7 ms·

The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting

by dubfan 12y ago

The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.

sfeng 12y ago
> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. they also weren't killing people or 'inciting terror'.
rtpg 12y ago
so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run? Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.
- dubfan 12y ago
  Yeah, being late to my job because my bus can't get through a protest and getting fired as a result is just a slight inconvenience.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    Now you got some time to agitate for better labor rights so your now-ex-boss can't do that.
  - cdcarter 12y ago
    So, to use the examples you're replying to here, do you also believed that organized labor doesn't have the right to strike if it might make you late to work, and that the NYT isn't allowed to run an article outing you as a major criminal if that might cause you to be terminateD?
  - rtpg 12y ago
    The fact that being late one day can get you fired speaks to the state of labor rights in the US. Think of all of the things that could make you late. Protests, sure, but a broken down car, a car accident (yours or somebody else). Hell, if the President comes around they shut down a bunch of lanes of traffic.
wbronitsky 12y ago
I should think that the difference between blocking traffic for a short period of time and terrorism is death and suffering. I would say the only similarity between the two is that they both seek to advance political agendas. This is like saying the only difference between a filibuster and terrorism is rhetoric.
thaumaturgy 12y ago
Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society. I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that. I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways. The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.
- vacri 12y ago
  Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.
  - click170 12y ago
    To clarify further, I could call my landlord a terrorist because he'll come banging on my door if I don't pay him on time. That induces fear, yet I think we can all agree my landlord is not a terrorist for wanting to collect his rent. "Terrorism" is a laughably flexible term that could be used to fit just about anything given the right wording. If you have to resort to calling someone a terrorist in order to get me on your side, you've failed to state why I should agree with you without resorting to FUD.
    - vacri 12y ago
      You've really got to stretch the definition of 'political goal' to include 'collecting rent from a contract that you both agreed to'. :)
click170 12y ago
Um, yes, it very much should. This isn't about blocking roads or stopping transit. Its about being heard. Unfortunately it takes more than a sternly worded letter to voice their frustration and outrage, and here you are trying to take one of their few remaining outlets away from them. You don't honestly believe that do you?
- dubfan 12y ago
  They have as much of a right to speak as I have to ignore them. When my right to ignore them is taken away, I have a problem with that.
  - mhluongo 12y ago
    Put on some headphones. There, your rights are no longer being infringed! One citizen doesn't have a greater "right" over a public space than another. The frequent abuse of the term kills me.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    "Ignore" is just not paying attention. You are free to do so. No one is taking that right away.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      When protesters block the freeway he's on, he no longer has the ability to not pay attention to them. They have, in fact, taken that away from him. I even think that's precisely why the protesters do it.
  - click170 12y ago
    We agree that people do not have a right to not be offended, right?
IanDrake 12y ago
You're absolutely right. Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom. We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.
- dubfan 12y ago
  > Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it. Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument. The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
    - ldlework 12y ago
      Thank you. My mouth was literally agape.
- vacri 12y ago
  Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom. If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.
Thrymr 12y ago
> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Also, the terror.
SwellJoe 12y ago
"The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric." Are you serious? You see no difference between beheading someone and sending out a video of it, and peacefully stopping traffic for a few minutes, other than the way they talk about it? Flying airplanes into buildings, and disrupting a train schedule for a little while by peacefully locking arms, are the same thing to you? Suicide bombers, and a (simulated, and peaceful) "die-in" in a shopping mall, those are morally no different? That's such an unreasonable, and inflammatory, position to take that I'm genuinely not even sure how to communicate with you.
veidr 12y ago
> The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Yeah, that and the dead children, schoolteachers with their legs blown off, orphans left behind after their parents were shredded or burned to death, etc that results from actual terrorism. That's basically the only difference.
beedogs 12y ago
I'm sorry, but whether or not you're inconvenienced is of absolutely no consequence and should have no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people to protest. If a bit of a delay on the roads is all you've got to complain about, you've got it pretty damn good.
rokhayakebe 12y ago
Upvoted, but your comment sounds a bit self centered. "Anybody who enjoys social freedom because others have toiled, and some are still toiling, for it should give up his freedom when the state needs it." You enjoy many benefits because the "citizens" you speak of contribute to the state and make it so you live there happily and safely. Now when these people, together as citizens, feel like their "social contract" is being abused, they have a right, through the government, to put an immediate and sharp hold on your freedom to have the matter resolved. Now in this case, if the police did not act, you can consider it as an approval. If you disagree with this method, you also have the right to protest in the same manner. Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.
- eropple 12y ago
  > Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom. Eh. My freedoms are a lot less threatened by terrorism than by the people responding to terrorism.

