Noticing that there is outrage about the protests in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices, some commentators have pointed out that protests in front of the homes of other public officials haven’t attracted these objections about intimidation. For instance, a protest in front of Chuck Schumer’s home recently.
The Supreme Court has vindicated the rights of citizens to protest in the streets but has often held up ordinances against protesting in residential areas. Further, protesting in front of a judge’s home to influence the outcome of a pending case can be charged as a criminal act of obstruction.
The implication of one commentator about the difference in reaction to protests at Schumer’s residence and those at Supreme Court justices’ homes has been that somehow “suburban spaces” are felt, wrongly, to have a certain privilege or immunity from politics that we don’t accept in urban spaces.
I’m not sure that’s right; more likely the reaction is driven by a perception of vulnerability.
Chuck Schumer lives in a large apartment building on Prospect Park West. The building has a 24/7 doorman and may even have a security guard of its own. The protesters likely did not know which floor or apartment Schumer owns. Being in an urban environment means that a much larger police force can quickly converge on that space if things get out of hand.
The Supreme Court justices who are being protested this week live in single-family homes in environments that feel like suburbs. It’s not hard to understand why observers (or occupants) feel they are more vulnerable to a large gathering just outside their door. Just as, say, a home in a rural area would, if surrounded by protesters, feel yet more vulnerable than a suburban one. For that matter it would be very intimidating to launch a loud protest in front of an apartment door in an apartment hallway.
As a matter of civics, I would recommend not protesting at anyone’s residence. The families of our elected officials do not deserve the discomfort and terror this can bring. And, insofar as public officials are the proper object of protest, they should be protested at their public offices, or at their public appearances as the holders of those offices, not at the place where they put these roles down to be fathers, mothers, spouses, friends, and neighbors. Recognizing that people do play these pro-social roles in their lives — often playing them well — even when we gravely disagree with their judgments, is what makes living in a republic tolerable and easier.
Relatedly, I think Samuel Alito’s dissent in Snyder v. Phelps vindicates the principle that some forms of cruel and injurious speech — such as the loathsome Westboro Baptist Church gathering outside a funeral to shout homophobic obscenities at mourners — should not be protected by the First Amendment. This is a dissent that will be vindicated in the long run. It may even be vindicated now.