Protests

[laughing dog]

Why do you dismiss it? Do people not have the right to go about their business without being detained by extremists?

"Right"? - no. Really, inconveniencing someone ought not be considered a felony.

BTW, why do you always post pictures of allegedly black protesters (who may simply be opportunists not protests) committing acts of violence or property damage when there are plenty of instances of white people doing the same? Hmmm.

 

[fast]

don’t ridicule those of us that object as being against free speech when the free speech aspect of the protest isn’t what’s being objected to.

You have not yet explained the point of expressing disagreement. After all, it requires thought and effort, and does expose one to possible repercussions.

If expressing disagreement is solely cathartic, one can achieve that by muttering under one's breath.

Principle. Pride. Public shame. Suppose I want my voice heard, and suppose I want it on public record that I, fast, stood up, voiced my dissenting opinion, and mark it as my country granted right to protest against a cities intention to implement a strategy that turns a blind eye to certain low key victimless crimes in order to alleviate the burdens enforcing such laws have on both the people and the system.

Let’s not forget that there is a distinction between openly expressing a dissenting viewpoint (X) and the reasons for doing so (Y). You commingle them as if I’m not really protesting unless I’m actively engaging in trying to bring about change for everything I speak out against?

Speaking under my breath may have a psychological impact, but no, a closet disagreement in a closed door room of one isn’t an actual protest. One needs to speak up! And once one has, one has protested. To ask to what end is fine and dandy, but the answer bears out what? That I haven’t protested unless I sought to bring change? Commingle, commingle, I feel the tingle.

The right to free speech isn’t merely a right to protest. You might question the point of having the right if all I will say accords with a ruler or king, but suppose I agree in sarcasm. A true right to free speech gives us a freedom that is felt deep down in knowing that even if what I should say may happen to offend others, I’m protected from legal reprisal no matter how disgusting the message might happen to be.

To protest in its barest form is to speak out against, and the ludicrousy that I’m pointing out is the conflation of the whole picture with the part that matters. Again, a person that is walking and trespassing is (yes, I agree) a person that is walking, but (but) it’s blindingly ignorant to think that such a person being charged is being done so because he was walking.

 

[laughing dog]

To protest in its barest form is to speak out against

Which means one want something changed, otherwise one is simply speaking to hear one's voice.

 

[fast]

To protest in its barest form is to speak out against

Which means one want something changed, otherwise one is simply speaking to hear one's voice.

A silent objection isn’t a protest. A verbal one is. Either way, wanting a cookie and daring to reach into the cookie jar to get it aren’t the same.

 

[laughing dog]

To protest in its barest form is to speak out against

Which means one want something changed, otherwise one is simply speaking to hear one's voice.

A silent objection isn’t a protest. A verbal one is.

You keep avoiding the underlying question - why bother to openly protest? You admit it is not for catharsis. But you still have not answered what is the motivation to expend the effort and expose oneself to condemnation or other actions by openly protesting.

Either way, wanting a cookie and daring to reach into the cookie jar to get it aren’t the same.

Daring to reach into the cookie jar is pretty much wanting a cookie.

 

[Mumbles]

The point of a protest is to be inconvenient and annoying, so it can't be ignored.

Which is why they often commit crimes to be as inconvenient, annoying and disruptive as possible. Things like blocking traffic (especially on Interstate Highways) or train stations, and going all the way to full blown rioting, looting, arson and assaults is not an activity protected by "right of people peaceably to assemble".

There is nothing positive about bullshit like this:

This, as I recall, occured when police decided to shut down a transit hub while high school kids were trying to go home, forced the kids traveling through off of their busses, and then shot tear gas and rubber bullets at them for not going home. IOW, a riot instigated by pointless police violence.

As for "protesting", it depends on the type. Some are organized, such as walkouts to protest poor conditions at a particular location, rallies at central places like the National Mall or other major parks, organized letter campaigns, or marches. Some are spontaneous, usually when a major event happens or when things have turned almost explosive. And yes, some (though not the above, which was simply a riot) include controlled property destruction or even violence, although these are rare.

