4 ms·

"It's okay, the minor negative effects of that are never going to be more important than the ability to protest effectively." No way. You do not have the right

by jariel 6y ago

"It's okay, the minor negative effects of that are never going to be more important than the ability to protest effectively." No way. You do not have the right to arbitrarily lock down traffic for some arbitrary reason. Wait until Trump supporters lock down traffic in LA all day because they legitimately believe the 'election was stolen'. You can protest in the park or city square or somewhere where it doesn't stop a large number of people from going about their business. You don't get to suppress others with your ideology.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> Wait until Trump supporters lock down traffic in LA all day because they legitimately believe the 'election was stolen'. Good for them? That's a valid protest. You don't have to stay out of the way in the free speech zone. (Not to say that separation is never appropriate, but not most of the time.)
- jariel 6y ago
  "That's a valid protest." It's valid to protest things which are not true? So we can block traffic in LA to raise awareness that 'Aliens are coming'? No - absolutely not. Your arbitrary definition of what you consider to be a 'valid protest' is not relevant. You 100% do not have the right to block highways under any circumstances. Full stop. You can of course, block highways if you use force to do it, i.e. by amassing such a large, unlawful group so that 'nobody can do anything about it' - which is of course illegal and completely trampling other people's basic rights.
  - jacobkania 6y ago
    I firmly believe that if you have enough people who think it’s important enough to block traffic to make a point — if their belief is that aliens are coming to destroy earth — they’re allowed to do that. Sure, it’s illegal, but they’ll do it anyways. I think it’s unlikely that so many people will come together to block traffic, but if it’s so important to them, then I’m all for it. They’ll definitely get to make their argument to the news and American people, who get to decide if their point is valid or not. But that’s the point of free speech.
    - jlawson 6y ago
      Blocking traffic is not speech, it's physical harassment whose only outcome and whose intended mechanism of effect is to inject suffering into random innocent peoples' lives. You have no right to do that any more than you have a right to randomly slap people on the street to make them listen to you. Use your vote and your voice.
    - jariel 6y ago
      I doesn't matter if you are 'all for it'. The rest of us are 'not for it' - and that's why it's well enshrined into law. Your pet ideology is no reason to obstruct others. If you can convince LA County to shut down the highway for a 'march' over the 'weekend' - then that's fine. Otherwise, fines or jail.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    > It's valid to protest things which are not true? If you set the bar at "your point has to be true before you can protest", then goodbye free speech. Because who exactly gets to decide what is true, and therefore is legitimate to protest over? The government? The media? That is an insanely dangerous power to give any institution, which is why the first amendment is purposefully interpreted to put the minimum number of restrictions on what is forbidden.
    - jariel 6y ago
      "If you set the bar at "your point has to be true before you can protest", then goodbye free speech." This is not true at all. These arguments are purposefully conflating 'speech and protest' with the right to block traffic and infringe on other people's rights. You can 100% stand in front of city hall to tell us about 'Alien Invasions' if you want. You can 100% not block traffic to do it. You have more opportunities for expression today than at any time in history, use those 'vehicles' instead of blocking 'vehicles'.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        That is literally a different argument though. Now you're arguing about the difference between civil disobedience (which necessarily involves breaking norms or laws) and simple protest. This is a fair distinction, but genuinely a tedious one. Yes, standing around in the street is illegal, that's the point. We're not going to work out anything new here that hasn't been discussed over the past century. What I'm reacting to is you setting the bar based on the content of the speech. That is super dangerous territory, one that I would strongly condemn. The moment you say that tactics become legitimate or illegitimate based on the content of the speech, which is something the highlighted quote was saying, then you're heading into the land of no more free speech.
