Peaceful

[Jonathan Buhacoff]

Proposal:

Define the term “peaceful action” using the following criteria:

* does not violate any rights, laws, or regulations
* does not threaten or intimidate others
* does not disrupt an official government proceeding

Define the term “peaceful communication” using the following criteria:

* does not advocate for or incite the violation of rights, laws, or regulations
* does not threaten or intimidate others, or advocate for threatening or intimidating others
* does not advocate for or incite the disruption an official government proceeding

Intent:

The concept of peacefulness is mentioned in some proposals, so it’s useful to have a common working definition of peaceful actions and peaceful communications.

Discussion:

Violating rights is the first criterion because when rights are violated, especially when it’s without due process and authority of government, it is inherently not peaceful. And because the victim is clear when rights are violated, people with knowledge of what happened or awareness of what is about to happen are encouraged to act to protect the victim or seek justice. Violating rights is a serious offense and for that reason everyone has standing.

Violating laws is the second criterion because if a law is violated, the government must enforce the law and this may involve force or the threat of force.

Violating regulations is the third criterion because if a regulation is violated, the government must enforce the regulation and this may involve an investigation, audit, invoice, or court order.

Not threatening or intimidating others is the fourth criterion because it is possible to behave and communicate in a way which isn’t obviously unlawful while it intentionally creates fear or anger in others.

However, we should NOT define “peaceful” as free from commotion, disturbance, quarrel, strife, or disorder because in some cases peaceful actions and peaceful communication from two or more parties can be in conflict.

[Author]

Posts