3 ms·

Again, the context is different. And I think you’re deliberately ignoring it to make a more general argument. I’m not sure that’s helpful. Patients and employe

Again, the context is different. And I think you’re deliberately ignoring it to make a more general argument. I’m not sure that’s helpful. Patients and employees turn up to an abortion clinic. The patients being the ones who could be intimidated, less so the employees. A slaughterhouse and a private prison are only frequented by employees. But likewise, if the protest was held outside the houses of employees from the slaughterhouse or private prison, this is again blurring the line of protest vs intimidation. What is the intent? Is it to gather support and influence public opinion to change the rules around an activity? Or is it to intimidate participants in an activity to affect their behaviour?

prepend 4y ago
How about workers striking and silently standing in front a business? I think the issue is that standing silently is intimidating and it’s a form of speech. But it should be allowed. The purpose of the abortion protesters is to stop people from getting abortions. The purpose of strikers is to stop customers buying and scabs working. Etc etc. I think we need to avoid “context” that makes things we agree with right and things we disagree with wrong.
- RileyJames 4y ago
  I agree that workers strike/slaughterhouse/intimidation of scabs && prolife/abortion clinic/patients are better examples to debate. I think the vulnerability of patients at an abortion clinic is an important factor. But I also think a similar argument could made for ‘scabs’. It’s good food for thought, thanks.