I began work on a protest code of ethics a decade ago, periodically putting it aside, then adding to it, subtracting from it, and refining it. I regard the current version as a work in progress still, but the discussion here regarding the “Occupy” movement prompted me to complete this initial final draft, at least. This is the first time it has been published.
It has been a source of continuing amazement to me that there was no such Code had been proposed previously, or none that I could locate. When an activity such as organized protesting, activity that is obviously rich with ethical dangers and the potential for excess, does not have proposed or established ethical standards of conduct, the reason is usually that nobody wants to be limited by ethical considerations or to be held accountable for misconduct. I strongly suspect that is the case here. Well, too bad. Now we have proposed standards with which to measure the ethical nature of protests. Whether these 25 principles are the first or the last, or just begin the discussion and inspire something better, is of no import. They open the discussion. It’s time.
The Protest Code of Ethics
A. Guiding principles
All participants in protests and demonstrations should recognize and respect the important role lawful assemblies for the purpose of airing grievances and advocating change and reform have played in the history of the nation and civilization, must strive to uphold the best of that tradition by upholding these ethical principles. A protest without leadership and objectives is only a mob, and a protest without discipline and respect for others is a riot.
B. Public protests
Any protest involving demonstrations or other public conduct…
1. Should have clearly articulated objectives, and not be motivated by trivial offenses or narrowly selfish interests.
2. Should be planned, controlled by its organizers, establish standards of conduct, communicate and enforce those standards, and last no longer than is reasonably necessary to send its desired message.
3. Must designate leadership and spokespersons who take responsibility for the consequences of the protest and conduct of the protesters, speak for its participants to the media and others, and are authorized to deal with and negotiate with authorities.
4. Should be preceded by the obtaining of all necessary public permits and the payment of all required bonds, as well by timely advance notice to authorities.
5. Should accept and meet financial responsibility for public expenditures resulting from its activities.
6. Should avoid destruction of property.
7. Should take place only on public space, or private space where permission has been obtained in advance.
8. Should be sufficiently controlled to ensure that its activities, demonstrations and message are not co-opted and used by other groups and activists with different agendas, goals and objectives.
9. Must not unreasonably and unnecessarily disturb the peace, safety and quality of life in the immediate vicinity.
10. Should not unreasonably, recklessly or carelessly interfere with the ability of uninvolved parties to get to and from work, run errands and otherwise engage in their normal activities.
11. Must accept responsibility for and be accountable for the words and conduct of its participants.
C. Protesters.
In participating in demonstrations and other public protests, protesters…
1. Have an obligation to have a clear, definable and substantive object of protest. Protesting is not a game or a pastime. It is a serious civic act and should not be undertaken frivolously or without legitimate cause or provocation. Trivial, ephemeral, vague or undefined goals are not legitimate objects of protest.
2. Should make every effort to ensure that the purpose of the protest is just.
3. Must have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the issues involved and the relevant facts relating to them. Participation in any protest should be based on sufficient study to include opposing points of view, reliable data, and credible sources. It is not sufficient to delegate this responsibility to others. One should not protest based on the unsubstantiated assertions, opinions or passions of others. If a protester does not have sound personal comprehension of the reasons why the object of a protest is legitimate and just, he or she should not be participating in the protest.
4. Must not violate any laws in the course of the protest, unless the law itself is the object of protest. If the purpose of the protest is to violate a law to demonstrate opposition to it, the protester must not resist arrest, but submit to it according to the principles of civil disobedience.
5. Must not assault, threaten, insult, attack or defy police, except in cases where defiance is the objective in protesting an abuse of legal authority. Any such defiance must peaceful and non- confrontational.
6. Must not engage in violence of any kind.
7. Should not bring weapons to the protest, or display weapons in a threatening or provocative manner.
8. Should avoid incivility, gratuitous insults, racist or other bigoted messages, signs or chants, gross characterizations of adversaries, misleading statements, unfounded accusations, obscenity, threats of violence and rumor-mongering.
