Arianna Perez, 19, the flaring of tempers over Trump were a necessary reaction to the inflammatory rhetoric of his campaign. "We could be peaceful and do things different," she said, "but if we did, we wouldn't get our voice heard."
This might not be the right thread for this, but there's a few things about this that needs to be hashed out.
My immediate thought was the voice would be heard, just not necessarily accepted.
The second thought was that it's not that the voice wouldn't be heard, just not as (perhaps) heard by as many.
The third thought is that people really don't have a right to have their voice heard, just that they have a right to free speech. For instance, if you do something illegal and are put in jail, you have the right to speak, but if that message isn't heard, the incarceration isn't a violation of free speech even if making your voice heard from a jail cell makes it difficult to voice your opinion to the masses. We don't have a duty to ensure speech is heard by the masses.
At any rate, the message meant seems more in line with my second thought, yet what was said seems more consistent with my first thought. I wonder why they don't articulate it better. Still, having the message heard even by the masses isn't necessarily going to curb the fuel to the fire, as it's a change that is what's truly sought by those trying to voice their views to the masses.
Strangely, however, it's like protesters are latching on to free speech as what's important to them, but that's as if its supposed to be the basis for doing what they do when doing something illegal, yet since it's truly change sought after, it reminds me of a child screaming louder and louder in a restaurant after not getting what they want: child screams--parent says hush I don't care. Child screams louder--restaurant patrons sing in unison: we don't care either.
So, escalating the target audience by illegal means don't necessarily bring about the true change sought after: it just yields more people to retort they don't care.
Thoughts: speak. If enough don't hear, speak louder. If you don't get the change, it's not that they don't hear: it's just they aren't listening--hearing but not choosing to effect the change.
I think people can get their voice heard by the masses without resorting to illegal means, but if bringing change is the true goal, it seems deceitful to argue that's the only way to get their voices heard. It's more like extortion: either give me the change I want or I'll do things to make you remember me by. What's deceitful is the idea that they must do what they're doing to be heard, and the deceit is hidden in the fact they will be heard by more if engaging in illegal acts. Yes, they will, but they can just as easily be heard by the masses without resorting to illegal acts, yet they do, and that's because that's more likely to yield what they really want, which is change, so although illegal acts may produce a greater audience, that's a ruse, despite its truth; hence the difference between truth and truthfulness.
It's like low-level terrorism in a way.
