<p>@awcntdb - Sorry, I didn’t mean to leave out the costs. In all cases there is a cost to peaceful protest. To me the cost to society is offset by the societal importance of individual activism. But that is my bias. I can certainly understand how someone might feel the other way. </p>
<p>I guess I don’t agree there is a major inconvenience to the students at Dartmouth. Classes still go on, right? Maybe they have to avoid a building and walk further? It’s certainly possible this has more of an impact on students than I’m seeing. If it were causing classes to be canceled/etc I am inclined to agree with you, but as is it doesn’t really seem to be causing any real hardship.</p>
<p>The starbucks example seems just as relevant to me… it actually started with pro open carry people. Eventually the anti-gun people joined in as well, but that’s not how it began. I think the same thing happened with Chick-fil-a. First it was the pro same sex marriage people, then the other side joined in. I fully support the rights of either side to peacefully protest. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that people walk an extra 50 steps to go around protesters as a tradeoff for free speech rights. </p>
<p>I personally find the concept of “free speech zones” as a way of putting demonstrators far enough away that they are unable to be heard by the people they want to protest VERY distasteful… and that goes for both abortion clinic protestors and occupy wall streeters. That does do what you seem to want, which is to ensure the people are not disruptive, but I think it’s a poor tradeoff in a so called free society. </p>