9. Should not use or exploit as participants or props children or other individuals who are incapable of understanding the purpose of the protest or giving informed consent to their participation in it.
10. Must not use illegal drugs or protest while intoxicated or otherwise substance–impaired.
11. Should practice good safety and hygiene during the course of the protest.
12. Should make every effort to restrict the effects and consequences of the protest to the parties directly responsible for the object of the protest, or decision-makers whose actions and policies are substantially involved.
13. Must not intentionally or carelessly harm, burden or inconvenience innocent third parties, groups and organizations.
14. Should actively police the protest, and make reasonable efforts to discourage unreasonable, unlawful, violent or otherwise unethical conduct by fellow protesters.
Ethics Alarms 
I like it, Jack, but you’re dreaming. Your biggest obstacle, IMO, is this one:
“3. Must have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the issues involved and the relevant facts relating to them. Participation in any protest should be based on sufficient study to include opposing points of view, reliable data, and credible sources. It is not sufficient to delegate this responsibility to others. One should not protest based on the unsubstantiated assertions, opinions or passions of others. If a protester cannot explain the reasons why the object of a protest is reasonable and just clearly and accurately, he or she should not be participating in the protest.”
I know from first hand experience (back in my dumb sincere neosocialist undergrad days) that any organization that hewed to this code would find itself with a half a dozen professional organizers carrying signs. Just as public corporations will engage in any nearly legal activity to maximize shareholder value, ethical or not, protest organizers will do anything legal, ethical or not (and sometimes illegal), to attract participants. This is why we’re hearing stories of OWS organizers paying street people to show up.
Do not underestimate the sincerity of the ignorant, or their willingness to participate, or the willingness of organizers to exploit them. Back in my protestin’ days (issue of choice: dangers of nuclear power) I considered myself far more well-read on the subject that I actually was. I could talk a good game, but I actually knew doodley squat. And you couldn’t have convinced me otherwise. Even if you could, I’d have been there – there were too many cute girls involved, as long as you could get past the stench of patchouli.
We all have regrets, and my participation in this nonsense is one of mine. There is a term for people like I was back then: useful idiots. And there are a tremendous number of them in the OWS crowd. And, for that matter, among the media that writes of them so fondly.
But heck, it’s your Code, so best of luck with it. May I suggest one more principle?
“15. Protests should show a little creativity with their chants. Everyone got tired of the ones you’re using four decades ago.”
i may post this later as a Comment of the Day. As you know, all a Code can do is lay out what is ethical; it can’t compel people to be ethical. You’re quite correct that unethical practices are common, if not universal, in protests, but that doesn’t change their nature. A Code allows us to distinguish more ethical protests from less ethical, and makes it harder for those engaging in protests to argue that anything that “works’ is acceptable. A protest doesn’t have to be unethical to be effective, but if you want to assert that virtually all protests are, you’ll get no argument from me. That’s been my observation as well. I am tired, however, of the rationalizations from protesters who pretend that blatantly unethical conduct is acceptable in this particular activity. It isn’t, and one of the purposes of a Code is to show how dishonest that contention really is.
Oh–almost forgot! My last rules was going to be that chants that began “Hey Hey, Ho Ho” or “Ho Ho, Hey Hey” were per se unethical because they were so hackneyed and unoriginal, but I decided to leave my usual facetious streak unsatisfied.
The real reason for retaining that rule is, IMHO, is that those chants cause the gorge of onlookers to become buoyant (to borrow a phrase from one of my favorite authors, Harlan Ellison). Gratuitously inducing nausea is certainly unethical, I think we can agree. In the main, though, I think you’re on to something. There are a few quibble-worthy points, perhaps. But that is the first-draft equivalent of being spot on. Something to think about, for sure.
“Ho ho, Hey Hey–Penny thinks the Code’s OK!”