Are they effective at first? Almost never. They almost *always* take far more than a single time, whether it was pushing for the 40-hour work week, or to end segregated facilities, or the ongoing push for a higher minimum wage or better policing. The idea that it's wrong, though, is risible.

 

[fast]

Okay, i’ll acquiesce. People have wants and do things in pursuit of their wants. Yay. Now YOUR question is answered.

I’ll make sure to stand with the defense the next time someone shoots a cop protesting police brutality.

 

[Mumbles]

Okay, i’ll acquiesce. People have wants and do things in pursuit of their wants. Yay. Now YOUR question is answered.

I’ll make sure to stand with the defense the next time someone shoots a cop protesting police brutality.

Since pretty much nobody outside of teenagers on Twitter favors such an activity, and protest groups universally stress nonviolent protest against police brutality, you'd be standing alone. But you do you.

 

[fast]

Okay, i’ll acquiesce. People have wants and do things in pursuit of their wants. Yay. Now YOUR question is answered.

I’ll make sure to stand with the defense the next time someone shoots a cop protesting police brutality.

Since pretty much nobody outside of teenagers on Twitter favors such an activity, and protest groups universally stress nonviolent protest against police brutality, you'd be standing alone. But you do you.

I spouted off. I won’t be standing any such place, but these groups you speak of that does this universal stressing, surely (maybe you) might agree that they are not against free speech?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I don't really get it. You're allowed to be annoyed when others protest (it's kind of the point). If you think that people should not protest because it annoys you, then maybe America isn't for you.

aa

Kind of the point

If you are trying to bring about change and can’t do it the right way, there is the tactic of annoying people until you get your way. Fine, but say that. At least with that, there is honesty. Don’t say that all you’re doing is exercising your right to free speech.

Are you sure that's what's happening in reality or is that just your perception of how this is going? People 'just' exercising their free speech write an op-ed or find an appropriate medium and say what they have to say. People 'protesting' something usually know and admit that they are annoying/disturbing others. Again, that is the point. They will say that they are allowed to do this because they have freedom of speech, but I don't know any protestor saying that that's all they are doing.

Yes, you are exercising your right to free speech, but no, it’s not the case that’s all you’re doing. Hell, if you could get your way without exercising your rights, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Talking about free speech is a distraction from what you’re doing (annoying people for a political reason) to what allows you to do it (free speech).

That's still a you problem, not a problem with the protest. As long as they are admitting to protesting, they are also admitting to more than just free speech exercise.

aa

 

[Angry Floof]

 

[fast]

No, that’s not the point. At least it’s not the point of protesting. The point of protesting is to communicate a dissatisfaction; furthermore, one doesn’t have to be annoying or disturbing to do it. Thing is, many people often have no desire to simply communicate their grievances. They could, and they could do that by simply protesting, but it’s not their desire to simply exercise their right to free speech. They want more. They want to exact change. Protesting nor freedom of speech is what fundamentally causes the change they really seek—maybe it’s the annoyance and disturbance, but that’s not entailed by merely protesting. One must protest AND (apparently) be a menace to society who has repeatedly heard the messages.

The freedom to speak does not give one the right to annoy or disturb, no more that than does it give one the right to kill and block traffic. The reason protestors (that annoy and disturb) aren’t fined or locked up isn’t because of the first amendment but because of lax or nonexistent laws regarding being annoyed or disturbed.

People have the right to say what they wish, but there are restrictions. You can’t openly praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster every two minutes in math class. You may not walk through a campground at two in the morning screaming the The Japs Are Coming.

Let me put it another way. The freedom of speech is a necessary condition for annoying people, but it’s not a sufficient condition. Certain annoyances and disturbances that may be forbidden isn’t a violation but an exception to our freedom afforded to us.

