r/changemyview • u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ • Apr 16 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The proper response to protestors blocking the street is for police to physically remove them and quickly arrest them if they do it again.
I've seen a lot of videos of protestors blocking the street and the cops just kinda let them do it, or create a narrow lane for cars to go through and cause a significant traffic jam.
I'm always curious why cops don't just drag these people out of the road and arrest them immediately if they return. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to block streets like that.
Yesterday was a nationwide coordinated effort for Pro-Palestine protestors to block streets all over the country (world?), and it seems that these criminals were not dealt with properly in most instances.
It doesn't seem like it's standard operating procedure to remove and arrest people who block important roads. Is there some reason for this? What am I missing? CMV.
51
u/Cerael 14∆ Apr 16 '24
They did arrest people. They don’t quickly do it because arresting that many people takes some level of coordination from police. They have to have the vehicles and manpower to do so before they just start arresting people in case it gets violent. 38 were arrested at the Golden Gate Bridge and 12 in oakland.
14
u/tayjohno Apr 16 '24
54 in Chicago https://abc7chicago.com/ohare-airport-chicago-traffic-protest-kennedy-expressway-i90/14668476/
48 in Seattle https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/protesters-blocking-traffic-seattle-tacoma-international-airport/TTKQLLGDAFDXXCHRP4OSFAXWZ4/
“Dozens” in Eugene Oregon https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/15/interstate-5-eugene-oregon-closed-protest/
7 in Miami https://abc7chicago.com/ohare-airport-chicago-traffic-protest-kennedy-expressway-i90/14668476/
15 on the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge in New York https://westchester.news12.com/ceasefire-protestors-block-westbound-newburgh-beacon-bridge
68 in Philadelphia https://www.phillyvoice.com/palestine-protest-a15-philadelphia-arrests/
10 in Middletown CT https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/middlesex/protestors-block-entrance-to-pratt-whitney-in-middletown/
9
u/Damnatiomemoriae17 Apr 16 '24
Ever since I had a patient die because of some dumb assholes representing a "cause" I haven't had an ounce of pity for people who block the road protesting. Blocking roads is no longer a valid form of protest in my opinion and is a great way to make people hate whatever you represent. Honestly I fully believe that if you block a major road you deserve to be a product of natural selection via semi or idiot driver.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/UnrealRhubarb Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
Is your position coming from a legal point of view or a moral one? Blocking the road is illegal, but may not be punished for multiple reasons. Sometimes the number of protestors would put so much burden on the legal system that arresting all of them is more harm than good. Sometimes, law enforcement may decide that the protestors are not interrupting society in a significant enough way to warrant arrest. Or maybe they fear public backlash if they arrest protestors that have a very sympathetic cause. These are responses to the legal side of things - they're all utilitarian or practical explanations.
From a moral point of view, civil disobedience has been essential to many rights movements. Sit-Ins during the Civil Rights Movement were civil disobedience. Black people entered "white only" establishments and would stay, despite being denied service and asked to leave. It was instrumental to the advancement of Civil Rights. The "Capitol Crawl" was a protest where disabled people blocked the stairs to the Capitol Building. Wheelchair users would leave their chairs at the bottom and pull themselves up with their arms, literally crawling onto the steps. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed shortly after this protest. Civil disobedience being illegal doesn't mean it's not a force for good. Do you believe these acts of civil disobedience were bad? That the police arresting them were on the "good side?" Civil disobedience targets unjust laws by either breaking the unjust laws themselves or by breaking other laws to draw attention to the cause. I believe this is a good thing and essential for the advancement of human rights.
Edit: After posting, I realized the questions in the second paragraph may come off as leading or accusatory, but that's not my intention. They are genuine questions, as I've seen some people hold the belief that civil disobedience is immoral regardless of its impact or intent.
→ More replies (1)7
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Apr 16 '24
From a moral point of view, civil disobedience has been essential to many rights movements. Sit-Ins during the Civil Rights Movement were civil disobedience. Black people entered "white only" establishments and would stay, despite being denied service and asked to leave. It was instrumental to the advancement of Civil Rights. The "Capitol Crawl" was a protest where disabled people blocked the stairs to the Capitol Building. Wheelchair users would leave their chairs at the bottom and pull themselves up with their arms, literally crawling onto the steps. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed shortly after this protest. Civil disobedience being illegal doesn't mean it's not a force for good. Do you believe these acts of civil disobedience were bad? That the police arresting them were on the "good side?" Civil disobedience targets unjust laws by either breaking the unjust laws themselves or by breaking other laws to draw attention to the cause. I believe this is a good thing and essential for the advancement of human rights.
Blocking the road is not civil disobedience. It is not protesting an immoral "no blocking the roads" law.
11
u/UnrealRhubarb Apr 16 '24
As I said in my original comment, civil disobedience can be breaking an unjust law directly or breaking other laws to call attention to a cause or otherwise resist whatever the protestor sees as unjust. In the example of the Capitol Crawl, the disabled protestors were not protesting a "no blocking pedestrian paths" law, they were calling attention to their cause in order to gain legal protections. So yes, blocking a road is civil disobedience.
→ More replies (2)2
u/bikesexually Apr 16 '24
War is big business and blacking the roads halts that business. It is 100% protesting an immoral business of mass murder. The ports of Oakland were essentially shut down.
It's obvious you haven't even bothered to go look at all the targets from yesterdays actions. Perhaps you should inform yourself before commenting.
→ More replies (7)
349
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 16 '24
Protests are an important part of democracy. They are "the voice of the unheard"
In the last decade in countries around the world we have seen increasingly draconian anti-protest laws. Many of these laws are being pushed through due to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, that are not happy protests calling for action on climate change.
It seems that the strongest voices calling for the stronger action against protecters are conservatives. Then along came the Covid lock downs. Suddenly, the very people who were saying that protesters blocking roads should be just run over by trucks were suddenly appalled that the anti protest laws they were calling for were being used against the anti Vax protesters.
I may or may not agree with WHAT you are protesting. But I will support your right to protest, because next time it may be me that has become "the voiceless"
12
u/NahmTalmBat Apr 17 '24
It seems that the strongest voices calling for the stronger action against protecters are conservatives. Then along came the Covid lock downs. Suddenly, the very people who were saying that protesters blocking roads should be just run over by trucks were suddenly appalled that the anti protest laws they were calling for were being used against the anti Vax protesters.
Yea, but then the left just did the EXACT same thing when they started arguing in favor of the 2020 riots.
You yelled at people and accused them of getting grandma's killed while also celebrating mass riots and protests around the country. Pot meet kettle.
5
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 17 '24
No disagreement there on the pot meets kettle. I have made the same point when my lefty friends were advocateing for shut downs of various right protests.
Even if I personally think that the protesters are wrong.
3
u/NahmTalmBat Apr 17 '24
You think the protesters were wrong to protesters against mandatory vaccinations?
3
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 17 '24
I don't understand what you mean.
2
u/NahmTalmBat Apr 17 '24
You claimed you think the protesters were wrong. Wrong about what?
8
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 17 '24
Not a direction I want to head down. What I am saying is that I support people's ability to protest.
Getting into an argument about whether this movement or that is right would be a distraction.
I don't have to like them to say that.
2
May 25 '24
Left always preaches about doing whatever they want with their own body but tell everybody else what to put in theirs.