Where’s the Pepto when I need it? Obviously, I’m going to have to be more circumspect when agreeing with you, in the future.
“3. If a protester cannot explain the reasons why the object of a protest is reasonable and just clearly and accurately, he or she should not be participating in the protest.”
Not all of us are good at public speaking. Some of us are bad at explaining things, and although we understand a subject, what we end up saying is often not not what we mean. That is why groups have spokespersons.
Yes, I’ll make this clearer. The objective is not public speaking ability, but actually having the requisite knowledge for an explanation.
Yeesh… to me, many of these reek of “as determined by an outside observer (/my personal whims).”
Look, I get that you have a sort of “vendetta” against this current bit of protests (and I know it sounds uncouth to say this, but really – it’s not like it’s terribly hard to miss or even a necessarily bad thing. It just is. I’m not making a personal attack, here, but it wouldn’t be honest to think that you’re looking at these people with an objective lens.). I do have to ask though – were you intentionally developing these rules with the express purpose of ensuring that the current protests would fail each, in your opinion? Probably not, entirely, of course, but I can’t help but imagine that many of these were borne entirely from some raised hackle after hearing some sensational news headline.
Honestly, I can’t think of a single protest in the history of… well, time, that would have properly adhered to these standards (at least in someone’s mind). Should we dismiss every other protest along with the “Occupy” crap?
Your supposition is dead wrong, Steven, and unfair to boot The vast majority of this was composed long before “Occupy” was a twinkle in anybody’s eye: I accessed four documents and a compiled draft that was begun in 2002.. Quite apart from that: what’s so unreasonable here? Honesty? Competence? Abiding by the law? Self-policing? Restraint and a sense of proportion? OOOOH, how unfair to suggest that protesters follow the same ethical principles as any other citizens engaged in advocacy!
What whims? None of these are fanciful or far fetched, or different from the principles in most professional Codes.. And the fact that, as you say, few protests may have met all the standards, protests tending to be messy things, does not mean that defining an ethical ideal for conduct isn’t useful or won’t help us evaluate which protesters give a damn about the principles they are supposedly standing for. For example, applyin g these standards to the Occupiers shows how absurd it is to describe this as a moral crusade, the demonstrators being largely unable to distinguish ethical conduct from a cheese-grater.
The fact that most protests are unethical, pointless, futile, and organized and executed by arrogant boors with delusions of grandeur, who don’t care who they harm on the way to grabbing headlines doesn’t make that an acceptable norm, does it? These are reasonable standards by which to judge just how ethical a protest is. Which part are you defending? The threats? The lies? Ever-shifting and vague objectives? Targeting bystanders? As it happens, the Occupy folks step on more principles of fair and reasonable protests than most—I wouldn’t have expected such a blatant example to surface when I started the project. You are right—this mess is batting damn near 1.000, but I didn’t have to cook the figures to get them there.
Instead of impugning my integrity in formulating this—which, by the way, I take exception to, as you have no basis for that opinion and it is simply a lazy way to avoid the issues raised—tell me which provisions you think are too burdensome. Knowing what you’re talking about? Horrors. Having a purpose? How mean! Not trashing a public space and making the public pick up the bill? Talk about asking for the moon! Not protecting demonstrators who get stoned, rape and rob each other and crap on cars? Gee, I guess I’m really a stickler. I’d be fascinated to read you idea of which of these are out of line.
>what’s so unreasonable here? Honesty? Competence? Abiding by the law? Self-policing? Restraint and a sense of proportion? OOOOH, how unfair to suggest that protesters follow the same ethical principles as any other citizens engaged in advocacy!
I don’t believe I used the words “Unreasonable” or “Unfair”
>What whims?
Note:
>Should have clearly articulated objectives, and not be motivated by trivial offenses or narrowly selfish interests. [As determined by?]
> Should make every effort to ensure that the purpose of the protest is just. [As determined by?]