 

[laughing dog]

No, that’s not the point. At least it’s not the point of protesting. The point of protesting is to communicate a dissatisfaction

But you said protesting was not cathartic. Communicating a dissatisfaction for the purpose of expressing oneself is simply a cathartic release. The point of PROTESTING is to enact change.

; furthermore, one doesn’t have to be annoying or disturbing to do it.

True. But being annoying or disturbing tends to get the attention of the audience of the protesters.

So, it is possible to dispute or disagree with the mode of protest without objecting to freedom of speech. But when one says things like "The BLM should not protest" instead of "I disagree with the point of the BLM protest", it is reasonable to conclude one is against the BLM's freedom of speech.

 

[Angry Floof]

No, that’s not the point. At least it’s not the point of protesting. The point of protesting is to communicate a dissatisfaction; furthermore, one doesn’t have to be annoying or disturbing to do it. Thing is, many people often have no desire to simply communicate their grievances. They could, and they could do that by simply protesting, but it’s not their desire to simply exercise their right to free speech. They want more. They want to exact change. Protesting nor freedom of speech is what fundamentally causes the change they really seek—maybe it’s the annoyance and disturbance, but that’s not entailed by merely protesting. One must protest AND (apparently) be a menace to society who has repeatedly heard the messages.

The freedom to speak does not give one the right to annoy or disturb, no more that than does it give one the right to kill and block traffic. The reason protestors (that annoy and disturb) aren’t fined or locked up isn’t because of the first amendment but because of lax or nonexistent laws regarding being annoyed or disturbed.

People have the right to say what they wish, but there are restrictions. You can’t openly praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster every two minutes in math class. You may not walk through a campground at two in the morning screaming the The Japs Are Coming.

Let me put it another way. The freedom of speech is a necessary condition for annoying people, but it’s not a sufficient condition. Certain annoyances and disturbances that may be forbidden isn’t a violation but an exception to our freedom afforded to us.

People being quiet and not bothering anyone with their objections to injustice is called maintaining the status quo. People literally risk their lives to protest.

 

[ronburgundy]

Anyone who's against protests is against freedom of speech, simple as that. There's no middle ground.

So by your "logic", if someone shoots you to "protest" gun-control laws, you cannot be against this "protest" without being against free speech.

Now, of course, you will claim that they are going beyond a "protest", but that is the point. There is no clear objective definition of a "protest" other than one that includes any form of action taken to express disapproval of something, which would apply to my scenario above. Any "protest" that entails more than vocalizing a view is going beyond speech and thus going beyond and outside of what being for free-speech entails.

Blocking traffic is beyond speech. Intentionally trying to cause effects that inconvenience others is beyond speech. Thus, being against these actions is irrelevant to whether one is for or against free speech. In fact, some forms of protest, violate the underlying principle of free speech by creating a physical barrier (which includes a barrier of noise) designed to prevent others' speech from being heard by anyone who wants to hear it.

The underlying social principle of free speech is not limited to government restrictions. That is merely the limits of the First Amendment, which is only one limited application of the principle, and those try to equate the two are just being dishonest.
The principle applies to any situation where a person acts to make it impossible for another person to speak or for others to hear the speech, which is defacto the same thing and causes similar long term harm to all social, moral, and political progress.

The claim by many here that protest inherently entails causing an inconvenience to others is bullshit, especially when those inconvenienced have no direct association with what is being protested by are just random bystanders.
There are countless methods of protesting that do not entail such effects.

Any moral and rational person who supports free speech would not be blindly in favor of "protests", but rather in favor of some and against others, depending upon how their methods extend beyond speech to directly cause negative impacts upon other people (including other's speech) and who those other people are (e.g., are they the direct cause of the injustice being protested).

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

Yes... One person's guaranteed freedom ends where it impinges on another person's guaranteed freedom.

 

[PyramidHead]

^ ^ ^

Yes... One person's guaranteed freedom ends where it impinges on another person's guaranteed freedom.