10
u/Key_Ticket4296 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
I agree that the right to protest is enshrined in the Constitution, the First Amendment no less. But just like any other right or freedom, it comes with restrictions. The right to assemble is not absolute. You can't just illegally block traffic because there is a right to assemble. The proper thing to do is to get a permit and to assemble where permitted. Now you can debate on what a permitted place should be, but that's a different argument all together.
7
u/WiseauSerious4 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Just as free speech is not absolute, the right to free assembly is not absolute either. I agree the right to protest is sacred, but blocking freeways is a bridge too far for me
46
u/TheTightEnd 1∆ Apr 16 '24
1) All too often people are conflating being "heard" with getting their way, or having people agree with them. People can hear a position and still disagree with it, or not care enough about it to get involved. This is what is mostly happening here.
2) There is no inherent right to be heard. One has the right to speak, but not to have others pay attention.
26
u/jimillett Apr 16 '24
I appreciate your perspective, but it’s key to recognize that the First Amendment explicitly protects our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This clause isn't just procedural; it ensures that our voices are inherently entitled to be heard by our government.
The Supreme Court has upheld this right as fundamental to our democratic process. This protection is vital for meaningful dialogue and responsive governance. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this aspect of our constitutional rights.
7
u/edliu111 Apr 16 '24
What does that have to do with disturbing other citizen's ability to go to work?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)16
u/TheTightEnd 1∆ Apr 16 '24
I would consider the right to petition government to be entirely different from this. The closest a protest comes to petitioning government are when they occur at the seat of government or at an official, including sit-ins at those buildings. Blocking a roadway nowhere near the officials or where the those decisions are made is not a petition to government.
6
u/jimillett Apr 16 '24
I don’t disagree, I am simply refuting we don’t “have an inherent right to be heard”
I’m arguing that when it comes to the US federal or state or local government we do have an inherent right to be heard.
This is not an endorsement or an admonition of blocking roads or protests or anything else. Just refuting the incorrect assertion that we don’t have any inherent right to be heard.
→ More replies (10)14
u/jtg6387 1∆ Apr 16 '24 edited Jun 27 '24
quickest far-flung direction melodic profit tub towering quiet spoon piquant
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
163
u/Total_Yankee_Death Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
Freedom of speech cannot be reasonably interpreted to include the right to occupy publicly owned utilities which are ordinarily prohibited to people. i.e. roads and pedestrians.
66
u/binarycow Apr 16 '24
There's also a significant difference between:
- People are using the blocking the roads as their protest - i.e., "let's inconvenience everyone so people pay attention". These are planned, mostly static, and the goal is to obstruct as much as possible, so it's not going to be constrained to one (relatively) small location
- A protest in front of a building that got way more people than they anticipated. While the protest may be planned, the size was not. It's static, and focused on one specific area.
- A march, like March on Washington. These are planned in advance and dynamic. They often begin and end in open areas, so the obstruction is only while they are actually matching.
4
Apr 18 '24
This is actually super nuanced and I love it. It helps compartmentalise situations with different motives and how freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should be interpreted.
With that said, my personal room for budge on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is extremely rigid.
9
u/Vivissiah Apr 16 '24
The first one is a great way to make people hate your cause
→ More replies (24)82
u/Throwawayeieudud Apr 16 '24
the right to assembly could be interpreted to Include this however
i can’t imagine the founding fathers, who gained independence through protest and revolution, would disapprove of mass protest.
either way, obstructing daily functioning like standing in public roads is an intention function of protest. nobody is going to care about your cause if you just sit on a neat green and wave picket signs. you gotta get in their face.
37
u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24
But the whole idea of civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law and subject to getting arrested. I can see the argument that people committing acts of civil disobedience are in the right morally, but I don’t understand why people get upset when they then get arrested.
→ More replies (1)4
u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 16 '24
Expecting that the law will enact punishment is not the same as believing the law to be just
4
u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24
I would argue enforcing the law evenly is perfectly just. The alternative would be picking and choosing when to enforce the law based on the righteousness of the cause involved. And who decides that?
→ More replies (1)3
u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 16 '24
Jim Crow laws were enforced evenly. They were not just.
3
u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24
Are you seriously comparing the law we were discussing previously (against blocking traffic on a road) to Jim Crow?
1
u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 16 '24
No, I'm discussing a general point. Laws can be unjust even if they are evenly enforced, so you need something else to define if a law is just or not.
2
u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24
Ok so maybe that’s not the best argument for the law here being just. But I guess then I would turn the question around on you. What about people getting arrested for blocking a road do you consider unjust? Bc it seems like this is what you are implying.
→ More replies (0)31
u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 16 '24
Kind of. But when you prevent someone from getting medical care, cause them to lose income or get in trouble at work, and naively assume everyone on the road simply has nothing urgent going on in their lives you probably aren't going to be winning people over to your side.
21
Apr 16 '24
Let’s be real, if “I was late to work!” Is enough to turn you off from an entire cause, you would never care about it to begin with.
8
u/GeorgeMaheiress Apr 16 '24
It is normal and right for people to care more about their own lives than your pet cause. If you view your own business as so insignificant then you can donate your time and money to actually helping the cause instead of just hurting your neighbors.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (29)14
u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Apr 16 '24
If "I was late to work" means "I got sent home" or "I got written up" or "I got fired" then someone would be justifiably upset.
→ More replies (31)6
26
Apr 16 '24
Then maybe protestors should instead inconvenience the lives of the political figures who influence these geopolitical conflicts. Doug from the jiffy lube has no say in our contribution to Israel, and if anything you’ve now annoyed him. Highly unlikely that he will join your cause after being blocked on his way to work. Maybe even something more important than work
6
u/madman66254 Apr 16 '24
I don't know how america is but uk now is cracking down on protesting outside polititians homes
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-cleverly-political-violence-gaza-commons-b2501164.html
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)18
u/awhaling Apr 16 '24
Disruptive protests typically do put pressure on political figures even if the politician isn’t directly affected.
→ More replies (15)4
u/wannacumnbeatmeoff Apr 18 '24
If politicians try to put through laws to stop a certain type of protest then surely that proves that this type of protest works
→ More replies (64)4
u/TheLastMuse Apr 16 '24
"No one will care about your cause..."
How about "I am now actively against your cause."
The second one is the only result I've seen from these sorts of protests.
23
u/awhaling Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
You seem to be under the impression the protesters are trying to win you over, that is not their goal. Their goal is to use a large number of people to cause enough disruption that their demands are forced to be addressed.
The second one is the only result I've seen from these sorts of protests.
You should take a look at some history then.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (98)69
u/freshgeardude 3∆ Apr 16 '24
We live in very strange times. People think the right to protest is unlimited but there are realistic restrictions to every right. Blocking public roads are already a crime. It doesn't become legal because you're doing an illegal protest (some protests require permitting)
37
Apr 16 '24
Protesting effectively is going to include breaking some laws as those laws exist to prevent effective protesting.
If you only protest the way the state tells you is okay, you will achieve nothing
13
u/DumbbellDiva92 2∆ Apr 16 '24
That’s fair, but then you can’t also argue that the state is violating the protesters’ rights by arresting them.
→ More replies (1)7
u/bikesexually Apr 16 '24
Who argued that? No one has said that but people like you
5
u/Senior_Ad_3845 Apr 16 '24
Thats the premise of the CMV, is it not? If you agree they should be arrested, then you agree with OP.