>Should avoid incivility, gratuitous insults, racist or other bigoted messages, signs or chants, gross characterizations of adversaries, misleading statements, unfounded accusations, obscenity, threats of violence and rumor-mongering. [As determined by?]
>Should be sufficiently controlled to ensure that its activities and message from being co-opted and used by other groups and activists with different agendas, goals and objectives. [As determined and policed by?]
>Must not unreasonably and unnecessarily disturb the peace [As determined and policed by?]
This goes on. My original statement appears entirely accurate. MOST of these would have the protesters and those that support them finding themselves ethical, while those outside/opposed may find them not ethical. History/might should not make right, so something is vague or unhelpful about the code. Care to respond to that, and not the emotional strawman?
>For example, applyin g these standards to the Occupiers shows how absurd it is to describe this as a moral crusade, the demonstrators being largely unable to distinguish ethical conduct from a cheese-grater.
I’ll not be taking back my supposition.
>Which part are you defending? The threats? The lies? Ever-shifting and vague objectives? Targeting bystanders?
Huh? What “defense” did I offer?
>As it happens, the Occupy folks step on more principles of fair and reasonable protests than most
(As determined by you, see above)
>Instead of impugning my integrity in formulating this—which, by the way, I take exception to, as you have no basis for that opinion and it is simply a lazy way to avoid the issues raised
It was a question, Jack. I even said “Probably not entirely, of course…” Can you see where I might get that from considering your rants and screeds on them from before? Can you see how I might be confirmed in that opinion from an emotional and clearly angry reply to a question regarding that opinion? I’ll try to withhold judgment – I really will if you think I’m being unfair – but it is *very* difficult to listen to much of what you have to say on this Occupy crap. It reads like a FOX News headline – poorly informed and emotional.
>tell me which provisions you think are too burdensome
I don’t believe I called any of them burdensome. I did, however, note that they were subject to the whims and fancies of those doing the observing. An “Occupier” would probably find his cause ethically superior to many ( f not most) other causes, and would have *just* as much cause to believe that as you do in believing the opposite.
Additionally – you never answered the final, somewhat exasperated question: since *every protest I can think of in the history of time* has fallen far short of this code – should we consider them on equal footing with the Occupy protests?
If you respond with (what reads as) petty and emotional garbage, I won’t feel compelled to respond (Yes, this is “As determined by me”. Ironic, no?). If you want to discuss how an ethical code like this can be properly written so that as little is left to interpretation as possible, we can continue.
Submitted on 2011/11/28 at 8:37 am | In reply to Jack Marshall.
>what’s so unreasonable here? Honesty? Competence? Abiding by the law? Self-policing? Restraint and a sense of proportion? OOOOH, how unfair to suggest that protesters follow the same ethical principles as any other citizens engaged in advocacy!
“I don’t believe I used the words “Unreasonable” or “Unfair””
If that wasn’t your meaning, then your comment makes no sense whatsoever, and I have no idea what you were trying to say, or why you were so obnoxious in saying it.
>What whims?
Note:
“>Should have clearly articulated objectives, and not be motivated by trivial offenses or narrowly selfish interests. [As determined by?]”
As determined by objective, reasonable observer analysis, of course. As always. Shutting down a university with a strike because the cafeteria serves meat loaf too often is too trivial, for example. This really is hard?
“> Should make every effort to ensure that the purpose of the protest is just. [As determined by?]”
See above. Ditto.
“>Should avoid incivility, gratuitous insults, racist or other bigoted messages, signs or chants, gross characterizations of adversaries, misleading statements, unfounded accusations, obscenity, threats of violence and rumor-mongering. [As determined by?]”
Really? I have to define these for you? Civility? Racist rhetoric? Insults? Ridiculous.
“>Should be sufficiently controlled to ensure that its activities and message from being co-opted and used by other groups and activists with different agendas, goals and objectives. [As determined and policed by?]”
See above, and policed by the organizers, of course.
