NationStates Jolt Archive

The following article proposes a code of ethics for protesting at the US party conventions.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/25/at-the-dnc-is-protesting-unpatriotic/


I believe is code is wrong in almost every detail so here are my counterpoints to each of its seven points.

1. Obey the law, or be willing to accept the consequences. Civil disobedience has an important role in democracy, but those who break the law, even in the name of a higher moral good, may have to pay a significant personal price. Rosa Parks rightly protested the Jim Crow laws of the segregated South but was arrested, went to jail, and received death threats. Those who take issue with any aspect of either convention should keep the law in mind at all times and recognize that the failure to do so may lead to civil or criminal penalties, or both.

1. Disobey the law and attempt to avoid the consequences if at all possible. The laws are designed and the authorities are intent upon making proyests as quiet and irrevent as possible. If you do only what is allowed you will have no effect. If you disobey the laws and dictates of authority attempt to avoid being arrested and if you are arrested attempt to do whatever you can to mitigated the penalties the state wishes to impose upon you. these penalties are designed to control you behavor and discourage you actions if you don't do all you can to avoid them they are likely to succeed in their intent.

2. Be tolerant. It is great to be passionate about your point of view. It’s also great to recognize that others may not share it or even be passionately opposed to it. Yes, let others know what you think and feel, but remember Newton’s third law of motion: “For every action, there is an equal, but opposite, reaction.” Tolerance is a necessary condition for respectful protest. We should embrace diversity, not wish it away.

2. Tolerance can be over rated. When you are protesting you are essentually in a shouting match with everything else going on in the world and individuals lives to be noticed. If you protest is to diverse in view point or you allow counter protesters to have an equal voice you message will be lost. I'm not advocating thuggery but if you don't stand up for your own view point as vigorously as possible and try to out shout the cmpeting voices you might as well have stayed home.

3. Being respectful increases the chances that you’ll get you what you want. Respectful protest doesn’t guarantee that you’ll achieve the result you’re hoping for, but disrespectful protest almost certainly means you won’t. This is where ethics meets practicality: by honoring the ethical principle of respect for others, you increase the likelihood that your voice will be heard rather than ignored.


3. Being respectful increases you chances of being ignored. If you want to be respectful send someone a nice letter, but if you are protesting you've already letf that stage behind. Being respectful at a protest just means you will be ignored, the people you are trying to influence won't even notice you are around and the media will do a quick wide shot of you standing there that will be far to short for anyone to even read you signs.

4. Accept that fairness is a bedrock of democracy. Winston Churchill noted that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried,” and fairness is one of the distinguishing characteristics of democracy. To be fair is to give to others their due, and in the context of protesting, this means that everyone deserves to be heard. Some cable news hosts and pundits seem to believe that yelling makes one’s argument stronger, but all it does it make it louder. Shouting someone down may make for entertaining television (for some), but at a political rally it is coarse, rude, and unethical.

4. Accept that the world is an unfair place. Democracy may have the ideal of fairness, but the reality is quite different. Cable news hosts are simply using the tactics of street protests when they get into shouting matches on the air. If you are not willing to shout the loudest on the street then you are conceding the forum to those who are. there is nothing rude or unethical about being the loudest person at a protest, and it is an act of political cowardise to not stand up for your own view with just as much or hopefully a bit more volume than your opponents.

5. Recognize that our eyes are on the same prize. Judging by what each candidate says about the other, you’d think that one person stood for all that is right and good, while his opponent wants the exact opposite. But of course that’s nonsense. Both want what every rational person wants: a stable economy, a safe country, a livable environment, affordable housing, and the freedom to pursue one’s dreams. Yes, the two sides differ about how to get there—with such complex problems, that’s to be expected—but demonizing those who hold a different point of view isn’t just deeply disrespectful; it is a distortion of the truth, which is just as bad.

5. Recognize that people have different agenda and different goals. Trying to pretend that everyone wants the same thing and that differences are only minor disagreements over tactics of degrees of importance is ridiculous. Different people with different ideologies have fundimentally opposed ideas of how the world should work, dispite thar Sting may have thought in the 80s the cold war did not boil down to whether the Russians loved their children too.