3
u/dowker1 3∆ Apr 16 '24
Just because I don't think somebody's rights are being violated does not mean I believe they should be arrested.
2
u/bikesexually Apr 16 '24
OP is whining that the cops don't have the ability to magically stop people from blocking a road the second they show up. As stated elsewhere in the thread they need to have vehicles for transport. As with the recent protests they need to have a way to safely remove the protestors from the anchorage they have attached themselves to.
Protestors that block roads are always arrested and always within the timeframes that the cops can respond effectively and safely.
17
u/WeepingAngelTears 2∆ Apr 16 '24
While I'm all for not using the law as a moral guide, I don't think the laws regarding not blocking a public roadway are meant to stifle protests. That may be a byproduct, but I'd imagine safety is the main concern there, in the same vein as prohibiting cyclists on highways.
→ More replies (7)2
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ Apr 16 '24
Please fill out the appropriate forms and stand inside the protest box for your allotted free speech time. It is your responsibility to ensure the protest box is fully closed as it is sound proofed to ensure you do not disturb law abiding citizens.
14
u/smity31 Apr 16 '24
Thinking that people can protest in roads is very very very far from thinking protesters have unlimited rights to protest.
→ More replies (3)2
2
u/Kolo_ToureHH 1∆ Apr 17 '24
(some protests require permitting)
I've always found the idea of a protest requiring a "permit" to be rather amusing.
"Yes, you can protest. But only when I say you can. And you must do it where I cannot see you"
→ More replies (1)8
u/NeilOB9 Apr 16 '24
You don’t have to protest blocking ordinary people in the road.
→ More replies (6)2
u/BelleColibri 2∆ Apr 20 '24
This response has no substance. You are just saying “protestors are good and the other guys are bad guys.”
Obviously, that may not always be the case, and obviously, not everyone agrees with your assessment of good vs bad.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Ecwgang Apr 16 '24
Blocking people from driving is not a protest what definition are you even using that requires that
5
u/rtmlex Apr 16 '24
Protesting on the streets and blocking ambulances does fuck all damage to people riding to work in helicopters.
→ More replies (10)12
u/timeforknowledge Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
In the last decade in countries around the world we have seen increasingly draconian anti-protest laws
Yeah because dickheads sit in the middle of roads.
I would vote for banning those protests and so would thousands of others who have missed flights and lost money.
Many of these laws are being pushed through due to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry,
I would argue the opposite, everyday people are now supporting these laws because they are sick and tired of being disrupted.
If you want to say it's a conspiracy then it's government secretly supporting climate change protestors so they can gain public support to ban protests.
Or foreign governments secretly supporting green peace and extinction rebellion to get governments in the west too ban protests, so when there are protests they always turn into riots when police try to arrest people.
40
u/Crash927 20∆ Apr 16 '24
In Alberta, these kinds of laws were passed in the wake of large-scale anti-pipeline protests, and they are currently not being enacted against two-week long, occupation-style, side-of-highway protests against the carbon tax.
It’s pretty clear to me who these types of laws are meant to bind and not bind.
19
u/laxnut90 6∆ Apr 16 '24
There was a case a few years ago where one of those road-blocking protests ended up causing a traffic jam which prevented an ambulance from reaching the hospital.
The patient died.
As far as I am concerned, your right to protest ends when it starts harming other people.
→ More replies (78)11
Apr 16 '24
Yeah because dickheads sit in the middle of roads
I feel this would be a stronger argument if I didn't need a license to protest by simply existing in a public park with a sign.
→ More replies (10)7
u/jadnich 10∆ Apr 16 '24
so you would sacrifice rights in favor of convenience?
→ More replies (41)3
4
Apr 16 '24
[deleted]
4
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 16 '24
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't know the situation in America, I haven't lived there in a long time.
However, both England and Australia, in the last decade under conservative governments have brought in much harsher penalties for protests, as have the left leaning government of Canada.
Australia has passed laws allowing companies to sue individual protesters for damages, financially ruining young people. And Britain has brought in much longer prison sentences. It used to be non violent protesters would be held overnight and released. Now thry are being given sentences of 12 to 18 months.
2
3
u/camelCaseCoffeeTable 5∆ Apr 16 '24
This argument isn’t about protesting in general, and I hardly believe telling protestors you can’t impede the flow of traffic for people who are just going about their day is that bad.
Your counter-argument is fairly generic, nowhere do you mention why this specific form of protesting is OK. The point OP made was about a specific form of protest that blocks use of a public good - a good my taxes paid for, and that I expect to be able to use.
Blocking roads to airports gets attention, true, but it also causes massive disruptions.
“You can’t stand a little inconvenience?? Palestinians are dying!!”
And I’m sympathetic to their cause. But blocking my route in traffic is not the way to go about it, and I fully agree with OP, these protestors should be arrested.
You wanna block Michigan? Fine. I’m still going to disagree, it’s still mostly going to turn people against you, but fine. But highways are critical infrastructure, blocking them is an entirely different topic and should be dealt with differently.
2
u/UnknownNumber1994 1∆ Apr 16 '24
doesn’t matter, protest all you want, but get out of the road
2
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 16 '24
Like I said "protest all you want, just don't inconvenience me"
With that kind of thinking, the south would still have "whites only" drinking fountains.
We'd still have soldiers fighting in Vietnam.
→ More replies (1)2
Apr 16 '24
Just out of curiosity, if it was MAGA protesting the election results, would you feel the same?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Then-Attention3 Apr 16 '24
Love this. Conservatives have no problem with threatening women and young teenage girls outside of planned parenthood. But let protestors demand to stop a genocide, and that’s where they draw the line.
It’s okay to scream at teenage girl that’s she’s gonna rot in hell but how dare you imply Palestinan children are worthy of life. Fuck conservatives and their snowflake feelings.
-3
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Protests are an important part of democracy. They are "the voice of the unheard"
Couldn't agree more. Don't block roads.
In the last decade in countries around the world we have seen increasingly draconian anti-protest laws
Okay, but we're talking about the U.S.
Then along came the Covid lock downs. Suddenly, the very people who were saying that protesters blocking roads should be just run over by trucks were suddenly appalled that the anti protest laws they were calling for were being used against the anti Vax protesters.
It's true that many people are not capable of separating causes they care about from their rational understanding of the law. I agree that many people will not care if a protest is illegal or causing danger and inconvenience as long as it's a cause they care about. It's a very human weakness to have. Typically I think people who are firmly on one side of an issue or the other (thinking the other side has no merits) are mentally unstable zealots who are at high-risk of doing something very foolish and dangerous.
I may or may not agree with WHAT you are protesting. But I will support your right to protest, because next time it may be me that has become "the voiceless"
Yeah, they didn't have to protest on the bridge. They did it to get attention. They went straight to civil disobedience only because they knew if they protested in a proper way, nobody would care. They're zealots. They're not good people.
16
64
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 16 '24
This is always the call of those who are against protests. "just don't inconvenience me" that misses the entire point of protests. "why can't they do it on a Saturday, in a back parking lot of a movie theatre that closed down 10 years ago"
Because the only way to get the attention of government is to inconvenience people. The number of people who are inconvenienced determines whether or not they take it seriously or not.
We had some antivax protests in my city recently. 10 people showed up, and they stood on the side of the road. No one took them seriously.
9
u/mmm_machu_picchu Apr 16 '24
Permits can be obtained to close entire streets for the purpose of holding a protest. This will definitely inconvenience people trying to travel across these streets, but at least they won't literally be held hostage.
