Very good article. Since publishing, there have been similar instances, such as at Pomona.
Also, I am most of the way through "Learning to Disagree," and think it is quite good. My main question is, do you think civil disagreement will remain possible with increasing attempts to shut down conversation in the name of "tolerance" (ie: the Paivi Rasanen trial, the Brussels mayor shutting down Yarom Hazony's conference, Scotland's anti-TERF "hate speech" law, etc.)?
Fantastic piece, John. Thank you. This quote in particular resonated with me:
"Strategic incivility may be more art than science, but it is not without its own set of rules. More generally, civility norms can only tolerate so much incivility before they collapse entirely, at which point strategic incivility will no longer be very strategic. There are certainly occasions for angry protests and disruptive speech. But it may be that complying with civility norms will prove more effective over time."
A couple years ago we were temporarily held up by protesters blocking traffic on a major city intersection. I was greatly annoyed but not personally at risk. But other drivers may have been at risk; perhaps a medical emergency. It strikes me that blocking a major intersection in a large city is not peaceful in that its risks are considerably high. Is this form of protest legal?
Very good article. Since publishing, there have been similar instances, such as at Pomona.
Also, I am most of the way through "Learning to Disagree," and think it is quite good. My main question is, do you think civil disagreement will remain possible with increasing attempts to shut down conversation in the name of "tolerance" (ie: the Paivi Rasanen trial, the Brussels mayor shutting down Yarom Hazony's conference, Scotland's anti-TERF "hate speech" law, etc.)?
Yes, John.
The right of peaceful assembly pertains.
Good to see Mav represented.
Fantastic piece, John. Thank you. This quote in particular resonated with me:
"Strategic incivility may be more art than science, but it is not without its own set of rules. More generally, civility norms can only tolerate so much incivility before they collapse entirely, at which point strategic incivility will no longer be very strategic. There are certainly occasions for angry protests and disruptive speech. But it may be that complying with civility norms will prove more effective over time."
I share this question.
A couple years ago we were temporarily held up by protesters blocking traffic on a major city intersection. I was greatly annoyed but not personally at risk. But other drivers may have been at risk; perhaps a medical emergency. It strikes me that blocking a major intersection in a large city is not peaceful in that its risks are considerably high. Is this form of protest legal?