Protest Speech: Why It Is Not Respected
With the Olympics comes a dilemma. On one side is international goodwill, the abeyance of political judgment, and something like a military cease-fire. This side of the dilemma is worthy of the most intriguing aspect of ancient warfare, when sides bent on the utter destruction of each other would wait sometimes for weeks while their mortal enemies performed burial rites or offered seasonal sacrifices.
On the other side is the pressure to use such an enormous stage to make political statements. Some of those statements are ethically compelling, such as opposing human rights violations in China this year. Governments contemplate boycotts for the same reason individual demonstrators hang banners from bridges and buildings along the torch route or in the background of opening ceremonies or competitive event venues.
The contrast between the two horns of the dilemma could not be more obvious. The point of everyone coming together for the Olympics is to overlook the content of all the protests in favor of a symbol of humanity’s potentially harmonious future, a symbol informed by youth engaging in benign competition.
So protesters to the Olympics end up being disreputable interlopers rather than significant contributors to the future, even when their causes are just. And that judgment is not reserved for Olympic protesters. All such protesters share the same predicament and deserve the same disregard. Those who see a huge crowd and attempt to enlighten (presuming a pristine message) that crowd with a message either opposed or unrelated to the reason the crowd gathered risk (or perhaps even guarantee) alienating the audience with their message of protest.
Why? It’s very simple. They have not earned the right to speak to the crowd. If they wish to stand as individual protesters and address individuals or small groups in the crowd about the same issue, then those individuals or groups have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to listen or not–to determine whether the protester has a rapport with them or not. But when crowds are co-opted en masse the only predictable result will be antipathy for the message of those who are speaking–speaking even though they have not earned the right to do so. Such protesters might as well be saying “hi mom” while standing behind a news reporter.
Even such is the problem with President Bush’s decision about whether to attend Beijing and whether to speak about Tibet.
The point for here is not about whether the Olympics is a worthy symbol of humanity’s future or not. Neither is it about Tibet or human rights violations throughout China.
The point here is simply that those who wish to speak on important issues should not taint their speech with the disreputable and (in Kantian terms) unethical practice of speaking where they have not earned the right to speak. Another way to say it is this: “If you want to speak to a crowd, make your own.”
Tags: Protesters
[...] what he describes and the irresponsible protests going on, for example, in London today, see this other post. Here’s the e-mail: —————– Barry [...]