At a protest you are not attempting to express a complete nuanced political platform nor a scholarly discource critiquing your adversaries. There is nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole when attacking your opponents. People are either smart enough to realize that calling Bush a baby killing Nazi really means he has fascistic tendencies andf if less concerned than he should be over the loss of human life, or they aren't. Don't be afraid to do a little name calling just be sure you keep the more complex view of things firmly in your own mind.

6. Spend your money. Whatever side of the fence you’re on, if you go to either convention, you owe a debt of gratitude to your host city. The best way to pay this debt is the old-fashioned way: with lots of your own cash. If Denver is your destination, go shopping at Larimer Square or LoDo, or drop by the Tattered Cover, one of the best independent bookstores in the country. If you’re heading to Minneapolis-St. Paul, check out the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, the Children’s Museum, or the shops and restaurants on Grand Avenue. Most of all, spend, spend, spend! Not only should you not feel guilty for taking some time for yourself, you ought to indulge—for yourself, and for the town that is making your all of this possible. Even in a flagging economy, sometimes there is an ethical obligation to splurge, and this is one of those times.


6. Spend what you need to and do what you want You don't owe the host cities squat. They are putting on these shows for the Parties and for their own self interests. They aren't doing it for you, in fact they may well be doing all they can against you. Shop and site see if you want, but don't feel any obligations to these cities they sure as heck don't feel any to you.


7. Above all, take the high road. Whether you’re going to protest or to represent your party, you will encounter insults, nastiness, and other forms of hostility, and it will be easy to give in to the temptation to respond in kind. Don’t. You are there to advance your cause, and the best way to do this is to keep ethics front and center in all that you do. Besides, cameras will be everywhere, and the whole world will be watching. How do you want others to see you?


7. Use whatever means are necessary to accomplish your goals. Hey, don't get me wrong take the high road wherever you can. It looks better, it feels better, and its less like to turn around and bite you in the butt. Don't however assume you opponents will do the same, and don't allow yourself to be defeated by your own squeemishness at getting down and dirty. swiftboating is a low nasty business but just remember it was the swiftboater who won and kerry's attempt at taking the high road was interpreted as weakness and aloftness.

so your solution is to protest by doing hte things you're protesting against. *shrug*, fine by me if you want to be a hypocrite and a criminal.

I think protestors need to do what they feel they need to do. I might not want to emulate their tactics, but short of actually harming others, I don't think I need to try to get others to follow any sort of code.

Sorry RGR, your 'code' sounds more like a child's tantrum. Don't take responsiblity for your action, scream and shout, make a scene and scream some more when you are arrested.

so your solution is to protest by doing hte things you're protesting against. *shrug*, fine by me if you want to be a hypocrite and a criminal.

no my argument is that protesters need to use the tactics that are effective, even if they are seen by some as rude or confrontational or even criminal. i don't see that as hypocritical.

Sorry RGR, your 'code' sounds more like a child's tantrum. Don't take responsiblity for your action, scream and shout, make a scene and scream some more when you are arrested.

Nail on the head.

no my argument is that protesters need to use the tactics that are effective, even if they are seen by some as rude or confrontational or even criminal. i don't see that as hypocritical.

and what is it that you're protesting exactly?

Sorry RGR, your 'code' sounds more like a child's tantrum. Don't take responsiblity for your action, scream and shout, make a scene and scream some more when you are arrested. the argument that protest tactics are childish is certainly an old and well worn one, but not one i've even really understood. it seems to be based on the idea that maturity involves conformity and cowardise, that only the immature have the courage to stand up against the forces of authority. i disagree with that, it is often easier for the young to protest, because they don't have as much to lose and perhaps because they don't realize the full consequences the state will impose, but many adults do make the sacrifices that are necessary to effectively protest against the state.

Eh my main code of ethics for protesting in the US is basically the exact opposite of that whole Recreate68 pish.

"Don't be arseholes, and especially don't be violent arseholes"

no my argument is that protesters need to use the tactics that are effective, even if they are seen by some as rude or confrontational or even criminal. i don't see that as hypocritical.

effective for what? getting you seen on TV? sure the rude, confrontational, and criminal will do that.

get your point accross to convince others to join your cause? sorry. Cindy Sheenan (sp?) was not confontational, was not rude and for the most part, did not do criminal things.

