Thursday, February 2, 2017
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)
I believe that Mill would be torn on this issue and not really know which side is better since his philosophy can be applied to both sides. Since the protesters hold an opinion and are acting on that opinion without causing any immediate harm to anybody else, it’s possible that Mill would side with the people. At the beginning of Chapter 3 of On Liberty, Mill says, “Let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions – to carry these out in their lives without hindrance…so long as it is at their own risk and peril” (53). The protesters are technically not causing harm to anybody else by acting on their opinions so it is possible that Mill would side with them for this reason. However, there is also a possibility that Mill would agree with the law that people should not be allowed to protest on highways because it has the potential to cause harm to other people, specifically the drivers, who might have an emergency and need to get somewhere fast but can’t because of the protesters. When talking about when an individual should be prevented from acting on his opinions, Mill states that “the liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people” (53). Since the protesters are indeed being a nuisance to the drivers trying to get to work or to the hospital or to some other place by a certain time, I can see Mill siding with the law in this certain situation. However, I don’t believe he would think it’s right that the protesters could face up to five years in prison and be considered felons. Personally, I don’t think that protesters should be allowed to block major roadways. However, I also don’t think that the punishment for such an offence should be anything more than a fine. I believe that there are plenty of other ways for protesters to get their point across other than causing a great inconvenience to a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteTo answer how Mill would respond to this, we must ask ourselves: are the people protesting harming others? They may not be physically harming the perpetrators, but they are still affecting the lives of others. Mill would not approve of a group of people inconveniencing others just to get a point across. He would recognize that street protests have been happening for a long time, but he would say that the protesters doing so simply because people have done it in the past weren’t truly being good protesters because they were doing something because other people did it.
ReplyDeleteI think that a punishment is deserving for shutting down highways via protest, but jail time is not the answer. The protesters are prohibiting use of a public space (the highway), which should not be allowed. However, I don’t think it is a felony worthy offense. A fine or community service (such as cleaning the highway) would be more suitable, since expressing views shouldn’t be a felony. While the people who care a lot about things dear to them may not be deterred by a fine, the majority of the population will not want to risk it a fine.
People have a right to express their views. They have the right to do so in public. However, I do not think they have the right to impede on others’ use of the public highway. There are other ways to get a point across, and I believe that protesters can take to other venues to express their views. Local streets and downtown areas are safer for everyone involved, and they will reach more people this way.
The harm to others principle is one of the major ideas that Mill uses to guide his thoughts and opinions on issues that could restrict rights of citizens. However, it is precisely the complex nature of this debate that would lead Mill to develop a conflicted opinion that does not agree with either side of this debate. First, Mill argues that “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.” He explains that we have to prove injury and harm in order to justify restrictions like those proposed by Iowa legislators. He could agree with the argument that protesting on major highways would obstruct police, fire, and other emergency vehicles which in turn could harm people in need of those services. Furthermore, the danger posed by these protesters on regular drivers and on their families could also influence Mill as this would fall under the harm to others principle not only because drivers’ safety is put at great risk, but also because the families of protesters would be harmed as a result of great injury or death inflicted on the protester. However, Mill would also agree with civil liberties arguments about individual choice and the right to protest. He argues in On Liberty that, “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual.” As individuals, these protesters know what is best for them, and are justified in taking this course of action. Additionally, restricting the right to protest would deprive others of that right which is something that Mill believes is incorrect. He would be conflicted when faced with this situation because both sides offer justifications that he agrees with, and he would most likely have to evaluate these cases individually in order to decide who makes the best arguments for protecting people’s rights while preserving safety. Personally, I believe that the civil liberties groups are correct that these proposed changes to the criminal code are unjustified and would detrimentally effect the freedom of speech and right to protest. In Cleveland, as a result of President Trump’s Executive Action on Immigration, there were protests at Cleveland Airport that were also held on the highway and did not harm protesters or motorists. These protesters understood what was best for them and their action of protesting in justified and must be protected. Motorists were not getting harmed by these protesters who are not damaging property, and thus should not qualify under the harms to others principle. Any action that would restrict the location a protest could be the legal basis to restrict protest locations in the future. If the lawmakers argument is accepted and acted on, protests downtown or in the suburbs could be silenced because there are delays or concerns about the effect on traffic flows. While we may face some inconveniences, the rights of others cannot and should not be infringed upon or sacrificed today, otherwise they cannot rise to our defense in the future. The law should be clear on this issue: it should protect the right to free speech and protest regardless of the location of the protest.
ReplyDeleteMill would most likely side with the reasoning behind the law, but not the law itself. This is because his central principle is, "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" (9). The politicians and Mill both want the same thing: to ensure the safety of the general public by making sure that emergency vehicles would not be prohibited from traveling during highway protests. A situation where these vehicles were impeded could in fact cause severe harm to others, or the loss of life. Furthermore, even though these individuals are assembling to express their opinions (which is very important to Mill), the structure by which they wish to do so is flawed because it doesn't consider it's negative effects on others.
ReplyDeleteIt's fairly clear that Mill would agree with the law in concept, but I think he would take an issue with the five year prison sentence associated with it. This is because if we're going to think about overall harm to society as a repercussion, imprisoning someone for 5 years is definitely going to cause more harm than it's going to do good. There is going to be a massive cost associated with this punishment do to court, jail, and prison fees. Not to mention the longer term harms it could have on the individual, which would eventually impact society as a whole through re-integration. While it is important to disenfranchise behavior that is potentially dangerous the punishments can't be so severe that they carry over and negatively impact society as a whole. In this situation it would be much better to institute a fine or put a strike on their record.
