4 ms·

Not arresting protestors is probably a good thing to emulate regardless of your feelings about the US.

gambiting 4y ago
Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US? Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable? Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
- mwint 4y ago
  USAian here: > Protests should be allowed They are. > destroying public property Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. > advocating violence or hate Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime. Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    > > advocating violence or hate > Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat. Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech. You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
    - Vecr 4y ago
      This is correct, I'm not sure why it's being down-voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme. Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1]. For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion: > a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.” [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
bawolff 4y ago
as another example, US lets you bring guns to protests, i am 100% on board with how my government (canada) arrests any idiots who show up with a firearm to a protest. I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  When you have counterprotestors/rioters throwing bricks/molotovs/etc. with the tacit consent of the local government, going to a protest armed can be the only way to safely exercise your constitutional right to protest.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    What is with americans and might makes right? What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
    - gjs278 4y ago
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      >What is with americans and might makes right? The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns. >What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first. >For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face? Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.

Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US? Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable? Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.

mwint 4y ago
USAian here: > Protests should be allowed They are. > destroying public property Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. > advocating violence or hate Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime. Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > > advocating violence or hate > Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat. Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech. You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    This is correct, I'm not sure why it's being down-voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme. Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1]. For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion: > a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.” [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats

bawolff 4y ago

as another example, US lets you bring guns to protests, i am 100% on board with how my government (canada) arrests any idiots who show up with a firearm to a protest. I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.

HideousKojima 4y ago
When you have counterprotestors/rioters throwing bricks/molotovs/etc. with the tacit consent of the local government, going to a protest armed can be the only way to safely exercise your constitutional right to protest.
- bawolff 4y ago
  What is with americans and might makes right? What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
  - gjs278 4y ago
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >What is with americans and might makes right? The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns. >What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first. >For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face? Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.