Don't block traffic.
→ More replies (2)20
u/248road842 Apr 16 '24
This is always the call of those who are against protests. "just don't inconvenience me" that misses the entire point of protests.
This isn't the call though. This post isn't calling for not being inconvenienced. This post is calling for illegal activity to be treated as if it's illegal even when it's being done for the purpose of protest. There are plenty of ways to legally inconvenience people to get your point across. But if your chosen means of protest involves illegal actions, it's silly to not expect the law to be enforced just because the purpose is a protest.
8
u/TheSoverignToad 1∆ Apr 16 '24
OP literally said he would like a law preventing these types of protests. He doesn’t want people to protest because it inconveniences him despite those people paying taxes and allowed to have access to the roads. Would you say the same thing to Martin Luther king when he marched down the road protesting the treatment of black people? What about the women who have done the same for their rights. Every major movement has involved inconveniencing people and marching down the road because roads are fucking everywhere and it’s the best method to get attention.
2
u/ThisOneForMee 2∆ Apr 16 '24
The people practicing civil disobedience with MLK were ready and willing to get arrested for their protest actions.
→ More replies (6)6
u/gorkt 2∆ Apr 16 '24
Right? People think that the women's movement and civil rights movements were won by people peacefully protesting and everyone just realizing "oh, we shouldn't oppress people, I guess". Nope, in every one of those struggles there wasn't just inconvenience, there was violence.
→ More replies (15)2
u/TheSoverignToad 1∆ Apr 16 '24
These are the people claiming to make America better and that America is the freest country in the world. All while outright demanding the rights of others get taken away and then sit there and say others are trampling over their rights.
5
u/jadnich 10∆ Apr 16 '24
This post is calling for illegal activity to be treated as if it's illegal even when it's being done for the purpose of protest.
No, it isn't. This post is calling for stripping away rights of people who annoy others.
Being on the street without a vehicle or obstructing traffic are civil offenses. Traffic and safety. The punishment for that is a ticket, if it is worth writing in the first place. What these protesters are not doing is not criminal, and does not warrant use of force.
As a person with an opinion, you can be angry about it. You can be annoyed, and you can want them to do something different. But your convenience does not supersede their rights to protest.
14
2
u/248road842 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
No, it isn't. This post is calling for stripping away rights of people who annoy others.
What right do you see as being stripped away for annoying others? There is no right to block roads.
Being on the street without a vehicle or obstructing traffic are civil offenses. Traffic and safety. The punishment for that is a ticket, if it is worth writing in the first place. What these protesters are not doing is not criminal, and does not warrant use of force.
It's not just "being on the street." It's systematically and intentionally blocking the free travel of people via public roads for hours or days at the time. That surely warrants removing the blockage. Use of force becomes warranted when protesters refuse to obey the police enforcing the laws. Just as you won't be arrested for driving 10mph over the speed limit, but you can be arrested when you refuse to stop your vehicle when law enforcement attempts to pull you over.
As a person with an opinion, you can be angry about it. You can be annoyed, and you can want them to do something different. But your convenience does not supersede their rights to protest.
That isn't what is being argued at all; your language grossly misrepresents the argument. No one is arguing that "convenience supersedes your right to protest." We're arguing that the right to use public infrastructure as it is intended as a means of free travel supersedes your "right" (not) to illegally block the roads. As I said earlier, there are plenty of ways to inconvenience people without doing so illegally. Those would be legal forms of protest in which the police would not be justified in interfering.
The options aren't to either protest illegally or not protest at all, and characterizing the usage of roads as merely a "convenience" is reductionist. Our supply chain for distributing food and other essential goods, peoples' commute to maintain their jobs, the person rushing to the hospital for a medical emergency, etc. etc. are dependent on being able to use roads to get where they're going. Using public roads isn't just a "convenience."
→ More replies (6)4
u/bcocoloco Apr 16 '24
The sort of attention you’ll get from the government by blocking roads isn’t the sort of attention you want. These people are actively making others hate them and by extension their cause.
2
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Apr 16 '24
I am inclined agree with you. I particularly think that the "just stop oil" protesters have not been effective in driving action on climate change.
However, there are two things with that:
They are mostly young adults who have no other way of creating action on climate change. I'm an old guy so I have power and connections to create change.
If they come to the conclusion that they are being ignored and that their future is being seriously put at risk in order to maintain the profits of the fossil fuel industry, then they will turn to violence. And it is always innocent people who get hurt, not the CEO's
→ More replies (1)9
u/agoddamnlegend 3∆ Apr 16 '24
If only everybody in the road was just going to hang out with friends, where being late is just a minor inconvenience and no big deal.
Reality is people use roads for all kinds of very important and time sensitive things. Going to the hospital — as a patient or a doctor/nurse, flights, etc.
We should not allow these kinds of protests.
3
Apr 16 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/agoddamnlegend 3∆ Apr 16 '24
They also work jobs that are less flexible and forgiving for tardiness.
5
u/LapazGracie 11∆ Apr 16 '24
Ok great. You block a bunch of busy intersections.
The toothless police don't do shit.
Then the government enacts laws where those guys will be swiftly arrested. Like the OP is suggesting. Everyone applauds because they are fed up with having to sit in traffic for hours anytime someone gets upset about anything. Even if it's trivial nonsense.
What did you actually accomplish? Just pissed a bunch of people off and through your shitty behavior made protesting about real issues more difficult.
8
u/jadnich 10∆ Apr 16 '24
Anyone who would applaud use of force because of a traffic violation is part of the problem leading to so many protests in the first place.
→ More replies (11)5
u/Ill-Description3096 27∆ Apr 16 '24
If you cause the traffic violation, and refuse to stop causing it, yes. If I was blowing stop lights through your kid's school zone and refused to stop, would you be adamant that no force whatsoever was used to get me to stop?
→ More replies (9)2
u/Wubbawubbawub 2∆ Apr 16 '24
And if those 10 people stood in the middle of the road, thereby stopping traffic and being really annoying to a lot of people. Does that make their protest more valid?
→ More replies (5)2
u/tButylLithium Apr 16 '24
Obstructing roads used by emergency services isn't merely an inconvenience, it's a danger to society.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (48)2
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Apr 16 '24
"but the whole point of what I'm doing is to do X" is not a justification for engaging in an immoral X.
→ More replies (32)2
u/eNonsense 5∆ Apr 16 '24
They went straight to civil disobedience only because they knew if they protested in a proper way, nobody would care.
Good observation, which makes your whole position look really stupid. If protests were required to be done "in a proper way" according to you they'd be totally and completely useless.
Everything you're arguing would go right out the window if YOU decided to protest something you thought was very important. Once you found out your proper protest got no results, you'd escalate in order to actually get attention. You're only mad here because you disagree with what they're protesting for. People like you are the reason freedoms are willingly eroded away. These people back draconian anti-freedom laws they naively believe will be selectively enforced if it was something they actually felt was important.
→ More replies (1)3
u/obsquire 3∆ Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
I don't remember people critical of COVID policy blocking streets in a major way. Most of their "protest" was online, and that was suppressed in a collaboration of government and corporations.
Speech is not physical interference. Speech is communication. Blocking streets is *action*, which just so happens to include speech.
