3 ms·

the point of protest is to disrupt however. Limiting the ability of a peaceful assembly to be disruptive effectively neuters that assembly.

hirundo 7y ago
What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.
- harimau777 7y ago
  What about Occupy Wall Street? In order to be successful they needed to put continuous pressure on the financial district. Authorities forced them to disband by closing the park at night. Since protests (and social movements in general) rely on momentum, this effectively neutered the protest.
  - hirundo 7y ago
    There were a lot of reports of health issues in Zuccotti Park, e.g. "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public." At some point that becomes a hazard to people beyond the protesters. Mitigating that hazard by banning overnight camping, so that it can be cleaned, does not seem oppressive if enforced in a content neutral way. It's hard to see how the city can do that job well while tents are pitched all over.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      The problem is that makes it difficult bordering on impossible to have a successful protest. As I understand it, protests work by putting stress on a system in order to force change. In cases where the protest overt actions such as police brutality or discrimination, it may only be necessary to provoke a response and then rely on the injustice of the response to apply pressure. E.g. when black people in the Civil Rights movement insisted on their rights and were met with violence it made it impossible for society to ignore the injustice of the system. However, when trying to change policy or overall behavior it is often necessary to apply pressure by outlasting the other side. An example would be striking workers trying to outlast management. Since protests, and social movements in general, rely on momentum, and constant pressure, kicking protesters out even temporarily undermines the ability to successfully protest. is over a specific unjust action it may only be necessary to provoke a It seems to me that for issues such as police brutality, discrimination, or unjust laws it's possible to have successful protests that are relatively short term. That is because the strategy is to purposefully to provoke a response that society won't tolerate (e.g. during the Civil Rights movement where black people would insist on their rights knowing that they would result in violence and thereby demonstrate the injustice of the system). However, it seems to me that movements that o
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  I'd absolutely consider that to be peaceful. Dr. King didn't get a permit for road closures when he led the march from Selma to Montgomery. Or when the Teamsters joined with the NFLPA to block access to stadiums during the players' strike, or when unions form picket lines. In a similar vein, possibly the most successful and iconic protests in American history (the Million-Man march, the Freedom Riders, the Memphis sit-ins, etc) during the Civil Rights movement did so precisely because they disrupted everyday life (like sitting at a diner, riding public transit, getting to work). For a protest to be successful it has to be provocative and disruptive. Peaceful means without violence, it doesn't mean without provocation.
  - hirundo 7y ago
    If I'm trying to get from point A to point B, but can't because a man is standing in my right-of-way and won't move, and there's no easy way to go around, I would consider that man to be disrupting the peace regardless of whether he was Martin Luther King or the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The righteousness of his message doesn't enter into it. If you disagree with this, do you also think that having the road blocked by a Klan rally should be considered peaceful?
    - unlinked_dll 7y ago
      then how are protests ever to be effective if they don't force average people to pay attention? This is why the civil rights movement was effective without violence - people like you got agitated, and the police responded by siccing dogs and water hoses on the peaceful protests who were just "in your way." It forced people to wake up to the violence they faced every day.
      - hirundo 7y ago
        Forcing people to pay attention is not peaceful, whether it's justified or not.
- __david__ 7y ago
  I would consider that “peaceful”. Annoying, especially if it’s for a cause I don’t care about or actively oppose, but still peaceful.

hirundo 7y ago

What would be an example of limiting a peaceful assembly in a way that neuters it? Would you consider blocking a road to be peaceful? I wouldn't. If it were only about limiting a disruptive message, I'd agree, but it's not clear that's what you mean.

harimau777 7y ago
What about Occupy Wall Street? In order to be successful they needed to put continuous pressure on the financial district. Authorities forced them to disband by closing the park at night. Since protests (and social movements in general) rely on momentum, this effectively neutered the protest.
- hirundo 7y ago
  There were a lot of reports of health issues in Zuccotti Park, e.g. "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public." At some point that becomes a hazard to people beyond the protesters. Mitigating that hazard by banning overnight camping, so that it can be cleaned, does not seem oppressive if enforced in a content neutral way. It's hard to see how the city can do that job well while tents are pitched all over.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    The problem is that makes it difficult bordering on impossible to have a successful protest. As I understand it, protests work by putting stress on a system in order to force change. In cases where the protest overt actions such as police brutality or discrimination, it may only be necessary to provoke a response and then rely on the injustice of the response to apply pressure. E.g. when black people in the Civil Rights movement insisted on their rights and were met with violence it made it impossible for society to ignore the injustice of the system. However, when trying to change policy or overall behavior it is often necessary to apply pressure by outlasting the other side. An example would be striking workers trying to outlast management. Since protests, and social movements in general, rely on momentum, and constant pressure, kicking protesters out even temporarily undermines the ability to successfully protest. is over a specific unjust action it may only be necessary to provoke a It seems to me that for issues such as police brutality, discrimination, or unjust laws it's possible to have successful protests that are relatively short term. That is because the strategy is to purposefully to provoke a response that society won't tolerate (e.g. during the Civil Rights movement where black people would insist on their rights knowing that they would result in violence and thereby demonstrate the injustice of the system). However, it seems to me that movements that o
unlinked_dll 7y ago
I'd absolutely consider that to be peaceful. Dr. King didn't get a permit for road closures when he led the march from Selma to Montgomery. Or when the Teamsters joined with the NFLPA to block access to stadiums during the players' strike, or when unions form picket lines. In a similar vein, possibly the most successful and iconic protests in American history (the Million-Man march, the Freedom Riders, the Memphis sit-ins, etc) during the Civil Rights movement did so precisely because they disrupted everyday life (like sitting at a diner, riding public transit, getting to work). For a protest to be successful it has to be provocative and disruptive. Peaceful means without violence, it doesn't mean without provocation.
- hirundo 7y ago
  If I'm trying to get from point A to point B, but can't because a man is standing in my right-of-way and won't move, and there's no easy way to go around, I would consider that man to be disrupting the peace regardless of whether he was Martin Luther King or the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The righteousness of his message doesn't enter into it. If you disagree with this, do you also think that having the road blocked by a Klan rally should be considered peaceful?
  - unlinked_dll 7y ago
    then how are protests ever to be effective if they don't force average people to pay attention? This is why the civil rights movement was effective without violence - people like you got agitated, and the police responded by siccing dogs and water hoses on the peaceful protests who were just "in your way." It forced people to wake up to the violence they faced every day.
    - hirundo 7y ago
      Forcing people to pay attention is not peaceful, whether it's justified or not.
__david__ 7y ago
I would consider that “peaceful”. Annoying, especially if it’s for a cause I don’t care about or actively oppose, but still peaceful.