top of page

​Should the right to protest have any limits

By Chidalu Memeh

​

Protesting serves as a powerful mechanism for advocating societal reform. Iconic examples such as the global Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the self-immolation of Vietnamese monks highlight the profound impact protests can have in raising awareness and demanding change. Fundamentally, to protest is to display one’s rights: freedom of expression and speech. To live in a world where these rights are freely exercised with no curtailment or regulation would plausibly be a utopia — a place of ideal perfection. However, with close examination, a ‘utopia’, stemming from Ancient Greek origin, explicitly means ‘no place’, or a ‘non-existent society’. Perhaps a societal structure where everyone exercises these rights cannot exist. Perhaps the repercussions that come with these rights are too detrimental. Violence, conflict, destruction of property — how can such harmful consequences result from someone targeting change? This essay explores whether imposing limitations on the right to protest is necessary to balance exercising fundamental rights and maintaining societal order.

​

Self-immolation, the act of setting oneself on fire as a form of protest, is one of the most extreme demonstrations of dissent. In 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, performed self-immolation to protest the oppressive policies of South Vietnam's Catholic-favoring regime under Ngo Dinh Diem. At the time, Buddhists—constituting 80% of the population—faced systemic discrimination, including bans on the Buddhist flag and preferential treatment for Catholics. Quang Duc’s horrifying act drew global attention, compelling the Diem regime to sign reforms and sparking discussions about the Vietnam War. Self-immolation is uniquely symbolic, often viewed as self-sacrifice rather than aggression since it inflicts no harm on others or infrastructure. However, this act raises moral and psychological questions. Should such an extreme form of protest be regulated? On the one hand, limiting self-immolation may be seen as an infringement on personal freedom and expression. On the other hand, its traumatic impact on witnesses and its potential to inspire others to follow suit cannot be ignored. Since 1963, self-immolation has become more widespread globally, often replicating Quang Duc’s protest. Imposing restrictions on self-immolation may be practically impossible given its deeply personal and symbolic nature. However, society must address the psychological toll of witnessing such acts and question whether encouraging others to replicate them is ethically defensible. In this case, achieving the balance between human rights and public safety is particularly challenging.

​

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests mirror the long-running fight against structural oppression and racial injustice. By means of protests, lobbying, and community mobilisation, the Black Lives Matter movement exposes the systemic racism and institutionalised brutality that Black communities face. These demonstrations have generated important talks and meaningful discourse on racial relations, police brutality, and structural injustice by elevating the voices of marginalised people and demanding responsibility from authorities. In addition, the BLM movement has inspired unseen unity among a wide range of demographic groups, encouraging a shared dedication to overturning racist structures and promoting fair chances for everyone. While the Black Lives Matter movement has undeniably brought attention to systemic racism and police brutality, it is crucial to acknowledge that instances of looting and property damage have marred some protests. These incidents have led to legitimate concerns about safety, property rights, and the integrity of the movement's message. Looting not only undermines the peaceful objectives of the protests but also detracts from the broader goals of racial justice and social change. It is essential to recognise that the vast majority of BLM protesters are peaceful and nonviolent, and condemn the actions of those who engage in looting and vandalism. I argue that it is simpler to implement limitations in the case of looting, for example, through increased policing around shops. 

​

Whether limits should be placed on the right to protest is inherently complex. Freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly are cornerstones of democracy. Yet, some restrictions may be necessary to protect public safety, uphold individual rights, and prevent the disruption of essential services. However, such limitations must be clearly defined, proportionate, and aligned with constitutional principles to avoid suppressing dissent or enabling the misuse of power. Fostering a society that respects both the right to protest and the need for public order requires careful negotiation and constant vigilance. It is only by striking this delicate balance that we can ensure both the free expression of ideas and the stability necessary for progress.

bottom of page