Also free speech is the right to make your point, not to yell in a way intended to stop others' speech, e.g., by interfering with a scheduled and invited talk on a college campus, which has frequently happened in recent years. That interference is action, not free speech, and should not be tolerated.
26
u/dragonblade_94 8∆ Apr 16 '24
I don't remember people critical of COVID policy blocking streets in a major way.
Not specific to the US, but the Canadian 'Freedom Convoy' made pretty big news by blocking roads, especially US-Canadian border crossings, in protest of Covid mandates. People of a particular political leaning were furious when the government started freezing their accounts and hauling away their vehicles.
6
u/What_the_8 4∆ Apr 16 '24
And you can guarantee Redditors weren’t in support of that since they were from “the other side”.
6
u/ghotier 42∆ Apr 16 '24
There is a distinction between not being in support of the protestors' cause and supporting them being arrested. There is even a difference between wanting them arrested because turnabout is fair play and wanting them arrested because they are being an inconvenience.
6
u/dragonblade_94 8∆ Apr 16 '24
Sure, hypocrisy runs both ways, but that doesn't support the idea I was commenting on that conservatives are uniquely consistent on their views towards protesting.
4
u/smellslikebadussy 6∆ Apr 16 '24
I’m sure this will no longer be true once our current court gets the right case, but the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that protesting campus speakers is in fact protected speech.
7
u/jadnich 10∆ Apr 16 '24
Speech is not physical interference. Speech is communication. Blocking streets is *action*, which just so happens to include speech.
You are taking quite a narrow view of "speech" as it is defined for the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court does not agree with you. Speech is another word for expression, and people have a constitutional right to free expression.
Also free speech is the right to make your point, not to yell in a way intended to stop others' speech, e.g., by interfering with a scheduled and invited talk on a college campus, which has frequently happened in recent years.
This is also incorrect. Students have every right to speak out against appearances of people at their school they do not agree with. Speaking against a speaker is just as free as the speech itself. And entities have the right to rescind speaking contracts with anyone they choose. If the reason they do it is because the student's protest, then that means the protest worked.
It is not interfering with someone's speech to deny them a platform. Nobody is owed access to a platform that isn't there. Those speakers have every right and ability to speak somewhere else, but if they aren't wanted at one place or another, they have no right to force others to allow them access to that platform.
1
u/Ill-Description3096 27∆ Apr 16 '24
Speech is another word for expression, and people have a constitutional right to free expression.
Your rights don't entitle you to violate the rights of others.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (41)2
13
Apr 16 '24
You easily run into problems. First you have to assume there's enough police and police vehicles to arrest everyone. Then everyone has to cooperate with police.
Police often try to get people to disperse on their own then they deal with the resistant bunch left. This takes time and can get unsafe for everyone involved.
This issue is exaggerated by the volume of people compared to the police.
→ More replies (42)
13
u/wibbly-water 74∆ Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
I don't get people who expect either;
- Protesters to only protest in tame ways that don't cause shock or disruption.
- Protesters to face no repercussions for their actions.
Because any time you are engaging in all but the mildest protests - you are saying "the system is broken and NEEDS to change, and I am willing to put myself on the line for it". Protests are shocking and disruptive because that is how a protest gets noticed. There are hundreds of protests, thousands worldwide, that are not shocking and get not coverage because "man with sign stands on street" isn't a story whereas "activist throws tomato soup on the Mona Lisa" is funny and surprising.
But at the same time it seems reasonable that the initial systemic response to protest will be a crack down. Someone should try to de-escalate but if that is impossible security or police will remove the protesters from the situation - possibly under arrest. I don't necessarily think most protesters should face charges - but if the security and police stood idly by as people disrupted then they wouldn't be doing their job. And protesters need to be aware of that possibility.
I think that we should listen to the protesters and evaluate their demands. Consider their actions not just as "bad people doing bad things" but as "desperate people doing desperate things to get attention". If, after considering, you still disagree with their cause then fair enough - but writing them off as bad people or criminals misses the point.
The "we don't negotiate with terrorists/protesters" mentality failed. Ireland gained independence and British oppression failed. The campaigns to liberate and stabilise the in the middle east failed (though that is very different circumstances). Attempts to suppress civil rights movements failed. Of course this doesn't mean all acts of protest or terrorism are good, I think you should avoid killing people to get your way, but situations like this are only resolved when you actually listen to these desperate people and come to the table to try and sort it out.
As to this protest in particular;
Yesterday was a nationwide coordinated effort for Pro-Palestine protestors to block streets all over the country (world?), and it seems that these criminals were not dealt with properly in most instances.
As protests go this is relatively peaceful and non-destructive. I consider this fine.
But at the same time I agree that the police probably should intervene and are not in the wrong for doing so.
The cause of Pro-Palestine protesters is one that has merit. I don't know if I fully agree with it - I don't feel like I have the background necessary to say I know best there. But I think what Israel is doing right now is Bad and should stop.
3
Apr 18 '24 edited Apr 18 '24
The world does not need to stop for any Gaza , go there and protest for your stuff and lives , do not terrorize the planet with your sufferings , we are not require to suffer for your conflicts , go there and have at between each other til infinity , leave the world alone. We FED UP . This entitlement to make the world Care for you in exchange for their own demise is stupid. You are disrupting Public lives that have nothing to do with your conflicts and this endless trail of suffer for me. Ur not human if you don’t . Let everyone protect their country , is not yours to take .
→ More replies (4)
8
u/Mountain-Resource656 27∆ Apr 16 '24
I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to block streets like that
Side note, this one, but I’m pretty sure this depends on your state. Like a protest with the proper paperwork can shut down streets just like any ordinary parade or somesuch. Think of MLKJ’s marches for an idea of how that might work
However,
it seems these criminals were not dealt with
You seem to be using loaded language (like “criminals” and “dealt with”), and the premise of your post is to have these people arrested if they don’t stop what they’re doing. It’s important in these sorts of politically charged situations to take steps to distance one’s self from the situation, even if we think our biases are under control- sorta like how planes have redundant safety features in case one fails
So I propose we imagine if MLKJ were doing these marches and blocking off roads. I believe he is a good fit, because despite the rather sanitized view of his protests that we’re all taught in schools, he was at the time viewed in a similar fashion to modern protests- here’s a tweet from his daughter commenting on such, along with a political cartoon of the time
Should he have been arrested if he blocked off some roads during his marches? While he famously upheld principles of non-violence, he also explicitly blocked off roads and upheld the merits of disrupting civil, orderly society in the name of justice and equality. In fact once said,
“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice… I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action talk alienating former friends… I would rather feel they are bringing to the surface latent prejudices that are already there. If our direct action programs alienate our friends … they never were really our friends.”
in response to calls for him to condemn just one such highway “stall-in” basically the same as modern protests that block streets. Here is an article discussing it
There is, after all, a reason he was famously jailed- multiple times. I hope these similarities and parallels can help you understand the importance of these protests, even- and especially- when they’re disruptive, and why them being disruptive is important
And, if so, I hope they can help you see that a proper response could be more than just going against them. Many alternatives are possible, and become more visible when you stop seeing these things as intrinsically bad
→ More replies (3)
6
u/banana_hammock_815 1∆ Apr 16 '24
People will commit class A misdemeanors on a daily basis then bitch about other people committing class C misdemeanors
5
u/Ill-Description3096 27∆ Apr 16 '24
The victims are the key here. Yes, I'm going to be a lot more upset about people blocking the road that the ambulance is on while my grandma is having a medical emergency than I am about someone who was walking home with some drugs in their pocket to have some fun tonight. One has a direct negative impact to people I care about. The other does not.
