When Steve Crawshaw wrote his book about creative protests in totalitarian regimes, “,” he never thought it would be all that relevant to the United States.
Crawshaw has been researching protests since 1989 when he covered the East European Revolutions for the British newspaper, The Independent. He witnessed decades of single-party communist rule crumble amidst protests led not by politicians or figures of stature, but by everyday citizens wanting to make a difference.
Since then, the world has seen increasingly creative and even absurd protests, ranging from mock pillow fights and illegal applause in Belarus to calling Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to tell him about menstruation. The book, which includes full-page color photographs of protests around the world, is a tribute to the human spirit. In telling the stories of these protests, Crawshaw challenges traditional narratives about how to create change.
“Too often we only think about the big political stuff, which of course is incredibly important, but we forget that it’s often little, tiny actions by individuals which make huge changes when put together,” Crawshaw said in an interview with the ACLU.
Although the book went to press just before Donald Trump became president, Crawshaw, who now works for Amnesty International, sees echoes of the strategies he covered in Street Spirit in today’s resistance. From the Women’s march with its trademark pussy hats to rogue Twitter accounts — Americans have employed humor in their resistance.
As the ACLU embarks on a new chapter in its history — launching our grassroots organizing effort People Power — and hiring Legal Director David Cole, who believes that cultural change is crucial to the development of constitutional law, we caught up with Crawshaw to discuss the inspiration behind “Street Spirit.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
How did you get the idea to do this book?
I’ve always been interested in how change happens. A few years ago, I co-authored a book with John Jackson called “Small Acts of Resistance: How Courage, Tenacity, and Ingenuity Can Change the World,” which already started to play with some of the ideas I further explored in “Street Spirit.”
What I’ve always loved is the mischief for creating change. When I was writing “Street Spirit” last year, I was at my writer’s desk thinking: “Is anything even going to be interested in protest when this book comes out in 2017? Well, I’m interested, so I’ll write it anyway.” Sadly, this book is much more relevant than I would have wished.
I would trade the great timing for a better situation, but we are where we are. It’s kind of fascinating to see that creativity and mischief are already so much a part of the narrative. There’s been such creativity in the protests in the United States and elsewhere. Brilliant slogans and brilliant activities and all of those kinds of things. That’s great to see.
When did you finish writing it?
The book went to press in mid-October 2016. The election was coming up in the U.S., but everyone thought they knew which way it would go, so we didn’t have to worry about that.
If you stand up for what you believe, you can’t be sure that you’ll change anything, maybe absolutely zero will change, but it will be satisfying to be living in truth itself.
I had a story in the book which I had first written in spring of 2016 about this guy who I confess I had never heard of named Mike Pence, who was the governor of Indiana. There was a lovely story there about a Facebook page — Periods for Pence — mocking him for the terrible anti-abortion law he was bringing in. The ACLU and others were involved in confronting this legislation. I loved this particular story about the Facebook page. So I wrote about Mike Pence, this guy who’s governor of Indiana, then I had to put a little parenthesis into the photo caption saying “who became the running mate of Donald Trump in the summer of 2016.”
So it’s fair to say that you never thought Street Spirit would feel so relevant in the United States?
When I was covering the East European Revolutions of 1989 for The Independent, I read a wonderful essay about the power of the powerless by Václav Havel, the Czech dissident-turned-president. He wrote it in 1978, in the middle of the Cold War, certain nothing was ever going to change. He wrote about living in truth. If you stand up for what you believe, you can’t be sure that you’ll change anything, maybe absolutely zero will change, but it will be satisfying to be living in truth itself.
He later said he was treated as a Czech Don Quixote at the time, tilting at windmills. In fact, only 11 years later, indeed the whole house of cards of one party rule in Czechoslovakia collapsed, and that power of the powerless was made real.
The people who say, “Oh, it’s not really worth it, there’s no point doing it,” are often the ones who are quite happy to benefit from change when it comes later, but the people who have made the change are the ones who are determined to live in truth. That’s obviously true in repressive regimes, but now we are daily reminded how relevant it can be with a problematic elected leader too.
What would you say to those who think protesting in the streets in futile?
Over and over again, you will hear people saying, “It’s never going to change,” and then it changes, and they say, “Oh, it was bound to change.” There’s a line that I quote in the introduction of the book by this amazing young Egyptian woman, Asmaa Mahfouz, who in 2011 at the beginning of the revolution that unseated Mubarak, released a video that went viral. It basically said, if you stay at home and don’t go out on the street because you say no one else is going to be there, you are part of the problem. And that of course was highly relevant in Egypt. Millions went out then, partly because her video went viral and she was so powerful in saying, “You are part of the problem if you stay home.” I think that’s a great lesson. It was true in the authoritarian context of Egypt, but it’s true wherever we see bad things happening.
The courage that’s been shown by these people in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes sets a model — few of us are taking the same kinds of risks when we’re standing up, and so I think the very least we need to do is realize we can have an impact by speaking out and speaking the truth.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.