I loved this post more than any of the other posts on your blog! thanks for posting, keep up the good work.
I agree with a great deal of what you're saying, however, to the question of Councilmember Cheh's recent introduction, the higher courts have held, over and over again, that there are points at which the rights of individuals-- particularly the right to privacy-- trump all.
Whenever I hear about people picketing individual's homes I think about Harold Brazil's frightened kids, who were caught completely unawares by a loud evening protest at his home that culminated in people banging on his door and demanding he come out (he wasn't home; just his wife and frightened children).
The respectful distance rules that apply to embassies should be applied here. Also, it should be noted that "peaceful assembly" has been given a great deal of latitude in recent decades. The idea needs to be more clearly defined to avoid situations such as the one described above.
I agree, I just disagree about this particular law, and freedom of assembly vs. the right to privacy of public figures. When the ability to reach and influence public figures is limited, I can't see how this limitation is justifiable, although I can see limits made on such a right--in terms of hours and volume. Public streets and sidewalks are public places, even in front of our homes. It's not like this right under the first amendment is frequently utilized, so the apparent need to address this with add'l local law seems minimal.
(I.e., it's not equivalent to the protesting that was once a regular occurrence outside Planned Parenthood clinics.)
Oh, and the thing about CM Cheh that bothers me is I used to think Constitutional Law scholars were great proponents of the Constitution and the mediation of the primacy of the rights of the governed vs. community rights and the privileges of those who govern. However, many of the laws she has proposed seem to focus on the privileges of those who govern (directly and indirectly) rather than on the rights of the people "to petition for redress of their grievances."
Constitutional Law can focus on lots of things because, you know, the field is all about interpretation. So ... there's a lot of play for debate. Everyone who studies Con Law doesn't focus on the same stuff.
Also, I don't think access to public figures is reall all that limited in the District of Columbia. There are lots of opportunities, both formal and informal, to reach our elected officials-- particularly since few if any are genuinely only "part time" at the City Council and the Mayor's schedule is published daily. I've never seen anyone who wasn't resourceful fail to avail himself of office hours, public hearings and council sessions, not to mention public events to get his or her point across. Many of the people who are protesting at someone's home are not doing so because they haven't been heard, they are doing it because they haven't been agreed with.
I don't think that the law should make it entirely illegal to protest anyone or anywhere; I agree that there needs to be freedom of assembly. I do think there need to be limits when you're talking about someone's home, though, and the non-public officials who reside therein, as well.
True but even if CM Brazil's children were afraid, I'm not sure it rises to the standard of yelling fire in a crowded theater, which is one of the classic examples of limitations on free speech.
When I was riding to the grocery store, I was thinking about this entry more, and wrt CM Cheh's focus more generally, I guess I am thinking it's more focused on individual rights primarily, with less concern about community rights and broader rights possessed by "the people."
I think walking up on someone's porch and banging on the door, demanding that they come out is tantamount to yelling fire in a theatre . . . it's harrassment. People absolutely should have the right to walk around on the public sidewalk with signs, expressing their dislike of the policies of an official. They should not be able to come on to his property and disturb the inhabitants of the house.
Yes, the proposed law does focus on the rights of the individual, which many a Con Law scholar has stood up for (see Roe v. Wade). I absolutely agree that the people have a right to be heard. But I maintain that the individual, particularly when he is within the protection and comfort of his own private property, has the right not to hear it.
I wonder if your starting point is influencing your larger point.
When you say "Many of the people who are protesting at someone's home are not doing so because they haven't been heard, they are doing it because they haven't been agreed with." I think that this is fundamentally untrue.
People protest at politicians' houses to give themselves a more equal footing with powerful interests, like developers.
It often works.
Hmmm . . . I think you're subscribing to a vicious stereotype. And that's a personal dig that I won't ignore.
Well, we disagree. As a former advocate whose job was to figure out how to get the city to listen to the interests of low and moderate income people, it was not my experience that councilmembers were so under the sway of developers that they didn't meet with, listen to, or work with non-developer constituencies. If it were true that they did not . . . well, whatever.
We disagree, and I'm very disappointed by your last argument. It's your blog. I'll stop posting.
Oh, but one more thing. It's very much like the protesting that took place at Planned Parenthood. Did you ever defend a clinic? The people going in and out were harrassed-- whether they were patients, doctors or cleaning crews.
I said, without reservation (if you look back) that the public sidewalk, with peaceable assembly should be fair game to anyone wishing to protest, but that going up on someone's private property to berate them should be something we are all protected against.
So I guess I lied. This is my last post. Not the former.
Tania,
It's NOT my blog. This blog belongs to Richard Layman.
People who go up to councilmembers' doors and bang on them and frighten the occupants are in my opinion breaking the law.
Allowing them to protest outside, away from the building, but allowed to sing and chant - I don't think that should be against the law.
Equal footing is equal footing, not necessarily the exact same amount of meeting time between the developer and the people who are questioning deals. I think you know what I mean, but if necessary I could explain.
I don't think we're far apart here when you say:
People absolutely should have the right to walk around on the public sidewalk with signs, expressing their dislike of the policies of an official. They should not be able to come on to his property and disturb the inhabitants of the house.
However, I think it's reasonable for a delegation to go up and knock on the door.
My reservation about this proposed law has been about the proposed outright ban on protest on the public space that happens to be located in a residential area rather than a commercial or civic district.
Technically, once you go on a property, knock on a door, it's answered, and you are asked to leave, and you don't leave, that's trespassing, which is breaking the law.
I don't have a problem with determining a trespass has occurred and arresting people I guess.
But I do have a problem with banning protest outright from even occuring in residential areas.
Hence, my concern about the law, and on COnstitutional grounds, taking into consideration that the Courts have ruled that reasonable restrictions on speech and assembly can be made.
I don't think this proposed legislation provides for reasonable restrictions.
I haven't been a volunteer at a clinic, but I worked across the street from one on 16th Street NW. I think that what they were dealing with is far far far different from a very occasional protest at someone's home. I just can't equate the two.
Similarly, if every day people were out, and violently protesting at someone's house like the Mayor's, then it would be different.
greenspace . . . since the conversation was heretofore exclusively Richard & me, and because I was reading it on my BlackBerry I thought it was he who was asserting that only developers get the ear of elected officials. As a developer I take offense to that remark, and also thought given Richard's and my past discussions that it was a particularly low blow.
So . . . I think what you're saying, greenspace, is that you agree with me. Because that's what I was saying.
I haven't ever seen a protest of a public official at his home that didn't involve a) yelling at people going in and out of said home; b) encroachment on their private property and c) banging on the door with shouts for him to come out and talk.
Commenting by HaloScan
