5 ms·

Some would argue that protest is meant to be disruptive.

pif 3y ago
As such, they are not a human right. You have the right to talk; you don't have the right to force the others to listen to you.
- pyth0 3y ago
  Given the fact that people are being arrested for holding up signs, it does not seem that they "have the right to talk".
  - pif 3y ago
    I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". I agree that holding up signs is not a good reason for an arrest.
- account42 3y ago
  Speaking in a public place is not forcing others to listen to you. If you are only allowed to talk where noone can listen you then you do not in fact have free speech.
  - pif 3y ago
    I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". Speaking in a public place is free speech. Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours.
    - account42 3y ago
      > Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Depends entirely on the kind of interruption. Remember that a mortorcade is itself already a disruption of the normal use of a public space. > Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours. Yes, that's called a strawman. And you are using very imprecise language to boot - pushing people around can describe a number of behaviors from a gentle nudge to ouright assault. Saying that protests should be allowed to be disruptive does also not mean that any kind of disruption needs to be accepted. Obviously if a protest prevents effectively detains you it is not ok. But having to take a slight detour or hearing people say things you want to ignore, that's something that is effectively required for a protest to have any result at all.
      - pif 3y ago
        > is effectively required for a protest to have any result at all I'll say it again: you don't have the right to expect that your protest be successful. Democracy (and the UK isa democracy) means that the status quo is fine for the majority of the people. If anyone had the right to change things at their whim, that would become a dictatorship. Protesting is to inform people at large of a problem you feel important, but the solution cannot be up to you alone. And if you can't even convince people to listen to you without coercing them, why do you think your protest should be successful?
    - hiatus 3y ago
      > Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Am I not exercising free speech if I talk over you? Why is interrupting a motorcade any different? Motorcades are arguably expressions in and of themselves.
      - pif 3y ago
        > Am I not exercising free speech if I talk over you? In civilized places, we do not talk over another. We take turns to speak. > Why is interrupting a motorcade any different? It is not different indeed. They are both wrong. Especially if the motorcade is organized by the public authority in a democracy, and the protestor is a small group in search of an audience that could not be bothered to listen to their arguments.
account42 3y ago
It's concerning that the French seem to be the only ones that still understand this in Europe.

pif 3y ago

As such, they are not a human right. You have the right to talk; you don't have the right to force the others to listen to you.

pyth0 3y ago
Given the fact that people are being arrested for holding up signs, it does not seem that they "have the right to talk".
- pif 3y ago
  I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". I agree that holding up signs is not a good reason for an arrest.
account42 3y ago
Speaking in a public place is not forcing others to listen to you. If you are only allowed to talk where noone can listen you then you do not in fact have free speech.
- pif 3y ago
  I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". Speaking in a public place is free speech. Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours.
  - account42 3y ago
    > Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Depends entirely on the kind of interruption. Remember that a mortorcade is itself already a disruption of the normal use of a public space. > Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours. Yes, that's called a strawman. And you are using very imprecise language to boot - pushing people around can describe a number of behaviors from a gentle nudge to ouright assault. Saying that protests should be allowed to be disruptive does also not mean that any kind of disruption needs to be accepted. Obviously if a protest prevents effectively detains you it is not ok. But having to take a slight detour or hearing people say things you want to ignore, that's something that is effectively required for a protest to have any result at all.
    - pif 3y ago
      > is effectively required for a protest to have any result at all I'll say it again: you don't have the right to expect that your protest be successful. Democracy (and the UK isa democracy) means that the status quo is fine for the majority of the people. If anyone had the right to change things at their whim, that would become a dictatorship. Protesting is to inform people at large of a problem you feel important, but the solution cannot be up to you alone. And if you can't even convince people to listen to you without coercing them, why do you think your protest should be successful?
  - hiatus 3y ago
    > Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Am I not exercising free speech if I talk over you? Why is interrupting a motorcade any different? Motorcades are arguably expressions in and of themselves.
    - pif 3y ago
      > Am I not exercising free speech if I talk over you? In civilized places, we do not talk over another. We take turns to speak. > Why is interrupting a motorcade any different? It is not different indeed. They are both wrong. Especially if the motorcade is organized by the public authority in a democracy, and the protestor is a small group in search of an audience that could not be bothered to listen to their arguments.

account42 3y ago

It's concerning that the French seem to be the only ones that still understand this in Europe.