|
Time, place and manner restrictions to the first amendment are actually not held to nearly the exacting level that you're describing. They must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, must not vest broad discretion in application to an individual and must allow ample alternative forums for expression. The "bulletproof" standard you refer to is a provision that would regular WHAT is said-that is, a substantive ban on free speech.
Since the actions of the protesters above were without question illegal (and you yourself outlined the offenses). we need not even consider a question of an over-broad statute which limits their ability to protest. As we've noted previously in this thread, freedom of speech does not give carte blanche to do whatever one wants without consequences. Indeed, the tradition they're following (I assume Ghandi, King, et. al) assumes that there will be consequences for their civil disobedience with the hope that any punishment is tampered by the fact that it was a protest action and not a "self-serving" action (I think we need another thread about how protest actions can be self serving).
Those of us who take issue with this protest take offense at the wanton disregard for the safety and well-being of themselves and the crew. They had a lot of ways they could've protested the power shipping industry and they chose a particularly invasive and extreme version. Piracy keeps coming up being there is something particularly offensive about people entering a private area (as opposed to a public library, a university or a city hall) like a ship and chaining themselves to it. Ships are not in any way part of the public landscape that individuals generally have access to without express permission from the owner or captain. And for these protesters to just hop on and do their thing strikes us a dangerous step towards protests completely in the private sphere (your house, your car) and should therefore be dealt with more harshly to dissuade others from engaging in it.
|