This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Mickey_Rat15 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:37 amIf that still does not satisfy, think about the implications of there being no right to travel and go about your business, and do you really want to live under a state that does not recognize and protect such a right?
It's still not sufficient. There are plenty of places I cannot go, but I still have a free ability to travel. Your right to travel is not abridged by not being able to travel here and at this time, which is what a public protest blocking a street does. And that right to protest is absolutely and explicitly enumerated. You can go around without losing anything but some time, but they can't stop demanding the government redress a wrong or a corporation resolve a labor dispute without losing something much more dear. That space which you wish to use for a general purpose is currently utilized by people exercising a crucial civic purpose. You speak of implications, but are ignoring or dismissing how imperative this one is.
As always, if you really want to stop a protest, perhaps join their voices in making change happen instead of wishing you had more tools to silence them. Usually people stop protesting once they achieve their goals.
Deledrius wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:21 pm
As always, if you really want to stop a protest, perhaps join their voices in making change happen instead of wishing you had more tools to silence them. Usually people stop protesting once they achieve their goals.
What if you completely disagree with their goals and find them to be obnoxious, an attack on something you hold dear perhaps?
Mickey_Rat15 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:37 amIf that still does not satisfy, think about the implications of there being no right to travel and go about your business, and do you really want to live under a state that does not recognize and protect such a right?
It's still not sufficient. There are plenty of places I cannot go, but I still have a free ability to travel. Your right to travel is not abridged by not being able to travel here and at this time, which is what a public protest blocking a street does. And that right to protest is absolutely and explicitly enumerated. You can go around without losing anything but some time, but they can't stop demanding the government redress a wrong or a corporation resolve a labor dispute without losing something much more dear. That space which you wish to use for a general purpose is currently utilized by people exercising a crucial civic purpose. You speak of implications, but are ignoring or dismissing how imperative this one is.
As always, if you really want to stop a protest, perhaps join their voices in making change happen instead of wishing you had more tools to silence them. Usually people stop protesting once they achieve their goals.
There is right to free speech, there is a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Neither of those require a right to commandeer public roads with the express purpose of halting traffic in order to be exercised. There is a right to peaceably assemble, but preventing people from going about their business is inherently not a peaceable act, and therefore not a protected right.
You are violating my rights if you have no authority to block a right of way and are committing a crime in doing so. In particular, those protests that blocked interstates and limited access highways, the vehicles that get caught up in them cannot "go around", they are trapped.
Your rationalizations are nonsensical and your last paragraph is incredible presumption and hubris.
A managed democracy is a wonderful thing... for the managers... and its greatest strength is a 'free press' when 'free' is defined as 'responsible' and the managers define what is 'irresponsible'.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
A bunch of college kids protested rising tuition in my town by chaining themselves to stone filled trashcans blocking the highway intersection that leads into town.
Deledrius wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:21 pm
As always, if you really want to stop a protest, perhaps join their voices in making change happen instead of wishing you had more tools to silence them. Usually people stop protesting once they achieve their goals.
What if you completely disagree with their goals and find them to be obnoxious, an attack on something you hold dear perhaps?
Then counter-protest or call your congress members asking them to oppose whatever measures the protestors are pushing for.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Mickey_Rat15 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:37 amIf that still does not satisfy, think about the implications of there being no right to travel and go about your business, and do you really want to live under a state that does not recognize and protect such a right?
It's still not sufficient. There are plenty of places I cannot go, but I still have a free ability to travel. Your right to travel is not abridged by not being able to travel here and at this time, which is what a public protest blocking a street does. And that right to protest is absolutely and explicitly enumerated. You can go around without losing anything but some time, but they can't stop demanding the government redress a wrong or a corporation resolve a labor dispute without losing something much more dear. That space which you wish to use for a general purpose is currently utilized by people exercising a crucial civic purpose. You speak of implications, but are ignoring or dismissing how imperative this one is.
As always, if you really want to stop a protest, perhaps join their voices in making change happen instead of wishing you had more tools to silence them. Usually people stop protesting once they achieve their goals.
There is right to free speech, there is a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Neither of those require a right to commandeer public roads with the express purpose of halting traffic in order to be exercised. There is a right to peaceably assemble, but preventing people from going about their business is inherently not a peaceable act, and therefore not a protected right.
It's a non-violent protest. You have certain rights, enshrined in the constitution. The right to not be inconvenienced is not one of them.
If you want to argue that, morally speaking, you should be allowed to drive where you want without traffic obstructions, that's another matter. But constitutionally speaking, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:48 pm
A bunch of college kids protested rising tuition in my town by chaining themselves to stone filled trashcans blocking the highway intersection that leads into town.
Good for them.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:48 pm
A bunch of college kids protested rising tuition in my town by chaining themselves to stone filled trashcans blocking the highway intersection that leads into town.
Good for them.
Well I mean people didn't really like it. It's pretty low hanging fruit I know but I didn't think you'd be out for it.
Mickey_Rat15 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:37 amIf that still does not satisfy, think about the implications of there being no right to travel and go about your business, and do you really want to live under a state that does not recognize and protect such a right?
It's still not sufficient. There are plenty of places I cannot go, but I still have a free ability to travel. Your right to travel is not abridged by not being able to travel here and at this time, which is what a public protest blocking a street does. And that right to protest is absolutely and explicitly enumerated. You can go around without losing anything but some time, but they can't stop demanding the government redress a wrong or a corporation resolve a labor dispute without losing something much more dear. That space which you wish to use for a general purpose is currently utilized by people exercising a crucial civic purpose. You speak of implications, but are ignoring or dismissing how imperative this one is.
As always, if you really want to stop a protest, perhaps join their voices in making change happen instead of wishing you had more tools to silence them. Usually people stop protesting once they achieve their goals.
There is right to free speech, there is a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Neither of those require a right to commandeer public roads with the express purpose of halting traffic in order to be exercised. There is a right to peaceably assemble, but preventing people from going about their business is inherently not a peaceable act, and therefore not a protected right.
It's a non-violent protest. You have certain rights, enshrined in the constitution. The right to not be inconvenienced is not one of them.
If you want to argue that, morally speaking, you should be allowed to drive where you want without traffic obstructions, that's another matter. But constitutionally speaking, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
I am not entirely sure but there might be a law of some sort that prevents people or a person from obstructing traffic. Kinda think you need a permit to close down a street block for a party for example. But like I said I am not sure.
Seeing as cars weren't invented until nearly a century later, blocking car traffic was not something the founding fathers accounted for in the constitution. I mean, there were horses and carriages then but they were a different and much more adaptable mode of travel to around protests since they were smaller and could probably go around them or something.
As far as vehicles going through protesters, I think on high speed interstate highways, it's so unreasonable to expect cars to slow down on really short notice and the protesters are borderline Darwin award stupid for doing so. It's also sadistically stupid to go at ramming speed when driving in a city where you should be going slow enough to see people clearly protesting in a public area, as is their right, and be able to slow the fuck down.
I guess you can make the argument that the protestors disrupting traffic will have a knock on effect that will cause the inalienable rights of others to be violated, but that would be a slippery slope argument.