        jariel 6y ago
        ??? So you fully support anti-abortion protestors blocking the entrance to abortion clinics? That's 'civil disobedience' and 'breaking the law' for the 'content of speech' (in their view) of 'saving lives'? Seems pretty legit? Saving lives? What about White Supremacists burning down 'desegregated schools' in protest of 'desegregation'? Or some 'burning crosses' on the streets in front of the NAACP? I mean, hey, it's their right to 'protest'? How about 'Anti-Vaxxer' protesters surrounding evil big corporate pharma research centres and not allowing anyone in or out (civil disobedience) because 'big pharma' is giving everyone autism? Or a much more mild case: two days ago in Montreal a small group of protestors brought down a national monument, as police watched and refused to intervene. So how many protestors do I need exactly to tear down monuments? What's the 'headcount' threshold for the Washington monument coming down? I mean, he did own slaves ... It's not tedious to distinguish between what is illegal and what is not, it's literally at the heart of civilization. And no - we generally don't care what your 'cause' is - if someone really wants to 'protests' for 'segregation' - that's totally fine, they can make nice placards and sit in the park. It's incredibly naive to ignore the damage and harm caused to a lot of people in the wake of a lot of unfortunate protests which have turned violent, let alone the problems caused but otherwise more basic civil acts. There are 1000 ways to protest, if you want to sit on the sidewalk and get dragged away, that's fine, just don't get in other people's way.
sudosysgen 6y ago
You definitely get to supress infrastructure when you have enough people willing to protest. I don't get it, are you trying to imply that protests should have no disruptive effect? That is a good recipe for complete political dysfunction. Civil disobedience is based upon disruption. It is our right as citizens. Besides, if an ambulance or doctor needed to go through a protest, the vast majority of the time just asking gets them through.
- jariel 6y ago
  "You definitely get to supress infrastructure when you have enough people willing to protest." No - you don't. This is illegal, and it happens only by virtue of force. You absolutely have no right do do this - you just have he power to do it 'if you have enough people'. So yes, if you have an aggressive mob, you can get away with illegal things, that doesn't mean it's lawful.
- jlawson 6y ago
  You have a vote. Use it. You also have a voice. Use it. You have no right to undemocratically wield power over others by physical force. You have no right to force others to suffer to compel them to your will which they did not choose.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Limiting the political engagement of your citizens to only voting in a two party system is madness. When people stop being engaged, and stop voting, and your country turns to shit, I can say that I warned you. No, seriously, this is insane. You want to, functionally, ban protests. There is absolutely no way you can have a functional country if you can't even have peaceful demonstrations.
    - jariel 6y ago
      "You want to, functionally, ban protests." You have a misunderstanding of what is legal, what is not, and what a peaceful protest is. Blocking traffic is already banned. That's 100% illegal in all cases. 'Protests' which infringe on the rights of others are just another form of fascism. 'My Fascism is Worthwhile' is not a civic or moral argument. You can protest peacefully, vote, engage in other forms of civic obedience, but you can't do it at the expense of others, full stop. As soon as someone starts trampling on your rights for a cause you don't agree with you'll scream 'victim' and then maybe have a different perspective.