“>Must not unreasonably and unnecessarily disturb the peace [As determined and policed by?]”
Obtuseness isn’t an argument, you know.
This goes on. My original statement appears entirely accurate. MOST of these would have the protesters and those that support them finding themselves ethical, while those outside/opposed may find them not ethical. History/might should not make right, so something is vague or unhelpful about the code. Care to respond to that, and not the emotional strawman?
Baloney. Code of Ethics always, by necessity, employ general descriptions with widely understood definitions. A protester who regards “Kill Scott Walker” as not being uncivil or a threat is know as “wrong” and also “dishonest.” You are imagining differences in definitions that do not exist, and I have no idea why.
>For example, applying these standards to the Occupiers shows how absurd it is to describe this as a moral crusade, the demonstrators being largely unable to distinguish ethical conduct from a cheese-grater.
I’ll not be taking back my supposition.
Neither will I. This is a “moral crusade” that refuses to acknowledge fairness, competence, basic fairness, civility and law.
>Which part are you defending? The threats? The lies? Ever-shifting and vague objectives? Targeting bystanders?
Huh? What “defense” did I offer?
Again, if your comment wasn’t a defense, then it was incomprehensible, or pure sophistry. The code lays out basic ethical obligations, and you ridicule the standards. If basic ethical requirements like honestly and civility don’t apply to protests, then that’s a defense of incivility and dishonesty.
>As it happens, the Occupy folks step on more principles of fair and reasonable protests than most
(As determined by you, see above)
No, as determined by YOU. You act as if I invented the standard ethical principles present in all coides, and suggested that I crafted these new inventions to make the OWS crowd appear in violation of them.
>Instead of impugning my integrity in formulating this—which, by the way, I take exception to, as you have no basis for that opinion and it is simply a lazy way to avoid the issues raised
It was a question, Jack. I even said “Probably not entirely, of course…” Can you see where I might get that from considering your rants and screeds on them from before? Can you see how I might be confirmed in that opinion from an emotional and clearly angry reply to a question regarding that opinion? I’ll try to withhold judgment – I really will if you think I’m being unfair – but it is *very* difficult to listen to much of what you have to say on this Occupy crap. It reads like a FOX News headline – poorly informed and emotional.
Then don’t read it, Steven, if you want to regard it that way. I don’t write Ethics Alarms to press any political agenda, and I tire of that accusation as the initial volley when someone wants to level criticism. I don’t mind the criticism as all; I do resent the implication that I am slanting analysis to reach a predetermined result. I-don’t-do-that. I believe it is unethical, and in the context of this blog, counter productive. Your statement was not a “question,” it was an insinuation, and to someone whose profession is promoting unbiased problem solving, it was also an insult.
I have have read literally thousands of attempts to justify OWS searching for one that was honest and substantive, never mind persuasive. (Jeff’s set of aspirational goals was excellent, but it was personal, and does not really justify the movement itself) and have yet to read one that isn’t based in a rationalization or outright dishonesty….such as the New York Times’s claim that it focused attention on growing income disparity. I have huge file on income disparity; it has been analyzed and criticized extensively for almost a decade, by people who actually care about facts, unlike OWS. They haven’t focused attention on anything, but general discontent. Maybe that meets the baseline ethical requirement for a demonstration—I didn’t say it doesn’t. It certainly doesn’t justify months on end of an occupation that results in inconvenience and noise pollution, at very least.
“>tell me which provisions you think are too burdensome
I don’t believe I called any of them burdensome. I did, however, note that they were subject to the whims and fancies of those doing the observing. An “Occupier” would probably find his cause ethically superior to many ( f not most) other causes, and would have *just* as much cause to believe that as you do in believing the opposite.”
So, I imagine, would the KKK. Apparently you embrace complete ethical relativity, with all opinions and standards carrying equal weigh. That makes ethics impossible, of course, which is the objective. There are standards of civility, fairness, proportion, etc that most rational people can agree on if they aren’t addled by bias.
