You’re drawing equivalence between government action and non-government action, and applying that equivalence to a case where the non-government action is direc

You’re drawing equivalence between government action and non-government action, and applying that equivalence to a case where the non-government action is directly opposing the government action. Further, you’re using a denunciation of the actions of government as an argument against the rights of the people to protest against it. This debate would be a lot more productive and a lot less dangerous if you could stick to the actual disagreement at hand, which I think has something to do with vaccines, but I’m not sure anymore, rather than trying to build a case for rejection of all rights even marginally related to any form of opposition. And please understand that I have much less interest in the opposition rights than the unrelated collateral damage that any such restrictions would cause.