In a civilized nation, decorum, respect and courtesy would inhibit people from protesting outside the homes of public officials. Alas, neighborhood protests are becoming more and more frequent, carrying a subtext of intimidation rather civil discourse.
That has led the Vancouver City Council to unanimously approve a change to the city code, protecting government officials, staff and volunteers from protests outside their homes. The move raises constitutional questions about free speech; at the same time, it provides a sad commentary on the state of our political rhetoric during these tense times.
Indeed, the right to protest is encoded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights reads, in part: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Prohibiting protesters from gathering or chanting or waving signs outside a private home touches upon each of these issues. It also points out that many Americans misunderstand “free speech,” conflating it with an unfettered right to say anything, anywhere at any time.
Preventing home-targeting protests does not prevent free speech. Advocates still may stand on a street corner or in their backyard or in the public square and say whatever they like. They may log on to social media and share their views, as long as they adhere to the policies of the platform. They may send emails or make phone calls. And they may stand in their living room and scream about anything they like without threat of being arrested.
The idea that free speech applies to any setting has long been rejected. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1919: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Cries that free speech are being suppressed fall on deaf ears until the government prevents particular speech in all settings, rather than limited ones.
As Nina Cook, Vancouver’s chief assistant city attorney, told the city council: “The Supreme Court has consistently held that regulating speech is permissible if the regulations are narrowly drawn and tailored in time, place and manner and balanced in compelling government interest.”
She added: “It’s important to note that the constitutional protection of free speech in the First Amendment is not absolute and has never been. It is always based on a balancing test.”
That balance has been out of whack. One Vancouver woman said protesters used bullhorns, shouted and stalked her as she walked around her neighborhood. “They came right up and tried to take photos through (my) shutters. It was terrifying,” she told The Columbian.
Similar events have occurred at the homes of other city officials, part of a national trend that diminishes our democracy and attempts to replace it with intimidation, coercion and thinly veiled threats.
Whether it is the home of a U.S. Supreme Court justice — as recently occurred with Roe v. Wade advocates — or whether it is at the home of a city attorney, private residences should be beyond the bounds of public discourse. Public officials are accessible at work; they need not be accessible through protests that bother their families and neighbors.
The message behind such protests is clear: We know where you live and we know how to get to you. And that has no place in civilized society.