Rev. Phelps did do confrontational and rude things.

Who would you follow?

who cares? why is this an issue?

and what is it that you're protesting exactly?-personally i'm not protesting against anything... i'm as happy with the obama-biden ticket as any the democrats are likely to produce and i don't really care what the republican do at their gathering, i am reacting against the cnn articles arguments as to what are the rules to ethical protesting.

the argument that protest tactics are childish is certainly an old and well worn one, but not one i've even really understood. it seems to be based on the idea that maturity involves conformity and cowardise, that only the immature have the courage to stand up against the forces of authority. i disagree with that, it is often easier for the young to protest, because they don't have as much to lose and perhaps because they don't realize the full consequences the state will impose, but many adults do make the sacrifices that are necessary to effectively protest against the state.

Because when you're young your hormones are racing and you're angry all the time. You've just got a brand new 'moral' and you want to show the world. When you are older you may still believe strongly in things but you are more able to sit back and just be confident in your beliefs.

the argument that protest tactics are childish is certainly an old and well worn one, but not one i've even really understood.
Not all protest tactics are childish, but stupid name-calling, calling the police fascists, trying to brew up trouble etc. doesn't help anyone's cause, and is just extremely tiresome for the general public.
it seems to be based on the idea that maturity involves conformity and cowardise, that only the immature have the courage to stand up against the forces of authority.
That would be because you just made a strawman to help yourself.
i disagree with that, it is often easier for the young to protest, because they don't have as much to lose and perhaps because they don't realize the full consequences the state will impose
Also because some have 'radical' viewpoints and if even slightly restless will attach themselves to any cause which will take them. This is until they start paying taxes, at which point communism does not actually seem so cool.
many adults do make the sacrifices that are necessary to effectively protest against the state.
Indeed they do. Which is good of them.

Eh my main code of ethics for protesting in the US is basically the exact opposite of that whole Recreate68 pish.

"Don't be arseholes, and especially don't be violent arseholes" 68 was a magical year all accross the western world, but it was ultimate a failure... as for the 68 democratic convention police riots, there is very little the protesters can do to control whether that situation arrises again. those were planned brutal attacks by the chicago police at the behest of daly, all the activists could do was try to get out of the way.

Criminal behavior is criminal regardless of your reasons. shouting and screaming tends to make people stubborn and far less likely to come round to your point of view. In short i dissagree with your new 'code' in almost everyway.

Although the not spending idea is fair, you don't owe the city anything.

That would be because you just made a strawman to help yourself.


okay, i'll concede that point

the argument that protest tactics are childish is certainly an old and well worn one, but not one i've even really understood. it seems to be based on the idea that maturity involves conformity and cowardise, that only the immature have the courage to stand up against the forces of authority. i disagree with that, it is often easier for the young to protest, because they don't have as much to lose and perhaps because they don't realize the full consequences the state will impose, but many adults do make the sacrifices that are necessary to effectively protest against the state.
Yet the tactics you say you support are immature in nature. you scoff at protest tactics that are mature and sensible. you even call for people to avoid responsiblity and be confrontational and to generally be childish.

1. Disobey the law and attempt to avoid the consequences if at all possible. The laws are designed and the authorities are intent upon making proyests as quiet and irrevent as possible. If you do only what is allowed you will have no effect. If you disobey the laws and dictates of authority attempt to avoid being arrested and if you are arrested attempt to do whatever you can to mitigated the penalties the state wishes to impose upon you. these penalties are designed to control you behavor and discourage you actions if you don't do all you can to avoid them they are likely to succeed in their intent.

2. Tolerance can be over rated. When you are protesting you are essentually in a shouting match with everything else going on in the world and individuals lives to be noticed. If you protest is to diverse in view point or you allow counter protesters to have an equal voice you message will be lost. I'm not advocating thuggery but if you don't stand up for your own view point as vigorously as possible and try to out shout the cmpeting voices you might as well have stayed home.

3. Being respectful increases you chances of being ignored. If you want to be respectful send someone a nice letter, but if you are protesting you've already letf that stage behind. Being respectful at a protest just means you will be ignored, the people you are trying to influence won't even notice you are around and the media will do a quick wide shot of you standing there that will be far to short for anyone to even read you signs.