“Additionally – you never answered the final, somewhat exasperated question: since *every protest I can think of in the history of time* has fallen far short of this code – should we consider them on equal footing with the Occupy protests?”
Most have fallen short of the Code, but that’s what Codes should be—best practices. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good. Your question is bizarre…this isn’t a pass-fail course, with everyone failing. The standards permit ethical comparison. MLK’s March on Washington met most of the Code’s standards. So did the Million Man March. The rally against firing Joe Paterno? Uh-uh. What’s so difficult?
“If you respond with (what reads as) petty and emotional garbage, I won’t feel compelled to respond (Yes, this is “As determined by me”. Ironic, no?). If you want to discuss how an ethical code like this can be properly written so that as little is left to interpretation as possible, we can continue.”
Arrogant and presumptuous, Steven. I’d welcome constructive comments; I’ve been writing successful and useful (and tough) ethics codes professionally for a long time, and don’t need you to instruct me on how they are “properly written.” Respond or don’t respond. Your innuendo was and is out of line.
Looking back on this three years later, and the fate of the Occupy efforts across the country—lots of expense, a few rapes, illegal drug use, destruction of public property and taxpayer expense and little or nothing that qualifies as productive. lasting, useful or even admirable, I feel vindicated. Occupy was an especially silly, useless and narcissist movement, and the fact that the Code defined is as such speaks well for the Code. Sorry, Steven.
Pingback: A Protest Code of Ethics | Ethics Alarms « Ethics Find
I think this code demands too much organization. Many protest movements form spontaneously, with multiple leaders, and often with a mix of ideologies and goals. And since the protest leaders do not have any legal authority, it doesn’t make sense to hold them accountable for what other participants say or do on their own. It’s not like the leaders can kick anyone out.
The diffuse organization and lack of control also makes it hard to say who should “accept and meet financial responsibility for public expenditures resulting from its activities.”
While I agree that anyone contemplating protest should “make every effort to ensure that the purpose of the protest is just,” I don’t think that spelling it out as a rule really helps. Who protests in favor of something they believe is wrong?
Also, as long as you have clean hands, there’s nothing unethical about violence in self defense.
Your rules make sense for a planned rally, but they don’t help more spontaneous and dynamic events like OWS or the early Tea Parties. Finally, I think you could improve this list by breaking it out explicitly according to people’s roles as protesters and protest leadership.
1. I like that suggestion. I had many more complicated organization schemes, and went with the simplest.
2. I think if one creates a group, movement or anything that wields potential power, it should be strict liability. If you can’t control it, don’t start it.
OWS was not all that spontaneous. The website was registered in July:
http://www.whois.net/whois/occupywallst.org
about two months before the protests started. Plenty of time to organize things.
How about adding.
Not be enrolled in school but living on their own and supporting themselves.
If I see one more white college student bitch about the world not being fair Im going to explode.
S. Ardler: “It reads like a FOX News headline”
Ooooh. The ultimate insult. Oh, wait. I think the ultimate insult remains a man telling another man he does anything “like a girl,” so Steve’s must be the penultimate insult. (By the way, Steve, you argue like a girl.)
Jack: “Apparently you embrace complete ethical relativity, with all opinions and standards carrying equal weigh[t].”
BINGO!!!
“2. I think if one creates a group, movement or anything that wields potential power, it should be strict liability. If you can’t control it, don’t start it.”
If I understand “strict liability” correctly, I agree with that principle within the bounds of *unincorporated* protest groups and movements in the public assemblies they incite, form or join.
Isn’t that principle “not compatible,” though, with liability constructs applied to corporations? If a public assembly in the interests of a corporation is led and attended by a person who represents the corporation, and the crowd gets out of control, does/should the leader alone still bear all liability? Isn’t there at least potentially reason to consider corporation liability, apart from individual, personal liability?