I HATE THIS KIND OF CRAP -- UPDATED

Yeah, I hate this kind of crap.  The Young Republicans at Columbia University invites speakers from an organization called the Minuteman Project, which advocates stronger enforcement of immigration laws.  As soon as Minuteman Project founder begins to speak, student activists rush the stage and shout him down.  Ugh.  *Pounding head on desk.*

Now, don't get me wrong.  It's not like I'm a big Minuteman Project fan.  In fact, I don't know much about them other than what I have gleaned from briefly scanning their site.  They claim to be acting lawfully to push for stronger immigration enforcement measures.  The fact that they are in bed with the Eagle Forum (bleah) and have vaguely racist sounding statements as part of their platform leads me to believe that they may be a truly noxious bunch.  ("Future generations will inherit a tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures with no common bond to hold them together, and a certain guarantee of the death of this nation as a harmonious melting pot.") 

But this college kid b.s. of disrupting things while going on a self-righteous trip bothers me to no end.  (Not so much now, since I am not part of that milieu any more, but it bothered me in college.)  Civil disobedience has a long and distinguished history from the Underground Railroad to suffragists chaining themselves to ballot boxes to Rosa Parks to sit-ins to protest segregation to the nonviolent actions of Mahatma Gandhi.  Columbia students rushing the stage to prevent some crazy person from speaking is a distorted shadow of past efforts.  These kids are aping their betters from days gone by and, by doing so, making the Minutemen look like the reasonable ones. 

I think it's a tricky question, tackled by far better minds than I, as to when civil disobedience is appropriate.  On the one hand, I think it's important that we (the United States) be "a nation of laws, not men."  On the other hand, there are times when individuals definitely should act to protest violations of human rights or second-class treatment of certain citizens.  I think we would all applaud people who sheltered Jews from the Nazis or who assisted runaway slaves in nineteenth century America.  If abortion were ever banned in this country, I imagine at least some readers of this  blog would assist women in obtaining illegal abortions.

I don't know where the line is drawn, but I think that breaking the law, at least in a country like the United States whose principles of governance I believe in, is something that should be done sparingly and with care.  And I do have two basic principles that I believe in: (1) Civil disobedience should never be used to prevent someone from speaking, no matter how insane or evil one believes that person's ideas to be; and (2) Civil disobedience should actually be related to the evil one is protesting, ideally to prevent the evil one is protesting, or to avoid contributing to it.    

UPDATE:  Just after I published this post, I saw this link in the Punkass Blog thread, regarding the protesters' side of the story.  Specifically, they claim that it was the Minutemen supporters who disrupted the speech and precipitated violence in response to the peaceful protest inside the auditorium.  I am still not buying though.  The protesters walked on the stage with a large sign.  They had to know that they would be removed and that this would disrupt the speech itself. 

Comments

[evil_fizz]

I think that breaking the law, at least in a country like the United States whose principles of governance I believe in, is something that should be done sparingly and with care.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't realize being obnoxious at a speech constituted a crime. Can you elaborate a little more?

[Chalicechick]

Yeah, what Happy said.

CC

[Chipmunk]

Evil Fizz, there's a lot of prosecutorial discretion involved. Without knowing the facts other than those related by Happy, a NY prosecutor (this was at Columbia University) might consider the following:

N.Y. Penal L. § 240.20 Disorderly conduct

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Disorderly conduct is a violation.

True, it is a violation and not a crime (a violation is an offense, other than a "traffic infraction," for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days cannot be imposed N.Y. Penal L. § 10.00(2)). It is possible that other charges could be leveled based on the facts.

[The Happy Feminist]

Yes, I was thinking of disorderly conduct. I would also broaden the idea behind civil disobedience to include violating rules and procedures of an institution one has volunteered to part of -- like staging a walk-out from class.

[evil_fizz]

I'll have to reflect on this a little more, but I do wonder if the NY statute has some First Amendment problems.

Oh, by the way, the guy from the Minuteman Project was on the Colbert Report last night. I'll see if I can find it.

[will]

I only saw the video once quickly. But it looked like they came out to disrupt the speech, and then the Minutemen got physical.

[The Happy Feminist]

The section about in the disorderly conduct statute about abusive or obscene language may be a bit overbroad, but I am behind this part:

Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons

[The Happy Feminist]

It seems to me that the law is protecting lawful assemblies and meetings, i.e. protecting our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights.

[Patsy]

FYI, the Minutemen are definitely a hate group, similiar to the KKK. Not that this necessarily changes you analysis. But it's worth asking if you'd support a similiar reaction to the KKK being asked to speak at a university.

[The Happy Feminist]

Trust me, I would be damn pissed if some student group at my college invited the KKK or a woman-hating group or any hate group. I am sure the students were right to be damn pissed that these Minutemen characters were there at Columbia. (Again, don't know much about these Minutemen but it looks like I'd probably really loathe them, and I am assuming for the sake of argument, that they are in fact really bad news.)

But no it wouldn't change my analysis. You protest outside, you write scathing editorials, and you publicize the fact that the College Republicans are basically inviting a hate group onto campus. But as a matter of both tactics and ethics, disrupting the actual speech isn't right.