4. Accept that the world is an unfair place. Democracy may have the ideal of fairness, but the reality is quite different. Cable news hosts are simply using the tactics of street protests when they get into shouting matches on the air. If you are not willing to shout the loudest on the street then you are conceding the forum to those who are. there is nothing rude or unethical about being the loudest person at a protest, and it is an act of political cowardise to not stand up for your own view with just as much or hopefully a bit more volume than your opponents.

5. Recognize that people have different agenda and different goals. Trying to pretend that everyone wants the same thing and that differences are only minor disagreements over tactics of degrees of importance is ridiculous. Different people with different ideologies have fundimentally opposed ideas of how the world should work, dispite thar Sting may have thought in the 80s the cold war did not boil down to whether the Russians loved their children too.

At a protest you are not attempting to express a complete nuanced political platform nor a scholarly discource critiquing your adversaries. There is nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole when attacking your opponents. People are either smart enough to realize that calling Bush a baby killing Nazi really means he has fascistic tendencies andf if less concerned than he should be over the loss of human life, or they aren't. Don't be afraid to do a little name calling just be sure you keep the more complex view of things firmly in your own mind.

7. Use whatever means are necessary to accomplish your goals. Hey, don't get me wrong take the high road wherever you can. It looks better, it feels better, and its less like to turn around and bite you in the butt. Don't however assume you opponents will do the same, and don't allow yourself to be defeated by your own squeemishness at getting down and dirty. swiftboating is a low nasty business but just remember it was the swiftboater who won and kerry's attempt at taking the high road was interpreted as weakness and aloftness.

Not one of your counter points suggest maturity nor intelligent thinking, but supprts the childish acts that you say support your idea that Maturity = cowardace and conformity.

Criminal behavior is criminal regardless of your reasons. shouting and screaming tends to make people stubborn and far less likely to come round to your point of view. In short i dissagree with your new 'code' in almost everyway.

Although the not spending idea is fair, you don't owe the city anything.
criminal behavior is criminal because the state defines it as such, whether that same behavior is morally or ethically justifiable is an entirely different issue. whether you object to acts of criminal behavoir depends both on your view of the acts ethics and morality and the degree to which you see the state a legitmate in its sanctioning of the act. there are a great many criminal acts which i believe the state has a legitimate need to sanction, though my view of all states legitimacy is lower than most peoples. there are other acts which while equally criminal i do not object to at all because i believe the state has no legitmate interest in sanctioning them.

68 was a magical year all accross the western world, but it was ultimate a failure...
Uhu. It killed any chances for communism in Western Europe.
as for the 68 democratic convention police riots, there is very little the protesters can do to control whether that situation arrises again. those were planned brutal attacks by the chicago police at the behest of daly, all the activists could do was try to get out of the way.
Abso fucking BS. I don't see how protestors running away would somehow lead to dozens of injuries in the police present, to be quite honest.

The following article proposes a code of ethics for protesting at the US party conventions.
[...]
Basically it says "Be nice, quiet and obey the laws".

Duh, they are never short of words.

criminal behavior is criminal because the state defines it as such, whether that same behavior is morally or ethically justifiable is an entirely different issue. whether you object to acts of criminal behavoir depends both on your view of the acts ethics and morality and the degree to which you see the state a legitmate in its sanctioning of the act. there are a great many criminal acts which i believe the state has a legitimate need to sanction, though my view of all states legitimacy is lower than most peoples. there are other acts which while equally criminal i do not object to at all because i believe the state has no legitmate interest in sanctioning them.

Point taken, not all laws are moral etc etc. My impression was that you were discussing violent protests etc, now i believe that violent protest is always wrong regardless of your motive and is as such always criminal.

Of course if you wern't talking about violence i've wasted my typing skills:D

Yet the tactics you say you support are immature in nature. you scoff at protest tactics that are mature and sensible. you even call for people to avoid responsiblity and be confrontational and to generally be childish.



