I respectfully disagree with the view of the editors of the Chicago Tribune in their full-throated defense of Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s banning of protesters from the environs of her home while failing to protect the shopowners on the Magnificent Mile:
Mayor Lori Lightfoot has been the object of voluminous criticism for her handling of the protests and violence that erupted in the wake of George Floyd’s killing. Activists have rallied at City Hall shouting demands for change. All that is part of what any mayor signs up for.
But when protesters began showing up in her Logan Square neighborhood, trying to reach her home, the Chicago Police Department had every justification for blocking them out. There’s a difference between legitimate expression and targeted personal harassment aimed at the mayor and her family.
The homes of elected officials are fair game for protesters. It sucks to be in the family of such an official. It’s much more so than, say, jewelry shops on Michigan Avenue.
If you’re going to take the position held by the editors, the only practical way of doing it that doesn’t create a protected class is to establish “free speech zones”. I doubt that will satisfy the protesters.
I do agree with them on this point:
Developments like these raise the specter of even greater and more lethal violence around political demonstrations. Some people seem eager to get in someone’s face — or to smash someone’s face. The prospect of bloodshed hangs over every demonstration.
“We are sort of at the stage of polarization where there are more and more people who are seeking confrontation, where they are not simply satisfied with disagreeing with the other side or yelling at the other side, but they want to confront,†Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, told The Washington Post. “We are not just a polarized society — we are increasingly a confrontational society now. â€
That trend badly undermines the entire debate over how to deal with racial inequities and other social ills. It deters reasonable people from participating in such events, giving more power to a small minority of bullies and vandals. It makes it harder for people to find areas of agreement and devise remedies that both sides can accept. It encourages people to see each other as irredeemable enemies. It fosters bitterness and despair. As a political weapon, violence and intimidation are nonsensical strategies. How many voters are likely to be persuaded to change their views by being shouted down or threatened?
The right to privacy of elected officials is the last thing we should protect not the first. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
As I recall, when studied it has shown that violent protests are much less effective in leading to the kinds of changes being pushed for by protestors. The violence is both wrong and stupid.
Steve
It is worse than a crime—it is a mistake.