All acts impinge upon the freedom of others to some extent. Holding this principle as sacred has the outcome of making any kind of protest that would actually be effective (such as those undertaken recently in France) seem like aberrant behavior that should be stopped by lovers of freedom. Were human beings to restrict their revolutionary aspirations to those that never impinge upon the freedom of others, then whatever party became the first to establish dominance would remain in power perpetually, as any threat would be neutered by the principle you espouse here.

 

[Angry Floof]

^ ^ ^

Yes... One person's guaranteed freedom ends where it impinges on another person's guaranteed freedom.

All acts impinge upon the freedom of others to some extent. Holding this principle as sacred has the outcome of making any kind of protest that would actually be effective (such as those undertaken recently in France) seem like aberrant behavior that should be stopped by lovers of freedom. Were human beings to restrict their revolutionary aspirations to those that never impinge upon the freedom of others, then whatever party became the first to establish dominance would remain in power perpetually, as any threat would be neutered by the principle you espouse here.

It sounds to me more like ron and bip are describing the issue more as a spectrum with Socrates on one end questioning everything and Athenian aristocracy on the other demanding that no one create waves or disturb the status quo.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

Yes... One person's guaranteed freedom ends where it impinges on another person's guaranteed freedom.

All acts impinge upon the freedom of others to some extent. Holding this principle as sacred has the outcome of making any kind of protest that would actually be effective (such as those undertaken recently in France) seem like aberrant behavior that should be stopped by lovers of freedom. Were human beings to restrict their revolutionary aspirations to those that never impinge upon the freedom of others, then whatever party became the first to establish dominance would remain in power perpetually, as any threat would be neutered by the principle you espouse here.

It sounds to me more like ron and bip are describing the issue more as a spectrum with Socrates on one end questioning everything and Athenian aristocracy on the other demanding that no one create waves or disturb the status quo.

Not at all. You are conflating demonstration and revolution. Both have their place... but are very different things.

 

[ronburgundy]

^ ^ ^

Yes... One person's guaranteed freedom ends where it impinges on another person's guaranteed freedom.

All acts impinge upon the freedom of others to some extent. Holding this principle as sacred has the outcome of making any kind of protest that would actually be effective (such as those undertaken recently in France) seem like aberrant behavior that should be stopped by lovers of freedom. Were human beings to restrict their revolutionary aspirations to those that never impinge upon the freedom of others, then whatever party became the first to establish dominance would remain in power perpetually, as any threat would be neutered by the principle you espouse here.

Not true at all. That principles means that no person or party has any right or "freedom" to rule without consent, or to limit any speech or the exchange of ideas that would prompt the majority to oust that persona or party from any public office, and use their voice of consent to alter existing laws. It is steadfast commitment to this principle that is the only thing that guarantees change in the best interests of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority to retain their basic liberties, even when (as with slavery) the interests of the majority would benefit by infringing on those rights.

Such a principles never eliminates the ability to promote change, only the use of certain methods that are not neccessary and which, while they may force quicker change by use of force and coercion against the liberties of others, will have long term harmful effects upon all forms of progress which depend upon holding basic individual rights, such as speech, association, and movement, as the most sacred principles guiding both moral and legal sanctions.

- - - Updated - - -

^ ^ ^

Yes... One person's guaranteed freedom ends where it impinges on another person's guaranteed freedom.

All acts impinge upon the freedom of others to some extent. Holding this principle as sacred has the outcome of making any kind of protest that would actually be effective (such as those undertaken recently in France) seem like aberrant behavior that should be stopped by lovers of freedom. Were human beings to restrict their revolutionary aspirations to those that never impinge upon the freedom of others, then whatever party became the first to establish dominance would remain in power perpetually, as any threat would be neutered by the principle you espouse here.

It sounds to me more like ron and bip are describing the issue more as a spectrum with Socrates on one end questioning everything and Athenian aristocracy on the other demanding that no one create waves or disturb the status quo.

No, it doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like we actually apply logical reasoning and understand that core principles are integral to all long term positive progressive change to the status quo.