Oklahoma decriminalizes vehicular homocide

[McAvoy]

Highways I definitely agree. That is incredibly dangerous for not only the driver but the protestors. That alone should be banned for public safety.

City streets for the most part you will be able to see a protest and should be able to slow down and stop. This would be no different than parades.

[Nealithi]

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.

Replying here as to ask you both. Was it good? As in did they raise awareness of their issue and at least begin dialog on the topic?
I ask because it seems like many of the PETA stunts don't really point to the issue but to themselves. So the message is lost.

[Mickey_Rat15]

If 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.

It is not non-violent, it is passive-aggressive under the best of circumstances, and easily going to aggressive violence under the worst.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxuhO14NQMM

You do not have a constitutional right to "inconvienence" people as part of a protest. Shrugging it off as "inconvience" is self-righteous arrogance.

[Riedquat]

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.

Don't know about the USA but "obstructing the highway" (which means any public road) is a criminal offence in the UK. There are bits in it about "willfully" doing so, so you don't get prosecuted for being in a traffic jam or stopping at the lights, and it's possible to apply for exceptions (which sometimes will be granted for protests, as well as more mundane matters like roadworks).

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

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.

Replying here as to ask you both. Was it good? As in did they raise awareness of their issue and at least begin dialog on the topic?
I ask because it seems like many of the PETA stunts don't really point to the issue but to themselves. So the message is lost.

I guess I'd have to hear about whether or not they got results to really confirm that.

Gotta say though, bringing out PETA? Ouch, that one's gonna leave a mark. >.o I'd always hate to be compared to them.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

If 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.

It is not non-violent, it is passive-aggressive under the best of circumstances, and easily going to aggressive violence under the worst.

It is nonviolent, because it doesn't involve killing people, making people bleed, or otherwise inflicting pain or injury on fellow human beings. Also, being passive-aggressive isn't the same as violence, otherwise PTA meetings would end in rounds of arrests.

[Thebestoftherest]

If 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.

It is not non-violent, it is passive-aggressive under the best of circumstances, and easily going to aggressive violence under the worst.

It is nonviolent, because it doesn't involve killing people, making people bleed, or otherwise inflicting pain or injury on fellow human beings. Also, being passive-aggressive isn't the same as violence, otherwise PTA meetings would end in rounds of arrests.

You do know that ambulances used roads, and fire trucks too. If you block roads you might be getting someone killed.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

You know what happens in protests when an ambulence or fire truck comes through? The same thing that happens when EMT workers come into an off-the-streets protest packed so thick that people are climbing into trees for some breathing room.
People move aside to let the emergency workers through.

It's largely just a hypothetical outlier employed to malign protestors who disrupt traffic. Even if some people don't want to let it through, the other protestors will overwhelm them.

[Nealithi]

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.

Replying here as to ask you both. Was it good? As in did they raise awareness of their issue and at least begin dialog on the topic?
I ask because it seems like many of the PETA stunts don't really point to the issue but to themselves. So the message is lost.

I guess I'd have to hear about whether or not they got results to really confirm that.

Gotta say though, bringing out PETA? Ouch, that one's gonna leave a mark. >.o I'd always hate to be compared to them.

Glad it wasn't a comparison to you then.

But yeah PETA is my gold standard for missing the mark on a protest.
The chaining yourself to a weight and blocking a freeway access sounds problematic. You need to be highly visible to prevent being run over by someone trying to exit the freeway at speed. The weight does not sound like it can be gotten out of the way of an emergency vehicle easily. And is likely to be remembered more as an idiot stunt than what the protest was about.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

My friend thinks, half-jokingly, that PETA might be a psyop by the USA's barbeque chefs and meat packers.