4 ms·

Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasi

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
      Hm, that's a fair point. Taxes are something that is, shall we say, less optional. I probably should have went with that analogy instead in hindsight. :)
- dubfan 12y ago
  The protestors are using fear (the fear of being attacked by police) to achieve a political goal (somewhat murky but the general gist seems to be to accelerate the depolicing of cities).
  - vacri 12y ago
    The protestors aren't controlling the source of the fear, though.
- rev_null 12y ago
  That bigot who sent the letter to the chief of police seemed pretty terrified.
cubano 12y ago
Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble Well hold on there...the "right to assemble" is granted as long as the overall public well-being isn't put in jeopardy ie the cant-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater chestnut. Isn't it possible that by blocking the "major highways", that perhaps emergency vehicles could be prevented from doing their life-saving deeds?
- smtddr 12y ago
  I would assume the police would move aside cars & people to let the siren screaming vehicles get by. And at least in the USA, there's the "breakdown" lane to drive on the side of any major highway afaik. Now, if you want to debate about citizen's right to assemble vs citizen's right to drive in peace, that's another discussion. And in that discussion do note that in USA "Driving is a privilege, not a right".
  - dubfan 12y ago
    The protests went further than just shutting down the freeways, at least in my city. Here they blocked a transit tunnel that moves commuters through downtown, forcing the buses to use crowded surface streets and completely disabling the light rail.
    - smtddr 12y ago
      I understand your frustration, but is the light rail & public transportation a right or a privilege? We're getting pedantic here though, so I'm not extending this conversation. I'm just glad the police didn't show up with a tank and throw teargas and rubber bullets at them. That's all. Some compassion & respect was shown towards protestors and the only downside the police had to face was a few frustrated commuters, I'm okay with that. Since it's basically impossible to make everyone happy in this kind of situation, I think annoyed commuters is the lesser evil here.
      - dubfan 12y ago
dubfan 12y ago
> The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. My view is it's gone the opposite direction. We've neutered our police forces such that they can't even protect the rights of citizens to go about their business without being impeded by anti-authoritarian protestors, and we've accepted that as a fact of life. If this country didn't have the inertia of having the world's reserve currency and the largest industrial capacity for a crucial ~50-60 year period, nobody would invest in us given our social unrest.
- beedogs 12y ago
  Maybe pick up a history book. The protests of today are nothing at all compared to those of even 40 years ago.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  I'm not sure which item in the Bill of Rights is the "right to go about our business" -- can you explain further?
  - greensoap 12y ago
    Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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
    Hm, that's a fair point. Taxes are something that is, shall we say, less optional. I probably should have went with that analogy instead in hindsight. :)
dubfan 12y ago
The protestors are using fear (the fear of being attacked by police) to achieve a political goal (somewhat murky but the general gist seems to be to accelerate the depolicing of cities).
- vacri 12y ago
  The protestors aren't controlling the source of the fear, though.
rev_null 12y ago
That bigot who sent the letter to the chief of police seemed pretty terrified.

cubano 12y ago

Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble Well hold on there...the "right to assemble" is granted as long as the overall public well-being isn't put in jeopardy ie the cant-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater chestnut. Isn't it possible that by blocking the "major highways", that perhaps emergency vehicles could be prevented from doing their life-saving deeds?

smtddr 12y ago
I would assume the police would move aside cars & people to let the siren screaming vehicles get by. And at least in the USA, there's the "breakdown" lane to drive on the side of any major highway afaik. Now, if you want to debate about citizen's right to assemble vs citizen's right to drive in peace, that's another discussion. And in that discussion do note that in USA "Driving is a privilege, not a right".
- dubfan 12y ago
  The protests went further than just shutting down the freeways, at least in my city. Here they blocked a transit tunnel that moves commuters through downtown, forcing the buses to use crowded surface streets and completely disabling the light rail.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    I understand your frustration, but is the light rail & public transportation a right or a privilege? We're getting pedantic here though, so I'm not extending this conversation. I'm just glad the police didn't show up with a tank and throw teargas and rubber bullets at them. That's all. Some compassion & respect was shown towards protestors and the only downside the police had to face was a few frustrated commuters, I'm okay with that. Since it's basically impossible to make everyone happy in this kind of situation, I think annoyed commuters is the lesser evil here.
    - dubfan 12y ago

dubfan 12y ago

> The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. My view is it's gone the opposite direction. We've neutered our police forces such that they can't even protect the rights of citizens to go about their business without being impeded by anti-authoritarian protestors, and we've accepted that as a fact of life. If this country didn't have the inertia of having the world's reserve currency and the largest industrial capacity for a crucial ~50-60 year period, nobody would invest in us given our social unrest.

beedogs 12y ago
Maybe pick up a history book. The protests of today are nothing at all compared to those of even 40 years ago.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
thaumaturgy 12y ago
I'm not sure which item in the Bill of Rights is the "right to go about our business" -- can you explain further?
- greensoap 12y ago
  Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.