A Dialogue on Law and Social Protest
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.200801.001Keywords:
Law, Social Protests, Right to Protest, Freedom of Expression, Social Conflict, Theories of DemocracyAbstract
This paper is about the regulation of the social protest. It is about how the law should react to the human rights violation and the social tensions. This discussion invites us to think about the theories of the democracy: it been analyzed the role of the social protests in the contemporary societies. Furthermore, it been said that in Latin America there is no sensibility with the interests of the disadvantaged groups that participates in the social protests. To the contrary, it been assumed that are criminal action that should be banned. The author show us arguments and counter arguments over this topic, mostly have a base on sentences of cases occurred in the United States and Argentina. In the one hand, the favorable arguments to the order idea and, in the other hand, the favorable ones to the protests. Regarding the arguments related with the order, we have: i) the law is violated by protests; ii) when a protest happens there is conflict of rights, but who protests acts as if its right would be absolute; iii) the goals of the protesters are not genuine; iv) beside that, the ways by which the protest are realized are violent; v) the protesters should perform their right in a reasonable way, with time, place and way regulations; vi) the protests undermine the democracy. Now, to respond each argument, the arguments related with the protest are the next: i) what happens with the rights that allow the protest; ii) which is most important, the free pass o or the free speech?; iii) why the protests should be aseptic; iv) we should focus on the expressive component of the message and the public forum doctrine; v) the time, place and way regulations should not be used as excuses to undermine the political messages; in addition to the last, there are two principles that should be considered: the deliberative impartiality and the systematic violations; the last argument is about to ask ourselves vi) in what concept of democracy it been though. Finally, the author indicates that the notion of deliberative democracy does considered while judging the social protests yet. He emphasizes that it should be investigate more about where the deliberative theories take us when difficult social cases it been evaluated.
Downloads
References
Badeni, G. (17 de mayo de 1999). Formas de libertinaje. Diario Clarín.
Badeni, G. (1999). Derecho Constitucional. Libertades y garantías. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.
Badeni. G. (2001). La convivencia democrática. La Ley. T. 2001-E.
Bork, R. (1979). The Impossibility of Finding Welfare Rights in the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly, 1979(3), 695-702.
Cassagne, J.C. (2002). Reflexiones sobre los “cacerolazos”. La Ley. T. 2002-C.
Cox, A. (1951). Strikes, picketing and the Constitution. Vanderbilt Law Review, 4(3) 574-602.
Dutertre, G. (2003). Key Case-Law Extracts. European Court of Human Rights. Strasburg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Easterbroock, F. (1992). Abstraction and Authority. University of Chicago Law Review, 59(1), 349-380. doi: 10.2307/1599940
Estlund, D. (2005). Democracy and the Real Speech Situation. IVR Conference. Granada, España.
Fenwick, H. (1999). The Right to Protest, the Human Rights Act and the Margin of Appreciation. Modern Law Review, 62(4), 491-514. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.00220
Fung, A. (2005). Deliberation before the Revolution. Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World. Political Theory, 33(2), 397-419. doi: 10.1177/0090591704271990
Jones, E. (1953). Picketing and Coercion: A Jurisprudence of Epithets. Virginia Law Review, 39(8), 1023-1052. doi: 10.2307/1070228
Kalven, H. (1965). The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox vs. Louisiana. Supreme Court Review, 1965, 1-32. doi: 10.1086/scr.1965.3108783
Landwehr, H. (1993). Unfriendly Persuasion: Enjoining Picketing. Duke Law Journal, 43(1), 148-188. doi: 10.2307/1372749
La violencia piquetera. (11 de octubre de 2005). La Nación.
Mansbridge, J. (2005). Deliberation Everywhere. IVR Conference, Granada España.
Marshall, B. (1965). The Protest Movement and the Law. Virginia Law Review, 51(5), 785-803. doi: 10.2307/1071507
Moon, R. (1995). The Supreme Court of Canada on the Structure of Freedom of Expression Adjudication. University of Toronto Law Journal, 45(4), 419-470. doi: 10.2307/825732.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Neill, K. (1999). Disentangling the Law of Public Protest. Loyola Law Review, 45(3), 411-526.
Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), 315-356.
Scott, M. (1974). Picketing under the First Amendment. The Hastings Law Journal, 26.
Soberano, M. (2005). La protesta social: delito, derecho o deber. Mimeo.
Stone, G. (1974). Fora Americana: Speech in Public Places. Supreme Court Review, 1974, 233-280. doi: 10.1086/scr.1974.3108709
Young, I. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Nueva York: Oxford Press.
Young, I. (2001). Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670-690. doi: 10.1177/0090591701029005004
Zaffaroni, E. (2002). El derecho penal y la criminalización de la protesta social. Jurisprudencia Argentina, 4(7).
Adderley vs. Florida [1966] 385 U.S. 39 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Amalgamated Food Employees Local 590 vs. Logan Valley Plaza [1968] 391 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Brown vs. Louisiana [1996] 383 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Cameron vs. Johnson [1968] 390 U.S. 611 (Supreme Court of the United States).
C.H.A. [1991] (Corte Suprema de Justicia la Nación de Argentina).
Cox vs. Louisiana, [1965] 379 U.S. 536. (Supreme Court of the United States).
Cox vs. New Hampshire [1941] 312 U.S. 569 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Creer vs. Spock [1976] 424 U.S. 828 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Burson vs. Freeman [1992] 504 U.S. 191 (Supreme Court of the United States).
FFC vs. Pacifica Found [1978] 438 U.S. 726 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Farmer vs. Moses [1964] 232 F. Supp. 154 (Southern District of New York).
Feiner vs. New York [1951] 340 U.S. 315 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Food Employes Local 590 vs. Logan Plaza Valley [1968] 391 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Freedman vs. Maryland [1965] 380 U.S. 51 (Supreme Court of the United States].
Giboney vs. Empire Storage [1949] 336 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Grace vs. United States [1983] 461 U.S. 171 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization [1939a] 307 U.S. 501-508 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Hague, Mayor et al. vs. Committee for Industrial Organization et al. [1939] 307 U.S. 496 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Hudgens vs. NLRB [1976] 424 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Ikscon vs. Lee [1992] 112 S. Ct. 2701, 2718, 1992.
Julio Alberto Alais y otros c. Cámara Nacional de Casación Penal [recurso de casación], causa n°. 4859-04 (23 de abril de 2004).
Linmark Associates, Inc. vs. Township of Willingboro [1977] 431 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Lloyd Corp. vs. Tanner [1972] 407 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Marina Schifrin c. Cámara Nacional de Casación Penal [recurso de casación], causa n°. 3905/02 (3 de julio de 2002).
Milk Wagon Drivers vs. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc. [1941] 312 U.S. 287 (Supreme Court of the United States).
New Negro Alliance vs. Sanitary Grocery Co. [1938] 303 U.S. 552 (Supreme Court of the United States).
New York Times vs. Sullivan [1964] 376 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court of the United States).
NLRB vs. Fruit Packers [1964] 377 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court of the United States).
People vs. Knight [1962] 35 Misc. 2d 216, 228 N. Y. S. ad 981 (Magis Ct. 1962) (Court of New York).
Pritchard vs. Downie [1964] 326 F. 2d. 323 (8° Cir.) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit).
Rassemblement Jurassien Unité Jurassienne vs. Switzerland, 10 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1979).
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union vs. Dolphin Delivery, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573 (Supreme Court of Canada).
Schneider vs. State [1939] 308 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden vs. Bulgaria, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2001).
Steen vs. Tile Layers Protective Union [1937] 301 U.S. 468 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Students Against Apartheid Coalition vs. O’Neill [1987] 660 F. Supp. 333, 339 (Western District of Virginia).
Texas vs. Jonson [1989] 491 U.S. 397 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District [1969] 393 U.S. 503 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Thornhill vs. Alabama [1940] 310 U.S. 88 (Supreme Court of United States).
Williams vs. Wallace [1965] 240 F. Supp. 100, 104 (District Court, M.D. Alabama).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Derecho PUCP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