Not one of your counter points suggest maturity nor intelligent thinking, but supprts the childish acts that you say support your idea that Maturity = cowardace and conformity. no i maintain that my counter points are infact mature, i am arguing that what you define as maturity is infact cowardise. there is nothing immature about controntation, nor is it immature of try to avoid or mitigate the states attempts to impose penalties upon you.

criminal behavior is criminal because the state defines it as such
Seeing as the people running a state either overty or covertly will be the most savvy people around, I have no problem with this.
whether that same behavior is morally or ethically justifiable is an entirely different issue.
Seeing as the public is largely silent on modern laws, that suggests a fairly high level of consent to me.
whether you object to acts of criminal behavoir depends both on your view of the acts ethics and morality and the degree to which you see the state a legitmate in its sanctioning of the act.
Uhu...
there are a great many criminal acts which i believe the state has a legitimate need to sanction, though
Spiff etc.
my view of all states legitimacy is lower than most peoples.
Why?
there are other acts which while equally criminal i do not object to at all because i believe the state has no legitmate interest in sanctioning them.
Such as?

Point taken, not all laws are moral etc etc. My impression was that you were discussing violent protests etc, now i believe that violent protest is always wrong regardless of your motive and is as such always criminal.

Of course if you wern't talking about violence i've wasted my typing skills:D well no one(almost no one) likes to see blood run on the streets, but there is nothing like a burning barricade to bring out the news cameras
;)

well no one(almost no one) likes to see blood run on the streets, but there is nothing like a burning barricade to bring out the news cameras
;)

true true, perhaps not for the best reasons though eh?

Uhu. It killed any chances for communism in Western Europe.

don't forget about the prague spring... there was somethiing in the air that year and it was more than just the red menace... but i'm not sure i can define it either.

no i maintain that my counter points are infact mature, i am arguing that what you define as maturity is infact cowardise.
Nothing cowardly about co-operation in the slightest, without it we wouldn't have running water, electricity, or any of those other excellent amenities.
there is nothing immature about controntation
Quite right, nothing mature about it either, though. What matters is its handling by the various parties involved.
nor is it immature of try to avoid or mitigate the states attempts to impose penalties upon you.
How is not taking responsibility for your actions not the epitome of cowardice?

no i maintain that my counter points are infact mature, i am arguing that what you define as maturity is infact cowardise. there is nothing immature about controntation, nor is it immature of try to avoid or mitigate the states attempts to impose penalties upon you.

There is nothing immature about confrontation. yes, but it's immature to cause the confrontation when your purpose is to get your message across.

your counterpoints not only start confrontations, but also seek to prolong it.

Ghandi protested, he got his point across and he avoided confrontation when he could, ended it quickly when it couldn't be avoided.

don't forget about the prague spring... there was somethiing in the air that year and it was more than just the red menace... but i'm not sure i can define it either.
I'll explain it for you, then.

The people around in 1968 were the first echo of the post-WW2 baby boom. Because they were in their late teens or early twenties at the time, many were highly ideological, and being brought up in a time of rapidly increasing prosperity across Europe due to the Marshall Plan, they had time to waste.

Many wanted to upset the old order of things to prove that their generation had its own ideas on how to run things. On the other hand, due to a real lack of adversity in their early teenage years, they didn't really know what to do when the authorities disagreed and started breaking up their protests. Which is why the whole thing collapsed.

I'll explain it for you, then.

The people around in 1968 were the first echo of the post-WW2 baby boom. Because they were in their late teens or early twenties at the time, many were highly ideological, and being brought up in a time of rapidly increasing prosperity across Europe due to the Marshall Plan, they had time to waste.

Many wanted to upset the old order of things to prove that their generation had its own ideas on how to run things. On the other hand, due to a real lack of adversity in their early teenage years, they didn't really know what to do when the authorities disagreed and started breaking up their protests. Which is why the whole thing collapsed.
well i did leave myself open for an explination, i don't however believe yours is correct. it may accuratelly describe some elements of the social climate in france, but i don't think it really addresses it failure. the students and workers weren't intimidated off the streets by a show of force they seemed to more suffer from a lack of clearly defined political goals and a certain sense of shock at their own ininial success as well as a betrayal by the forces of the old left both communist and social democratic who didn't want revolution certainly not one they couldn't control.

How is not taking responsibility for your actions not the epitome of cowardice?

taking responsibility for your own actions and accepting the states sanction for your actions are two entirely different things. when you break they law even in a just cause you must accept that the state will attempt to punish you for your actions, but if you believe the state is wrong then there is nothing wrong with attempting to either avoid or mitigated the states actions against you. did the ww2 resistance fighters turn themselves in to be excuted by the nazis... of course not, they knew that execution was the penalty the nazis would impose, but they did their best to avoid it.

