In Arizona, It's a Dry Chill for Freedom to Protest.

[Lion IRC]

It won't 'chill' free speech.

But it will sort out the real committed protesters from the rent-a-crowd types who are too gutless to actually go to jail for their cause. All talk. No action. You care about the cause? Be prepared to lose some skin. Otherwise shut up and realise that taxpayers don't like paying for all the stuff you smash while you're complaining that the government is infringing on your rather expensive 'free' speech.

 

[LordKiran]

It won't 'chill' free speech.

But it will sort out the real committed protesters from the rent-a-crowd types who are too gutless to actually go to jail for their cause. All talk. No action. You care about the cause? Be prepared to lose some skin. Otherwise shut up and realise that taxpayers don't like paying for all the stuff you smash while you're complaining that the government is infringing on your rather expensive 'free' speech.

View attachment 10039

Wow it's like you read the cliff notes version of Republican arguing tactics:

-Ignore the actual concern of your opponant and don't acknowledge it in any way since they probably have a point.

-Accuse your opponent of cowardice since every good republican knows, that being a pussy is synonymous with being wrong.

-Create a false dichotomy where the only options presented are to either "Love it or gtfo of our country!"

-Pretend like to constitution and its protections don't matter so long as it's convenient for you to do so.

Lion if you're going to be this dishonest, why even bother comming here? Go somewhere people will let you get away with it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

People have a right to peaceably assemble, to express political opinions, and to have due process. To encroach on peaceful protesters' rights by collective punishment with no clear evidence that organizers are violent as particular individuals is unconstitutional.

 

[RavenSky]

It won't 'chill' free speech.

But it will sort out the real committed protesters from the rent-a-crowd types who are too gutless to actually go to jail for their cause. All talk. No action. You care about the cause? Be prepared to lose some skin. Otherwise shut up and realise that taxpayers don't like paying for all the stuff you smash while you're complaining that the government is infringing on your rather expensive 'free' speech.

Except that is not what the Arizona bill says. Did you read the OP?

 

[Elixir]

.... it will sort out the real committed protesters from the rent-a-crowd types

The only "rent a crowds" of which I am aware are the gaggles of Cheato's sycophants he drags around to every event.
Who is writing checks to the anti-trump protestors, Lion? Can I get a check? Or do they pay cash? (even better!)

Like most of the right wing's "remedies" this is a solution in search of a problem to justify it, while its real purpose is to intimidate dissenters and suppress their message.
You have to be asleep or brain-dead to buy into the existence of this newly minted boogeyman.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If this bill gets passed, I am definitely not suggesting that people should show up to every GOP and right wing event in order to riot and cause property damage which the organizers of said event would then be liable for. That sort of activity would be completely out of line and immoral, so absolutely nobody should make a point of doing that exact thing.

 

[Elixir]

If this bill gets passed, I am definitely not suggesting that people should show up to every GOP and right wing event in order to riot and cause property damage which the organizers of said event would then be liable for. That sort of activity would be completely out of line and immoral, so absolutely nobody should make a point of doing that exact thing.

We have to make sure that if a lot of people do show up at such events, we slip in a few rock throwers to ensure that they all get their comeuppance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree with all that both Derec and Athena posted above. People seem to be posting without understanding each other here.

Protests where illegal acts and damage to property happen should have the vandals not only arrested but properly prosecuted, without leniency based on the message of the protest. Anybody funding or organizing such crime should also be fully prosecuted.

Perhaps new laws are needed if this isn't happening. That airport and that highway example are great cases in point.

But this is not the right law. It is ridiculously over reaching.... But this kind of law will get put in place if regressives keep dismissing rational and fair concerns such as Derec has raised here by mischaracterizing it and branding people as bigots etc. It by extension loses credibility for those of us who would like more sensible and less far reaching laws.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Protests where illegal acts and damage to property happen should have the vandals not only arrested but properly prosecuted, without leniency based on the message of the protest. Anybody funding or organizing such crime should also be fully prosecuted.

...but not organizers who don't know the crimes will occur.

 

[untermensche]

This is how all totalitarian governments behave.

Give the people no voice.

And crush any dissent.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Protests where illegal acts and damage to property happen should have the vandals not only arrested but properly prosecuted, without leniency based on the message of the protest. Anybody funding or organizing such crime should also be fully prosecuted.

...but not organizers who don't know the crimes will occur.

Exactly.

 

[Derec]

This is how all totalitarian governments behave.

Give the people no voice.

And crush any dissent.

Do you need to block highways or airports to have a voice?
Do you need to break shop windows or torch convenience stores to express dissent?

 

[dismal]

...but not organizers who don't know the crimes will occur.

Exactly.

But if you organize a protest on I-35 at rush hour you can't claim you didn't know people would suffer damages from I-35 being blocked at rush hour, right?

 

[bilby]

This is how all totalitarian governments behave.

Give the people no voice.

And crush any dissent.

Do you need to block highways or airports to have a voice?
Do you need to break shop windows or torch convenience stores to express dissent?

Not at all. Sometimes it's sufficient to chop your oppressors heads off, or string them up from lampposts.

The history of protest is replete with effective means to beget change that don't include blocking transportation or damaging retail outlets; but contains very few changes brought about by politeness and obedience.

 

[dismal]

Do you need to block highways or airports to have a voice?
Do you need to break shop windows or torch convenience stores to express dissent?

Not at all. Sometimes it's sufficient to chop your oppressors heads off, or string them up from lampposts.

The history of protest is replete with effective means to beget change that don't include blocking transportation or damaging retail outlets; but contains very few changes brought about by politeness and obedience.

Well the good news is if your protest on I-35 succeeds in toppling the government there won't be any courts for people to sue you in.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Exactly.

But if you organize a protest on I-35 at rush hour you can't claim you didn't know people would suffer damages from I-35 being blocked at rush hour, right?

Correct.

 

[laughing dog]

But if you organize a protest on I-35 at rush hour you can't claim you didn't know people would suffer damages from I-35 being blocked at rush hour, right?

Correct.

The dream of all goosestepping worshippers of the status quo - protest that does not inconvenience anyone (i.e. ones that are easily ignored).

 

[Malintent]

What do you call a protest that doesn't inconvenience anyone?

Show

What Protest?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What do you call a protest that doesn't inconvenience anyone?

Show

What Protest?

A protest with enough people is important whether anyone is inconvenienced or not. For example, the women's march.

Inconveniencing people is a tactic for those who don't have numbers--and it's not a good tactic even then because it gets hostility rather than support.

 

[Malintent]

What do you call a protest that doesn't inconvenience anyone?

Show

What Protest?

A protest with enough people is important whether anyone is inconvenienced or not. For example, the women's march.

Inconveniencing people is a tactic for those who don't have numbers--and it's not a good tactic even then because it gets hostility rather than support.

The complete shutting down of the surrounding area of Trump Tower inconvenienced no one???
What if instead of clogging all of Manhattan (and many other cities around the world), there was just a petition circulated that collected millions of signatures? would that have had the same media coverage and impact, in your opinion?