There has been a lot of talk lately about the meaning of “freedom of speech” as guaranteed by the first amendment of the U.S. Consititution. Don Imus, whose “nappy-headed ho’s” comment resulted in his being fired by CBS, has become something of a “poster boy” for the rights of free speech. However, as has been pointed out in previous postings, Imus’ rights to free speech were not violated, because the first amendment protects people from censorship of their speech by the government, not a private corporation or entity like CBS.
Censorship of political speech by the government is, by definition, unconstitutional- but what about the rights of citizens to listen or not, as is their choice? Is there a constitutional right to “freedom of listening?” Or, as the case may be, “freedom of seeing?” Is it constitutional to force someone to listen to your views who does not wish to, and, perhaps more relevantly, is it an effective tactic for spreading your message? People who are truly passionate about their cause often do not recognize that the things that fire their passion can be the same things that turn others off to their cause.
In the entertainment field, one of the cardinal rules is to “know your audience.” When staging a political protest, the wise protester will consider not what he or she considers to be most effective, but what will prove to be the most compelling argument or evidence for the audience.
Protests against abortion or animal cruelty often feature the most energized activists, as well as the most graphic material. Is there a place in society for graphic photos of dismembered fetuses or tortured animals, without compromising courtesy? Yes, there is, provided the protesters know the audience. Is there a way to incorporate the graphic images into a protest that preserves the viewer’s choice on whether or not to view the material? Yes, provided the protesters take time and care to set up the protest in a way to be more sensitive to young children or other people who do not wish to view those images.
It not only is a matter of etiquette, but of becoming more effective in spreading one’s views. Are you trying to change someone’s mind, and bring them around to your point of view? If you are, then think about the audience and structure the protest to be effective. Are you trying to shock people and make them uncomfortable, regardless of the effect it has on your cause? In addition to being counter-productive, that would be rude, and rude doesn’t change the world for the good.
By: Deb1000faces
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Protestors who have the big “gore-mobiles” and giant posters also need to be polite to those walking by their encampments. Yelling, screaming, and insulting people passing by is not going to change any minds. Insisting that anyone who disagrees is evil, hates women, and is going to Hell isn’t helpful either.