by dubfan 12y ago

sfeng 12y ago

> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. they also weren't killing people or 'inciting terror'.

rtpg 12y ago

so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run? Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.

dubfan 12y ago
Yeah, being late to my job because my bus can't get through a protest and getting fired as a result is just a slight inconvenience.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  Now you got some time to agitate for better labor rights so your now-ex-boss can't do that.
- cdcarter 12y ago
  So, to use the examples you're replying to here, do you also believed that organized labor doesn't have the right to strike if it might make you late to work, and that the NYT isn't allowed to run an article outing you as a major criminal if that might cause you to be terminateD?
- rtpg 12y ago
  The fact that being late one day can get you fired speaks to the state of labor rights in the US. Think of all of the things that could make you late. Protests, sure, but a broken down car, a car accident (yours or somebody else). Hell, if the President comes around they shut down a bunch of lanes of traffic.

wbronitsky 12y ago

I should think that the difference between blocking traffic for a short period of time and terrorism is death and suffering. I would say the only similarity between the two is that they both seek to advance political agendas. This is like saying the only difference between a filibuster and terrorism is rhetoric.

thaumaturgy 12y ago

Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society. I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that. I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways. The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.

vacri 12y ago
Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.
- click170 12y ago
  To clarify further, I could call my landlord a terrorist because he'll come banging on my door if I don't pay him on time. That induces fear, yet I think we can all agree my landlord is not a terrorist for wanting to collect his rent. "Terrorism" is a laughably flexible term that could be used to fit just about anything given the right wording. If you have to resort to calling someone a terrorist in order to get me on your side, you've failed to state why I should agree with you without resorting to FUD.
  - vacri 12y ago
    You've really got to stretch the definition of 'political goal' to include 'collecting rent from a contract that you both agreed to'. :)

click170 12y ago

Um, yes, it very much should. This isn't about blocking roads or stopping transit. Its about being heard. Unfortunately it takes more than a sternly worded letter to voice their frustration and outrage, and here you are trying to take one of their few remaining outlets away from them. You don't honestly believe that do you?

dubfan 12y ago
They have as much of a right to speak as I have to ignore them. When my right to ignore them is taken away, I have a problem with that.
- mhluongo 12y ago
  Put on some headphones. There, your rights are no longer being infringed! One citizen doesn't have a greater "right" over a public space than another. The frequent abuse of the term kills me.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  "Ignore" is just not paying attention. You are free to do so. No one is taking that right away.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    When protesters block the freeway he's on, he no longer has the ability to not pay attention to them. They have, in fact, taken that away from him. I even think that's precisely why the protesters do it.
- click170 12y ago
  We agree that people do not have a right to not be offended, right?

IanDrake 12y ago

You're absolutely right. Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom. We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.

dubfan 12y ago
> Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.
- themartorana 12y ago
  The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it. Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument. The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
  - ldlework 12y ago
    Thank you. My mouth was literally agape.
vacri 12y ago
Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom. If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.

Thrymr 12y ago

> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Also, the terror.

SwellJoe 12y ago

"The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric." Are you serious? You see no difference between beheading someone and sending out a video of it, and peacefully stopping traffic for a few minutes, other than the way they talk about it? Flying airplanes into buildings, and disrupting a train schedule for a little while by peacefully locking arms, are the same thing to you? Suicide bombers, and a (simulated, and peaceful) "die-in" in a shopping mall, those are morally no different? That's such an unreasonable, and inflammatory, position to take that I'm genuinely not even sure how to communicate with you.

veidr 12y ago

> The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. Yeah, that and the dead children, schoolteachers with their legs blown off, orphans left behind after their parents were shredded or burned to death, etc that results from actual terrorism. That's basically the only difference.

beedogs 12y ago

I'm sorry, but whether or not you're inconvenienced is of absolutely no consequence and should have no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people to protest. If a bit of a delay on the roads is all you've got to complain about, you've got it pretty damn good.

rokhayakebe 12y ago

Upvoted, but your comment sounds a bit self centered. "Anybody who enjoys social freedom because others have toiled, and some are still toiling, for it should give up his freedom when the state needs it." You enjoy many benefits because the "citizens" you speak of contribute to the state and make it so you live there happily and safely. Now when these people, together as citizens, feel like their "social contract" is being abused, they have a right, through the government, to put an immediate and sharp hold on your freedom to have the matter resolved. Now in this case, if the police did not act, you can consider it as an approval. If you disagree with this method, you also have the right to protest in the same manner. Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.

eropple 12y ago
> Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom. Eh. My freedoms are a lot less threatened by terrorism than by the people responding to terrorism.