.

Poll: Should People Protest Outside Homes?

Over 100 protesters gathered outside the San Marino home of Wells Fargo CFO Tim Sloan Thursday night to protest denial of a loan modification for a woman with cerebral palsy. Do you think such protests are positive or negative?

The group of protesters that gathered outside Wells Fargo CFO Tim Sloan's home Thursday night were within their rights to protest once they moved within a buffer of 75 feet from the property line and all but one did so, resulting in her arrest.

The group assembled to protest Wells Fargo’s refusal of a loan modification for a woman with cerebral palsy, Peggy Mears, the Refund California organizer for Alliance California for Community Empowerment (ACCE), told Patch.

“The bank refuses to work with her,” said Mears. “They’ve evicted her from her home twice, she refuses to leave, so she wanted to come to Tim Sloan’s house today to give Tim Sloan a check since the bank won’t to take the check and ask him to let her stay in her home. It’s only fair.”

What do you think of people protesting outside a bank executive's home? Is it a good way to exercise free speech or does it do more harm than good? Vote in our poll below and share your thoughts in the comments.

Bette Solomon April 27, 2012 at 04:44 PM
It is totally inappropriate for protesters to gather in front of an individual's home. This is way beyond 'free speech' and borders on harassment.
Maria April 27, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Each individual that is part of the system has the opportunity to make choices and changes that stop the attacks on our families, communities and homes. Tim Sloane each day makes choices that bring the economic crisis to our homes; we have every right to make him feel the crisis at his home that he makes us feel in ours.
Michael April 27, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Freedom of speech is one of the founding principles of this country. While I think it's inappropriate to protest outside one's private residence (rather than an office or public square), these people have the right to so long as they do not step onto private property.
Gail April 27, 2012 at 08:10 PM
I agree with the other comments. People have a right to protest, but I think they shouldn't do it in front of private homes. They should do it at businesses, because this was a business decision, not a personal decision.
yoshkapundrick April 27, 2012 at 11:52 PM
That is why they call it public property. The City of San Marino made a big mistake with their ordinance with respect to public (not private) property and I think they will pay dearly for it with a lawsuit. I'll remind you that free speech no matter how objectionable (location or content) is still free speech. The big picture for the citizens of San Marino is not this individual event but how the city of highly educated and wealthy people forget Jefferson “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Kris Williams April 28, 2012 at 05:17 PM
The banks make decisions, the people who work at the banks make a decision to work there. This lady wasn't even asking for a modification, just people a couple payments on the back of a 30 year loan, seems better than the tax payer picking up the loss?? Yes, I think it is fine for the people to protest at your home, being socially ostracized is why most people behave decently, unfortunately the bankers haven't acted decently, morally and even intelligently. I feel bad for the neighbor 75' feet away, it makes it look like their protesting at the neighbors house. I love San Marino and I know a lot of wealthy people who are top-notch human beings, it must be embarrassing with this sad and feeble attempt to stifle Free Speech by a little city...
CanyonMan April 28, 2012 at 06:05 PM
The offensive law in San Marino that shoves protesters in front of their neighbor’s houses does not surprise me. They are a bunch of wealthy NIMBYS. They want to extend the 710 freeway and they promote extending it, BUT they don't want it going through their city, they want it built through their neighboring cities of El Sereno, Eagle Rock, Mt. Washington, South Pasadena, and Pasadena. What the clowns on their city council don't realize is the freeway will only increase diversion traffic through their area. When the cars and trucks encounter the $5.64 ($7-$8 peak) and $15.23 tolls respectively, they'll just hop off and drive through town in greater numbers than currently using that route. (http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2008/fFinance_AppF_02_SR710.pdf) The other surprise they will get is pollution. The wind, which predominately blows to the east, will blow the unfiltered particulate matter into their children's lungs. I hope Mr. Sloan enjoys dirty air.
Military Veteran April 29, 2012 at 06:53 AM
It's funny to see people try and pick and choose what they want from the US Constitution, like freedom of speech. If your going to defend the US Constitution then defend the whole thing... Let's not forget another big part of that piece of paper called the Bill of Rights and that's the 4th Amendment, "To be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure ". Did anybody in that house or around it feel secure to leave? Then that's a seizure by definition. Did the protestors stay on public property? Or did they trample the guys yard and bushes and the neighbours yard and bushes, who had nothing to do with it, and cause damage I understand freedom of speech but that does not give them the rights to violate one amendment for the other, nor does it give them the right to vandalize or tresspass on someone elses property. Protest the banks, their office, wherever on public land. Don't infringe on other people in their homes. So again, if yojr going to try and defend the US Constitution then defend the whole thing. Picking and choosing just parts of it makes you as much of the problem as the people your blaming for the problems.
Military Veteran April 29, 2012 at 06:55 AM
It's funny to see people try and pick and choose what they want from the US Constitution, like freedom of speech. If your going to defend the US Constitution then defend the whole thing... Let's not forget another big part of that piece of paper called the Bill of Rights and that's the 4th Amendment, "To be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure ". Did anybody in that house or around it feel secure to leave? Then that's a seizure by definition. Did the protestors stay on public property? Or did they trample the guys yard and bushes and the neighbours yard and bushes, who had nothing to do with it, and cause damage I understand freedom of speech but that does not give them the rights to violate one amendment for the other, nor does it give them the right to vandalize or tresspass on someone elses property. Protest the banks, their office, wherever on public land. Don't infringe on other people in their homes. So again, if your going to try and defend the US Constitution then defend the whole thing. Picking and choosing just parts of it makes you as much of the problem as the people your blaming for the problems.
Cristine Devereaux October 13, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Right on!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something