by jariel 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

> Wait until Trump supporters lock down traffic in LA all day because they legitimately believe the 'election was stolen'. Good for them? That's a valid protest. You don't have to stay out of the way in the free speech zone. (Not to say that separation is never appropriate, but not most of the time.)

jariel 6y ago
"That's a valid protest." It's valid to protest things which are not true? So we can block traffic in LA to raise awareness that 'Aliens are coming'? No - absolutely not. Your arbitrary definition of what you consider to be a 'valid protest' is not relevant. You 100% do not have the right to block highways under any circumstances. Full stop. You can of course, block highways if you use force to do it, i.e. by amassing such a large, unlawful group so that 'nobody can do anything about it' - which is of course illegal and completely trampling other people's basic rights.
- jacobkania 6y ago
  I firmly believe that if you have enough people who think it’s important enough to block traffic to make a point — if their belief is that aliens are coming to destroy earth — they’re allowed to do that. Sure, it’s illegal, but they’ll do it anyways. I think it’s unlikely that so many people will come together to block traffic, but if it’s so important to them, then I’m all for it. They’ll definitely get to make their argument to the news and American people, who get to decide if their point is valid or not. But that’s the point of free speech.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    Blocking traffic is not speech, it's physical harassment whose only outcome and whose intended mechanism of effect is to inject suffering into random innocent peoples' lives. You have no right to do that any more than you have a right to randomly slap people on the street to make them listen to you. Use your vote and your voice.
  - jariel 6y ago
    I doesn't matter if you are 'all for it'. The rest of us are 'not for it' - and that's why it's well enshrined into law. Your pet ideology is no reason to obstruct others. If you can convince LA County to shut down the highway for a 'march' over the 'weekend' - then that's fine. Otherwise, fines or jail.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > It's valid to protest things which are not true? If you set the bar at "your point has to be true before you can protest", then goodbye free speech. Because who exactly gets to decide what is true, and therefore is legitimate to protest over? The government? The media? That is an insanely dangerous power to give any institution, which is why the first amendment is purposefully interpreted to put the minimum number of restrictions on what is forbidden.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "If you set the bar at "your point has to be true before you can protest", then goodbye free speech." This is not true at all. These arguments are purposefully conflating 'speech and protest' with the right to block traffic and infringe on other people's rights. You can 100% stand in front of city hall to tell us about 'Alien Invasions' if you want. You can 100% not block traffic to do it. You have more opportunities for expression today than at any time in history, use those 'vehicles' instead of blocking 'vehicles'.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      That is literally a different argument though. Now you're arguing about the difference between civil disobedience (which necessarily involves breaking norms or laws) and simple protest. This is a fair distinction, but genuinely a tedious one. Yes, standing around in the street is illegal, that's the point. We're not going to work out anything new here that hasn't been discussed over the past century. What I'm reacting to is you setting the bar based on the content of the speech. That is super dangerous territory, one that I would strongly condemn. The moment you say that tactics become legitimate or illegitimate based on the content of the speech, which is something the highlighted quote was saying, then you're heading into the land of no more free speech.
      - jariel 6y ago
        ??? So you fully support anti-abortion protestors blocking the entrance to abortion clinics? That's 'civil disobedience' and 'breaking the law' for the 'content of speech' (in their view) of 'saving lives'? Seems pretty legit? Saving lives? What about White Supremacists burning down 'desegregated schools' in protest of 'desegregation'? Or some 'burning crosses' on the streets in front of the NAACP? I mean, hey, it's their right to 'protest'? How about 'Anti-Vaxxer' protesters surrounding evil big corporate pharma research centres and not allowing anyone in or out (civil disobedience) because 'big pharma' is giving everyone autism? Or a much more mild case: two days ago in Montreal a small group of protestors brought down a national monument, as police watched and refused to intervene. So how many protestors do I need exactly to tear down monuments? What's the 'headcount' threshold for the Washington monument coming down? I mean, he did own slaves ... It's not tedious to distinguish between what is illegal and what is not, it's literally at the heart of civilization. And no - we generally don't care what your 'cause' is - if someone really wants to 'protests' for 'segregation' - that's totally fine, they can make nice placards and sit in the park. It's incredibly naive to ignore the damage and harm caused to a lot of people in the wake of a lot of unfortunate protests which have turned violent, let alone the problems caused but otherwise more basic civil acts. There are 1000 ways to protest, if you want to sit on the sidewalk and get dragged away, that's fine, just don't get in other people's way.

sudosysgen 6y ago

You definitely get to supress infrastructure when you have enough people willing to protest. I don't get it, are you trying to imply that protests should have no disruptive effect? That is a good recipe for complete political dysfunction. Civil disobedience is based upon disruption. It is our right as citizens. Besides, if an ambulance or doctor needed to go through a protest, the vast majority of the time just asking gets them through.

jariel 6y ago
"You definitely get to supress infrastructure when you have enough people willing to protest." No - you don't. This is illegal, and it happens only by virtue of force. You absolutely have no right do do this - you just have he power to do it 'if you have enough people'. So yes, if you have an aggressive mob, you can get away with illegal things, that doesn't mean it's lawful.
jlawson 6y ago
You have a vote. Use it. You also have a voice. Use it. You have no right to undemocratically wield power over others by physical force. You have no right to force others to suffer to compel them to your will which they did not choose.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Limiting the political engagement of your citizens to only voting in a two party system is madness. When people stop being engaged, and stop voting, and your country turns to shit, I can say that I warned you. No, seriously, this is insane. You want to, functionally, ban protests. There is absolutely no way you can have a functional country if you can't even have peaceful demonstrations.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "You want to, functionally, ban protests." You have a misunderstanding of what is legal, what is not, and what a peaceful protest is. Blocking traffic is already banned. That's 100% illegal in all cases. 'Protests' which infringe on the rights of others are just another form of fascism. 'My Fascism is Worthwhile' is not a civic or moral argument. You can protest peacefully, vote, engage in other forms of civic obedience, but you can't do it at the expense of others, full stop. As soon as someone starts trampling on your rights for a cause you don't agree with you'll scream 'victim' and then maybe have a different perspective.