In On Liberty, the cornerstone of Mill’s argument is his harms to others principle which states, “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” (9). That means the only time you are able to restrict an individual or group’s liberty is if they are causing harm to others. It is undeniable that if there were protestors on the highway, harm would be caused to others. Whether it be through impeding motorists trying to get to their destination or an emergency crew trying to save someone’s life, protesting on the highway would definitely cause harm. That may make it seem like obviously Mill would think protesting on the highway should be illegal. Yet, the protestors on the highway are exercising their free opinions and Mill comments that acts that silence free opinion are ,”the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation” (19). For Mill, opinion and free speech is one of the most important cogs of keeping a society both functioning and moving forward. It is essential to the general welfare of the people. Furthermore, the harms to other principle is a necessary, but insufficient burden for restricting freedom. For example Mill says that competition in the business realm should not be restricted because “But it is, by common admission, better for the general interest of mankind, that persons should pursue their objects undeterred by this sort of consequences” (87). Even though competition may lead to one person losing their job to a better employee or a product someone has spent years creating losing to a better product, the better product and better worker provide greater benefit for society as a whole even though a few individuals will face harm. Therefore, the highway protestors can only have their speech restricted, if their speech didn’t provide benefits to the general interest. Furthermore Mills specifically comments on those that put down dissenters stating, “it needs but little to provoke them into actively persecuting those whom they have never ceased to think proper objects of persecution” (31). Mill’s argument is while we may not kill dissenters anymore, there is enough penalties within the law right now and enough will in the hearts of people that would allow for harsher punishments to arise that would only further crowd out opinions and the truth. Specifically, Mills is saying that legal persecuting someone for speech, which is what the law proposed in Iowa would do, should not be allowed. Therefore, while protesting on the highway is a harm, since the truth and dissension is so important to the general welfare of the people, in this case, I believe Mill would argue that it would not be sufficient enough to restrict the protestors liberty to protest on the highway.
ReplyDeleteThroughout On Liberty, Mill claims that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental rights that not only strengthen the individual, but also help progress society as a whole. The main exception that Mill makes to this liberty is the threat of “harm to others.” In fact, Mill argues that it is the only reason to rescind this liberty: “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” (9). But, in the context of this proposed law, this possible threat would not usually be enough to outweigh the benefits provided by the opinions – whether true or false – presented in these protests. Therefore, Mill would be mostly opposed to the passage of such restrictive laws – except under a few certain circumstances.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I believe that Mill would condone protests on fast-moving and densely packed highways, such as I-90 or even parts of Mayfield Road. Although protesting on these roads is very dangerous to those participating, this fact would not concern Mill because, “in the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute” (9). But, the truth is, protesting in these areas additionally pose a threat to those that have NOT volunteered to take part – the passing drivers. Freeways and multiple-lane roads are often the main way for people to drive to work. By the time an individual realizes that they are in a traffic jam, it is too late to alter the routes. And, as a result of these delays, workers may be fired or docked in pay – two realities that are catastrophic for some families. Although blockages are potentially harmful on whichever road, this risk influences an exponentially larger percent of the population on these highly-traveled and large highways. Additionally, Mill would have to consider the indisputable danger in driving 2-ton machines moving at speeds of up to 50 or 60 mph. If protestors partially or completely block a large highway, drivers may swerve or slam on the brakes at the last second in order to avoid hitting protestors. These sudden changes in movement can quickly lead to enormous accidents that can cause both physical and financial harm to individuals. Once again, while this risk is still present on side-streets and roads with lower speed limits, the threat of large pile-ups and high-velocity collisions is much less. Similar arguments are made about the ability for emergency vehicles to pass through. Once again, Mill would weigh the likelihood of this event and would deem that protesting should only be restricted on roads most frequently traveled to hospitals, police headquarters, and fire stations.
Personally, I believe that the implementation of this law is justifiable, but under certain specific requirements. The law cannot be subjective to the qualification “dangerous or often-traveled roads.” Instead there needs to be specific requirements. For example, protests should not be allowed to take place on any highway with a speed limit over 45 mph, 6+ more lanes, or access to emergency facilities. While these specific regulations may need to change, I strongly believe that there should be some slight restrictions regarding protests near roads in order to protect the safety of the bystanders. That being said, I also think that these guidelines should be minimal and limit the restriction of freedom of speech. In these public spaces where little to no threat of harm is present, the bystanders are actually guaranteed to walk away a better person: they are either convinced of this new truth or they are more sure of their own. As Mill writes, “Truth gains more even by the errors of one who…think for himself than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think” (32). Overall, Mill (and I) would argue that in most circumstances, freedom of speech provides more good than bad: it is only in these cases where the threat of potential harm dramatically increases where these rights should be constricted.
Mill could successfully argue for both sides of the argument in this case. He supports letting all opinions be known, but also believes that we should not create situations that harm others. As such he is in a tough spot. I personally think that there is not right answer with these two parts as they are the extremes of the situation. I think that Mill would also agree, but I would not know how much weight he would put on certain parts. I would say that the freedom of opinions is more important than the safety of the protestors. I would argue that they are agreeing to put themselves at risk in exchange for demonstrating their rights and opinions. I also think that protesting is an inherent part of our rights. Being able to present a multitude of opinions is vital for advancing society and the world as a whole. As Mill says, almost all of us do not know the whole story without asking others who have radically different viewpoints. An interesting case to bring into this argument are martyrs. They have died for a cause therefore cementing the idea that their views were greater than their lives. We don’t follow that mentality now because we value life more than anything. One could also use the argument that life is the most precious thing in not just this world, but this universe and as such should be protected at all cost. And another counter to this, separate from above, is that that the many outweigh the few. Thus you have a very contentious issue with arguments for both sides. I personally would say opinions > life.
ReplyDelete