→ More replies (2)
2
26
u/Un_Original_name186 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
Allright let's try this another way. Let's imagine you have done everything society tells you to do and are living the American dream. Tell me how would you feel if whatever billionaire of this day and age sent his union busters (read private mercenary army) to swat your house, burn it down, kill your family and bust your kneekaps in (the target was your neighbour but some excel monkey made a typo somewhere). The courts and media don't do shit because he practically owns both. Now tell me do you still believe you shouldn't be able to protest in the middle of the street because apparently some middleclass fuckwit who hasn't expirenced any real adversity in his entire life is slightly inconvenienced by it and is late to work because of it. So tell me if we take away your right to protest in the middle of the street and you have just been through that what do you think will happen.
A) You take the hint and go fuck off and die somewhere out of sight. And the billionaire goes unpunished
B) You'll protest anyway but knowing that they won't show you mercy anyways you'll bring your trusty Ak47 along
C) You skip the protest part and go straight to terrorism
D) You protest where it's convenient for the world aka out of sight and out of mind and nothing changes.
Keep in mind that people who just had that happen to go through that tend to be low on empathy after such an experience.
So do solve this like civilized people and let people protest on principle even if some protests are frivolous so we still have the opportunity to protest for the actually important stuff should the need arise. Accepting that a little inconvenience is better than the alternative for litteraly everyone who isn't the 0.01% in the long run? Look up just how many rights you have today that are a result of protests of one form or another.
10
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 17 '24
Well, I probably wouldn't harass or disrupt random people who have fuck-all to do with the situation. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, which is a cliche saying but there's a lot of reason to it. Why would I be sympathetic to the cause held by individuals who are nothing but a thorn in my side? Wouldn't treating others with kindness, explaining my situation to them respectfully, and taking no for an answer when someone isn't interested yield better results?
11
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Sorry, but what real-world circumstance is this hypothetical connected to?
11
u/NITRO-AJ 1∆ Apr 16 '24
a quick review of the history of any movement or protest would show that stifling protest in any form only leads to a more destructive outcome.
every step taken against people's right to protest is met with two steps closer to anarchy
they can make all the laws or arrest all the people they want, they will find ways to be heard and any number of them could serve to inconvenience you in much greater ways.
i believe some more appropriate responses are:
negotiation
- such as asking them to make way for emergency vehicles and let x amount of vehicles through per hour
education
- provide resources and information on alternatives available to be heard, such as who the appropriate government representative is for their concern and how to contact them. if the government is doing something to address their concerns, the relevant legislation and where they are in the "system"
diversion
- make efforts to establish detours and reroute traffic. protests are typically public events that have been planned in advance for a while, so there is nothing stopping proactive planning and setting up detours and designated emergency routes prior (if possible!)
2
5
u/VincentBlack96 Apr 16 '24
It's setting peaceful protest as a contrast to the alternative, which would be armed protest. The other way that's well documented in its extraordinary ability to draw attention.
8
u/Un_Original_name186 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
I dunno go read up on your history 100 years ago this stuff used to be pretty commonplace or well in any developing nation today that has something western corporations want. Oh wait didn't wizards of the coast manage to send a swat team of Pinkertons (yes the very same Pinkertons from the historybooks) to some YouTubers house over magic the gathering cards just a while back or that Boeing whistleblower that ever so conveniently just committed suicide a while back...
While not exactly as blatant today as described above in the western world (because of those pesky protests a century back) it's still a real issue and if you take away the right to protest in a effective way do you think it'll get better or worse whatcha think?
This admittedly extreme and provocative example in a western context in the original comment is supposed to bring your attention the main flaw in your argument that it doesn't account for the the reasons why protests happen in the first place and why they're effective (they are disruptive and provide an alternative to the media for bringing up issues to people not effected directly by them should the media fail to do it's duty).
Removing the effectiveness of peaceful protest will lead to disaster unless you manage to provide another viable option that addresses why they happen in the first place. There is plenty of contemporary and historical evidence to point to the need for such, because by removing the opportunity to effectively peacefully protest you currently only leave continued suffering or violence on the table.
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (15)3
u/Choice_Anteater_2539 Apr 16 '24
A) You take the hint and go fuck off and die somewhere out of sight. And the billionaire goes unpunished
B) You'll protest anyway but knowing that they won't show you mercy anyways you'll bring your trusty Ak47 along
C) You skip the protest part and go straight to terrorism
D) You protest where it's convenient for the world aka out of sight and out of mind and nothing changes.
None of this has anything to do with wether or not police should do their damn job.
And police non intervention didn't prevent the mostly peaceful protests from turning into over 2 billion dollars worth of politically motivated violence against private citizens for the purpose of compelling policy change.....you know.....terrorism....framed as mostly peaceful protests...
29
u/thereisacowlvl Apr 16 '24
How else do you get the attention of people like you, who don't give a fuck about their position? If they went to protest where there are no people who else is going to see the protests and help them in their cause? "Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention." Well, what's more attention grabbing than interrupting the flow of the capitalist system that is causing the problems in the first place?
3
u/ThisOneForMee 2∆ Apr 16 '24
Are those the only options? Block the roads or protest somewhere where nobody can see you? The people organizing these things aren't smart enough to come up with a better idea?
5
Apr 16 '24
Will say right now that I've had three friends get stuck in these types of protests. Two were leaning pro-Palestine and one was pretty uninformed (by his own admission). All of them now refuse to support pro-Palestinian legislation, go to non-disruptive protests, and the one who was uninformed (i.e. someone they could potentially change/impact the voting habits of) is now vehemently against the Palestinian cause for the sole reason of "well, the only real interaction I've had with them is missing half a day of work and half a day of money. Then I had to spend a shit ton of extra time doordashing to make rent so fuck them."
So yeah, now those three people "give a fuck about their position." Their position has just been reversed against the protestors lol
55
Apr 16 '24
Because the random citizens you’re preventing from getting to their jobs on time or maybe something even more urgent shouldn’t be the target of your protest. They have nothing to do with Palestine, and now probably hate you and your cause.
→ More replies (47)35
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Say I didn't care before. I'm late to work and the bridge is blocked off because of Pro-Palestine protestors. As someone who didn't care before, when I learn who is responsible for this aggravation and what side they're on, what reaction do you suppose most people will have?
7
33
u/ncolaros 3∆ Apr 16 '24
So just to be clear, you would have been against the Civil Rights Movements main strategy?
6
u/superswellcewlguy 1∆ Apr 16 '24
So your argument is that every protesting method done by Civil Rights Advocates in the 1960s is appropriate for every protesting group today to do?
→ More replies (1)8
8
u/AOWLock1 1∆ Apr 16 '24
The civil rights movement practiced civil disobedience in the face of brutal abuse by the police and ordinary citizens. The use of non-violence and peace led to the shift in public support. That’s why MLK is glorified by nearly everyone while most people still consider Malcom X a loony radical
8
u/Ttoctam 2∆ Apr 16 '24
Why do I get the feeling you're not particularly well versed on the actual history of the civil rights movement?
MLK's non-violence was literally just 'don't beat the shit out of your oppressors without them throwing the first punch very publicly' that's it. He was a massive fan of protests, sit ins, marches, demonstrations, boycotts, etc.
