <br />choice of words or symbols, however impolite some may view them, may be <br />effective ways to convey a message or get attention. <br />There are limits to the expression of ideas in residential areas. <br />The issue is not civility but counterbalancing rights of individuals to be protected <br />from harassment and unwanted speech from which they cannot escape. <br />In the 1988 case of Frisby v. Schultz (no relation to this author), anti -abortion <br />protestors peacefully picketed on the streets in front of the home of a doctor <br />who performed abortions. The home was in a residential district. Justice <br />O'Connor, writing for the Supreme Court, recognized that streets even in <br />residential neighborhoods were public, yet upheld an ordinance banning this <br />picketing. It did so for a couple of reasons. <br />One, the Court recognized a right to privacy in our homes. There is a legitimate <br />interest in protecting people from unwanted intrusions into their homes. <br />Two, unlike protests in front of businesses or other public accommodations, <br />individuals in their private residences are captured audiences who have no <br />ability to escape from speech they do not wish to hear. One may have a right to <br />free speech, but not a right to force unwilling audiences to listen. <br />SUBSCRIBE > x <br />https://www.twincities.com/2020/08/30/david-schultz-the-ethics-of-protests-at-peoples-homes/ 2/4 <br />