3 ms·

"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 purposefull

by 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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    This response is so completely unrelated to what I actually said that it’s genuinely hard to respond to. If you want to continue to discuss this matter, respond to what I said, rather than making up what I said and then arguing against it.

by jariel 6y ago

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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  This response is so completely unrelated to what I actually said that it’s genuinely hard to respond to. If you want to continue to discuss this matter, respond to what I said, rather than making up what I said and then arguing against it.