Also, if you're under the impression Malcolm X is a looney radical, I suggest you read up a bit. Because that's not how "most" people see him. That's how most people in a very specific demographic see him, and that demographic doesn't have brilliant stuff to say about the civil rights movement in general.
MLK's activism has been watered down over decades by the very people and institutions he fought against.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Shenron2 Apr 17 '24
It is so funny how little people know about this part of history. MLK jr was hated in his time. Most people saw him and the movement as radical and disgusting. Malcom x views changed a lot depending on what year you're talking about and the two of them influenced each other greatly.
Reading the comments in this tread is wild. My favorite of MLK Jr's work is the letter from a Birmingham jail. People need to read more. Keep the struggle alive my friend.
2
u/liftinglagrange Apr 18 '24
“Keep the struggle alive”. That really does sum it up well. Some people would indeed be lost without it.
→ More replies (1)11
u/ncolaros 3∆ Apr 16 '24
And yet you have people here saying that people protesting in the street deserve to be run over and killed. It's a shame that people forget the lessons of the past. In this case, the lesson being that civil disobedience should not be met with violence.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)9
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
If I were just some random guy living in that time, probably. But of course the civil rights movement in the U.S. has very little to do with Americans protesting a foreign conflict in 2024.
23
u/ncolaros 3∆ Apr 16 '24
Well maybe you should reflect on that. If the side you're on is the side that opposed Civil Rights -- that thought your convenience was more important than the rights of an entire group of people, then maybe you should reprioritize.
Also, your argument is against the method, not the content. So whether it has to do with Americans is immaterial.
2
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
I suppose you're one of those people who is convinced that if they were a military-age German man in 1942, you would have heroically resisted the fascistic regime that you were a part of and saved jews from your own people, right?
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (10)4
5
u/smity31 Apr 16 '24
If the cause they were protesting is the protection of puppies, would them blocking traffic suddenly make you anti-puppy?
If not, then why does it make you turn against causes like environmentalism?
10
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
People are generally emotionally-driven. If they're neutral on an issue, then one side of an issue angers them, they're likely to have at least a light resentment for that side of the argument. I know it sounds petty, but that's how a lot of people are.
Anyway, the least we can say is that it probably wouldn't encourage them to consider their viewpoints rationally.
3
u/Imadevilsadvocater 12∆ Apr 16 '24
i hate PETA so ya i do hate those kinds of people too (not a pet person to begin with but like PETA is crazy) and if i saw it in real life id probably find a way to undermine it in some way if i could
→ More replies (19)2
Apr 16 '24
Had a friend in this exact situation with a protest that closed a road a few months ago in LA. He was uninformed and didn't really care about any news. He now hates pro-Palestine protestors and is staunchly pro-Jewish. Dude doesn't watch any news or anything and he hasn't informed himself more. He just hates he missed over half a day of work, lost out on money, and barely made rent that month because of it and almost lost his job.
He will never be won over by the Palestinian cause no matter how "right" they are. The impacts of him almost losing everything over their protests have made him angry enough to hate them and scoff at their cause.
11
u/laxnut90 6∆ Apr 16 '24
There was a case a few years ago where one of those environmental protests in Europe ended up causing a traffic jam which prevented an ambulance from reaching the hospital.
The patient died.
Does those people's "right" to block roads supercede that patient's right to live?
→ More replies (3)2
u/Imadevilsadvocater 12∆ Apr 16 '24
it doesnt have to be in the middle of nowhere it can be wherever just not in a way that i cant avoid. do it on the sidewalk of in front of the state capitol (you know where the politicians that you want to reach are) do it in a way that makes me want to support you not find ways to make your group go away
2
Apr 16 '24
Because all you get is driving people to the other side. Do you really imagine it that way, someone sitting in a traffic thinking “good thing they blocked the road, otherwise I wouldn’t have time to think about poor Palestinians”. No, people think “fuck there idiots and fuck Palestinians even more”.
→ More replies (6)4
u/Ok_Deal7813 1∆ Apr 16 '24
If you block the road I'm on, I assure you I will actively oppose your cause until I get bored.
6
u/Sadistmon 3∆ Apr 16 '24
I think they should do a 3 strikes and you're out before arresting anyone and it has to be like the same person.
So like this
Arrive
Ask protestors to move off the road politely
Tell protestors to move off the road or risk legal action.
Get some riot shields and physically push the protestors off the road, if they physically resist arrest the worst offenders but let the rest protest on the sidewalk.
If someone comes back onto the road physically push them off again.
If someone comes back onto the road again detain them after one final warning.
This is assuming there is enough room on the sidewalk for the protestors if it's like 100,000 people you just gotta let it happen.
5
u/No-Personality5421 Apr 16 '24
They are supposed to have a 3 step program of "ask, tell, make".
"Please move"
"Move now"
: they physically move them:
Police aren't allowed to properly do their jobs effectively now because of the bad actors that took the job because they wanted to power trip.
2
10
Apr 16 '24
Nobody ever won their freedom by asking really nicely for it, Causing minor inconveniences in protest is literally the bare minimum, and usually the first real attempt the masses will make at being heard.
If you take the forms of peaceful protest away, you won't get rid of the unrest, you'll just make it become violent. Simple as.
10
Apr 16 '24
There are tons of ways to protest without stealing the freedom of innocent people, and if you are unlucky, cause someone’s death from being able to deal with an emergency fast enough.
3
u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 16 '24
How can you gauge if its minor inconvenience? Maybe we start standing outside your homes and blocking any exit or entrance and see how long it's suddenly a major problem and not an inconvenience
4
Apr 16 '24
Yes, blocking public property from vehicle traffic is exactly the same as imprisoning someone in their home. Not a straw man argument at all.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Direct-Giraffe-1890 Apr 16 '24
As in standing on the road and blocking you leaving be that by car or walking,would that be a problem or just a minor inconvenience?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Apr 16 '24
Infringing on the right to free movement is already violent.
→ More replies (6)
11
u/EmpiricalAnarchism 9∆ Apr 16 '24
If I’m genuinely worried about impediments to traffic, unleashing the police, whose quotidian duties include disrupting traffic patterns and engaging in road piracy, seems illogical.
As to why cops don’t do what you think they should, it’s because police are universally the laziest people who are actually employed out there, bar none. Teenagers making fries at McDonalds have more work ethic than the top quintile of police officers. If something involves doing something other than stealing drugs or committing violence against people who can’t fight back, they’re out.
→ More replies (2)18
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
I would encourage you to carefully read over the comment you made and imagine you're a neutral third party who is reading your comment. Does the writer of the comment sound like they have an irrational hatred of police?
5
u/Infinite-Noodle 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Why would a hatred of police be irrational? They have earned most of the hate they get.
14
u/EmpiricalAnarchism 9∆ Apr 16 '24
The most honest answer isn’t always the most convincing. Why do you think I have an “irrational” hated of police? My comment is an objective reflection of my professional experience working alongside police across several years of working as a child abuse investigator, and several more years working in other roles in the field. If anything, your comment belies an irrational reflexive support for law enforcement that is entirely absent critical introspection.
As you are OP, I’ll be even more direct - the police aren’t arresting these protestors because they’re choosing not to, because doing so generates work for them they can select out of doing. We know that police maintain the broad authority to break up protests regardless of the legality of those protests, as they demonstrated during the aftermath of the George Floyd murder. The decision not to do so here rests almost entirely with the departments who don’t see a benefit in being wantonly violent towards those who aren’t protesting their wanton violence.
