As students return to college campuses across the United States, administrators are bracing for a resurgence in activism against the war in Gaza.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but my objection is to the following argument that some people are making:

    1. I have the right to protest.

    2. My protest isn’t going to be effective unless I am disruptive.

    3. Therefore, I have the right to be disruptive.

    I’m saying that (3) doesn’t follow from (1) and (2). The right to speak does not imply the right to be heard and obeyed.

    • g0zer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      While I feel we mostly are in agreement, I have a problem with the verbiage you use. Specifically the idea that the desired outcome is to force the population at large to “obey” protesters.

      While no one should be forced to “obey” a protest, the disruption itself is often necessary to make the issues visible and impossible to ignore. It’s not about the right to be heard and obeyed, but about ensuring that the issues at hand cannot be easily dismissed or overlooked. Disruption, when done with purpose, has historically been a critical tool for marginalized groups to bring about the changes that polite appeals often fail to achieve.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I think you make a good point. I approach things from my libertarian-leaning background, so my focus is usually on negative rights and “don’t tread on me”. However, the real world is complicated and so local application of the non-aggression principle is in practice often insufficient. I still insist that preventing disruption does not infringe on the right to free speech, but I will concede that sometimes a reasonable level of disruption is necessary to achieve just ends.

        Of course as soon as a non-zero limit is considered acceptable, the limit becomes a matter of opinion and pushing the limit is incentivized. I prefer absolutes, but I guess there’s no escape from the need for good judgement.

        Edit: I also want to say that I really appreciate your thoughtful comments.

        • g0zer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You’ve made some really good points and I’ll be thinking on them in the days to come.

          I don’t have much else to add, but I do want to say that I really appreciate the honest and nuanced discussion here.

          At the end of the day, we don’t always have to always agree on every specific detail and these kinds of discussions allow us to explore our biases and will shape our collective responses. And that is good for the community as a whole…