This 'Recreate 68' thing baffles me. Why would you want to recreate a lowpoint for the Democrats? You might as well run a 'Renominate Dukakis' campaign.

so your solution is to protest by doing hte things you're protesting against.

Well, you could put it that way, if you abstract from all nuance, context, and proportion.

There is nothing immature about confrontation. yes, but it's immature to cause the confrontation when your purpose is to get your message across.

Why?

Ghandi protested, he got his point across and he avoided confrontation when he could, ended it quickly when it couldn't be avoided.

What are you talking about? Gandhi's tactics weren't passive and non-confrontational at all. The only thing he insisted on avoiding was outright violence.

sooo...riot?

*waits for the ok so he can start looting*

How is not taking responsibility for your actions not the epitome of cowardice?

I don't understand this.

"I had no choice!" is not taking responsibility for your actions. Evading the penalty of the law is just not accepting the authority of the state to judge your actions.

If an armed robber says "Give me your money or die", and I escape him, have I failed to take responsibility for my actions? Or have I just declined to comply with his coercion?

There may be a relevant different between an armed robber and the state--I tend to think there is--but if so, it has to do with the legitimacy of its authority, not with "responsibility."

Why?
"Fight breaks out at peace rally"
"several people by protetors at anti-Death Penalty Rally"

What are you talking about? Gandhi's tactics weren't passive and non-confrontational at all. The only thing he insisted on avoiding was outright violence. and if you read what I posted...

Ghandi protested, he got his point across and he avoided confrontation when he could, ended it quickly when it couldn't be avoided.
I didn't say he was passive and non-confrontational.

"Fight breaks out at peace rally"

How many people against particular wars are against all violence ever? No hypocrisy there.

"several people by protetors at anti-Death Penalty Rally"

Again, some killing is not all killing... and I don't think this has ever happened (if "killed" is the missing verb there, anyway.)

I didn't say he was passive and non-confrontational.

Then clearly you're using "when he could" ambiguously.

With a very few exceptions--Jews during the Holocaust coming most immediately to mind--you can almost always avoid confrontation, if you keep your head down and obey. That's not what Gandhi did.

How many people against particular wars are against all violence ever? No hypocrisy there.

Again, some killing is not all killing... and I don't think this has ever happened (if "killed" is the missing verb there, anyway.) think the general public will care about the little details?


Then clearly you're using "when he could" ambiguously. you could say that.

There are more ways of making your protest get attention than being hateful bastards you know.

And sheesh who are you targeting witht this protest?

The cops? Yeah that will get your message across.

Thank you, RGR, for giving us a list of how to make your cause FAIL to gain acceptance or importance amongst the populace.

This is clearly the same kind of stupidity that calls the Seattle riots a "victory" over Globalization.

In short, you've totally lost the entire concept of political protest.

When a protest is held, the idea is to show the government and the populace your position on an issue. Usually, it is also to increase media coverage of this issue.

If you have fifty thousand people rallying in a public park or outside a government facility, the government has no choice but to accept the reality that people are taking this issue seriously. If they just try to sweep the problem under a rug, the media will crucify them, and they can expect more such protests - since the now informed populace will either sustain the protests or counter-protest. Government is then forced to make a decision - often the last thing professional pollies want to do.

If, on the other hand, you have fifty thousand people RIOTING in a local park, the politicians can send in the riot squads and water cannon, and claim the rioters were just "fringe elements". And the general population not only will not disagree, THEY WILL SUPPORT THE USE OF FORCE. Because to Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average, Rioters are criminal scum who deserve everything they get.

Meanwhile, of course, the politicians, knowing they need not listen to rioters, don't, and continue with business as usual.

Great Advice, RGR :(

The fact is, protesting should have the goal of helping to bring about change in the system that you protest against. Therefore every protester should, before engaging in any act of protest, ask himself a serious, objective question, is what I am about to do likely to help bring about change, or not? If not, then you're not really protesting, since your "protest" will have no actual benefit. You're not a protester, you're an asshole who wants to be disruptive.

Your list seems far more relevant to the latter.