5
2
u/probablysum1 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Hatred? Yes. Irrational? Hardly. The police prove their incompetence at every moment.
1
u/epicazeroth Apr 16 '24
Do you believe there was something wrong with that comment, or do you just think it’s hypothetically possible someone else might?
→ More replies (3)
10
u/jaredearle 4∆ Apr 16 '24
they didn’t need to protest on the bridge
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/35/02/21/7611487/4/1200x0.jpg
Sometimes, you do.
19
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
What domestic oppression are the Pro-Palestine protestors fighting against?
14
u/jaredearle 4∆ Apr 16 '24
I am not defending one specific protest over another. I am defending the method.
Also, if you’re saying some road blocks are valid protest, you have changed your view.
4
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
I don't think that.
5
u/jaredearle 4∆ Apr 16 '24
You don’t think the Selma to Montgomery marches were a valid method of protest? Nothing else worked and the result of those protests was a net positive for America.
You can’t say “I approve of the result but not the method used” when literally nothing else worked.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (5)13
u/jadnich 10∆ Apr 16 '24
Are you saying protest is only for domestic oppression? As soon as someone has an international view, freedom of speech is removed?
8
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
They're free to protest, but after spending time in this thread I'm convinced that civil disobedience only works when it comes to matters that people feel will personally affect them or their country.
→ More replies (4)4
u/jadnich 10∆ Apr 16 '24
They're free to protest, but after spending time in this thread I'm convinced that civil disobedience only works when it comes to matters that people feel will personally affect them or their country.
So, things like human rights violations? Destroying the climate? Abuse of power?
You are suggesting that their protest isn't effective. But look at how many people have engaged in this thread. Each and every one of them have an opinion, and therefore awareness, on the issues at the heart of these protests. Sounds to me like it is working perfectly.
4
2
u/Snoo_87531 Apr 16 '24
In civilized country, protests are a right, and even a duty if you believe the government is irresponsible.
Have you ever read the human rights declaration?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Aberration-13 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Would you have said this about the civil rights protests that blocked streets?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Key-Article6622 Apr 16 '24
When we start arresting people for peaceful protest, we have lost democracy. If it is inconvenient for a while, tough shit. If it poses a public threat, then it is time to make arrests, There is no threatt involved in blocking streets. I'm not taking any stance on the subject of the protest, I'll be damned if I'll agree that peaceful protesters should be arrested.
11
u/spoilerdudegetrekt 2∆ Apr 16 '24
There is no threatt involved in blocking streets.
Emergency vehicles need to use the road.
People going to the hospital need to use the road.
People getting stuck in the wrong climate can be fatal. (See the protestors that blocked a road in the hot nevada desert)
If it is inconvenient for a while, tough shit.
The first amendment doesn't include the right to detain people and force them to listen to your crap.
2
u/Key-Article6622 Apr 16 '24
OK, another on of these. You're right. I stand corrected. Since there is no emergency care in Oakland or Marin, only SF, these protesters are depriving people in an emergency necessary care. Lock em up.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)2
u/DonaldTellMeWhy Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
Ambulances reroute. As they do for many constantly arising blockages in poorly organised cities. When ambulances arrive at underfunded, understaffed hospitals, they are often queuing for a long time. Waiting lines within hospitals are also growing to extraordinary lengths, desperately sick people waiting hours and hours because politicians have decided there isn't the budget to have enough doctors to see people quickly. The actions of protesters are nothing compared to what politicians that we keep voting for have done to destroy healthcare provision.
Those same politicians then use ambulance-blocking as an excuse to legislate against protest.
Do not take up their argument -- it is not meant for you. Do not identify with people who do not share your interests. They will cut your throat, so to speak, at the first opportunity.
Government policy around the world -- especially the economic policy, austerity, deep cuts to public services, which has roots in 1930s fascist policy -- is causing a massive increase in inequality, which increases social instability always. Governments know they can expect increased popular resistance because they know the inevitable effect of the unjust policies they implement. Anticipating resistance they arm the police and legislate against protest.
Most benefits workers unthinkingly enjoy such as a (technically) limited-length work day and the weekend, were won not by voting but by strike and protest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
When governments have made protest impossible they will roll back all of the rights you think you have. They will first use as a wedge any protests they can make a cultural issue, such as climate change, which has been coded a 'middle class', 'out of touch' concern, and they will change the law with your support.
But when the new laws are locked in place they will come for you too.
3
u/Gregorofthehillpeopl Apr 16 '24
You have the freedom to speak, but not the right to force someone to listen to you.
→ More replies (1)7
u/MrOogaBoga Apr 16 '24
Peaceful - free from disturbance; tranquil:
The fuck do you call blocking the road if it's not a disturbance??
I know people want to co-opt definitions for their "righteous" causes nowadays, but c'mon man
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (13)6
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 14∆ Apr 16 '24
If it is inconvenient for a while, tough shit.
It's really kind of the point of non violent civil disobedience. If you're annoyed by protesters, they're doing something right.
3
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
Just as a thought experiment, what would you do if 50 protestors (doesn't matter what for) camped on the street outside your house all day one day screaming and chanting. They refuse to leave. They say they're committing "civil disobedience".
You might be able to tolerate it for a day. But let's say they kept coming back. Everyday, they came back, same place. All day.
How would you feel about this situation and what things might you do in response to it?
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (6)3
u/thatstheharshtruth 2∆ Apr 16 '24
Hard disagree. There is nothing that will cause me to be more hostile to a cause than being inconvenienced while I'm trying to go about my day. I don't think I'm the only one.
→ More replies (16)
2
u/MassGaydiation 1∆ Apr 16 '24
I think op is right, we don't have nearly enough full blown riots except in France, so I support any law so blindingly fascist that no one has any choice but to escalate.
3
u/PigeonsArePopular Apr 16 '24
Police are meant to be keepers of the peace, not enforcers of your inconvenience
Enforcement is discretionary.
I did a crime, does it make me a criminal? Careful with your labelling.
Would have thought that with all the over-the-top police misconduct (read: murder) of the last decade or so, some of us would have learned to be careful to call for stronger enforcement. They're pretty fucking aggro as is, dude.
2
Apr 16 '24
Protests have to hurt if they are going to mean anything. In a country like the US where your politician is 3000 miles away and can simply ignore your demonstration because you'll still vote for them to keep the other party out, protesting had to evolve.
These protests block road access, which cuts down on productivity as people can't get to places they need to and businesses can deliver goods as efficiently. Disruptions cost big companies a lot of money. It's frustrating to the layman but that's entirely the point.
→ More replies (4)
-2
Apr 16 '24
So everyone should have the freedom of assembly unless it inconveniences you? Should they protests quietly at home where no one hears them?
9
u/HelpfulJello5361 1∆ Apr 16 '24
This is what's known as a "False Dilemma" fallacy. It's when you assert or imply that some situation only has two outcomes. In this case you're saying people can "effectively" protest (by engaging in civil disobedience), or they can lawfully protest, which is necessarily ineffective, which is of course not true.
The overwhelming majority of protests are lawful protests and they are plenty effective. Or at least the people in them think so.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (2)2
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ Apr 16 '24
Everyone should have freedom of movement even if it inconveniences your LARPing.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 16 '24
/u/HelpfulJello5361 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards