>> A group of protestors has occupied a city and created a massive public disturbance in the process for those that live and work there. Yes, that is the point

>> A group of protestors has occupied a city and created a massive public disturbance in the process for those that live and work there. Yes, that is the point of protesting. Which is a fundamental right in free society. As long as they are not rioting, destroying property, or using violence they should be free to protest. Protesting is not standing to the side quietly holding a sign not getting in the way of anyone, relegated to a "free speech zone" >>When you look back at history, you see leaders of real movements like MLK getting arrested because they lived under actual tyranny, and they weren't afraid of it. He also "created a massive public disturbance" and was justified in doing so. The fact that some or even all of the "organizers" of this protest did not have the same moral conviction does not change anything. That is a very very weak argument, it is also a weak argument that because racial discrimination was an objective moral wrong that we both agree with, so we both support those protests, but since you view body autonomy to be lessor, and violation of body autonomy to be less of a moral wrong then those people lose their right to protest. That is a very dangerous position to hold, and one that highly doubt you would like to be used for something you think is very important, but maybe I don't. The difference is I would still defend your right to protest and assemble even if I disagree with your cause. Remember in politics, you must always, always, always invert.