The right to protest—what are the limits?
The right to peacefully protest is guaranteed by the United States Constitution and enshrined in our nation’s history. In fact, some historic improvements in our society have been the result of such peaceful protests. Yet, in recent years, we’ve seen peaceful protests turn violent. Most agree that this is wrong.
What about protests that injure others in ways short of physical violence or injury? What about protests that cost others money or endanger health and public safety? What about protests that unfairly injure others’ reputations? While most might agree that these, also, go too far, what are the consequences?
These are precisely the issues that are playing out in our court system today.
Energy Transfer, a Texas-based pipeline company involved with the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued Greenpeace for its role in the 2016-17 Dakota Access Pipeline protests, alleging that it organized protests, imported and paid protesters to attempt to shut the pipeline project down and that these efforts included illegal activity and cost the company, financially, as well as disparaging its reputation.
Are those injuries real and what are they worth?
The answers…were…”yes” and “$667 million”
The answers from a Mandan, North Dakota, jury were “yes” and “$667 million”.
As American Experiment North Dakota’s Tom Steward reported in March, the award shocked the nation and was more than double the amount that Greenpeace had earlier warned would put it out of business. Now, that decision is being appealed by Greenpeace, claiming that the jury sought to “punish” someone for the protests.
The protests, however, generated legitimate concerns of which the jury, no doubt, was aware.
One concern was the shutting down of a federal highway (which is a crime), as masked protesters blocked traffic. Members of law enforcement believed that some of the protesters wore masks not only to avoid identification, but also because they were fugitives who had descended upon the state solely to take part in the protests. The masks, they feared, prevented them from identifying and arresting them if, indeed, they were wanted fugitives. In order to solve the problem, the North Dakota Legislature had to pass a law making it a crime to wear a mask while committing another crime.
Certainly, the protests, at their height, put the pipeline project and the state of North Dakota on their heels.
Another concern, ironically, was one of injury to the environment — not from the pipeline but from the protests.
Another concern, ironically, was one of injury to the environment — not from the pipeline but from the protests. Hundreds had descended upon North Dakota from points unknown, gathering in an area for a lengthy period of time, with no facilities to serve such a crowd. The predictable result? Obviously, unhealthy situations, with significant litter, waste and raw sewage.
As Winter turned to Spring, the fear was that the waste generated by the unhealthy encampment of self-proclaimed “Water Protectors” would flow with the snow melt into the very waters the protesters had purported to keep pure, polluting them far more than any oil ever had or likely would. It cost the state of North Dakota significantly in order to clean the site up to prevent such a public health crisis.
The bottom line question all of this raises is what are the limits of the right to “peacefully” protest, and what cost should be born by protesters who cause injury or damage to people, property, or even reputations? This very question is what is playing out in the courts.
It brings to mind an old adage about freedoms, such as the right to protest — “Freedom is like the right to wave your arm. You may wave it as fast and furiously as you’d like, until your arm connects with my chin; then you’ve exceeded your freedom and infringed upon mine.”