The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society.
I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that.
I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways.
The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.
The "major highways" in my city are routinely shut down for half a day or more for any and all of the following:
- the President is in town, and he and the 200+ vehicles in his entourage want to go from point A to point B
- a funeral for any firefighter or policeman is being held, and the funeral party wants to travel from the cathedral to the cemetery
- a museum wants to move an artwork (a big hunk of stone) from a quarry to their facility, or a space shuttle orbiter from the airport to their facility (I think the orbiter only shut down city streets, not freeways)
- a hockey team won their league championship, and the company that owns the team wants to hold a celebratory parade (one of our basketball teams used to do the same, back when they used to win championships)
- the police department want to hold a staged "counter terrorism" exercise (complete with stunt coordinator, director, and a giant video screen scrolling the credits for the audience of VIPs) in the center of downtown mid-day on a weekday.
Not to mention that emergency vehicles generally only travel a short distance, and so don't bother with the freeways unless the emergency is actually on the freeway.
These all sound like things a permit was applied for, or at least the action was worked out in advance. Similarly, a protest should be able to do the same. But any of these listed actions, if attempting without clearing it with the controlling interests, would be cause for concern in my opinion.
The difference is that if a resource is known to be unavailable for a time, people can plan accordingly.
I believe the I-35 shutdown in Minneapolis a few weeks back was worked out with the police ahead of time. There were state patrol cars behind them as they marched, filling the lanes but basically just keeping them & traffic apart. All very organized.
It should be just as likely as for a parade. If not, that seems like something that should be taken to the courts. Everyone could benefit from some clarity in the law.
This is fine in theory, but it doesn't demonstrate much understanding of the reality.
Protests are time-critical and often ad hoc. Bureaucracies that don't like something have endless opportunities to raise barriers, delay, and deny for trivial reasons. Lawsuits are expensive and slow, especially when opponents, like governments, already have lawyers on salary.
It's implausible to expect a loose group of protesters to file for permits, fail repeatedly at dealing with bureaucracy, fund a lawsuit, spend months or years pushing for it, win, and then keep going back to the judge until meaningful reform is accomplished. Especially when those protesters are upset because they think the government is fundamentally biased against them.
Your offered approach is entirely reasonable, but entirely likely to bias things strongly in favor of the the status quo.
Then maybe an ad-hoc time-critical gathering shouldn't be on freeways in certain locations (sincere, not trying to beg-the-question)? Gathering in a location that presents a danger to themselves seems like the ideal situation where we need to examine it closely and not make blanket statements as to whether it is okay or not.
I'm not really espousing a particular position, just that we should think critically about this and realize that the act of using a freeway for a parade and for protest aren't always all that similar (but they may be, it really depends).
From the point of view of the 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and peaceable assembly, I think they should be treated as equivalent. Both are political speech, and the government must not favor pro-status-quo speech (like a 4th of July parade) over anti-status-quo speech (like a protest march).
Indeed, if they're going to favor one, I'd rather it be the anti-status-quo speech. The US is founded on the notion that we are always seeking a more perfect union. The reason the Great Seal [1] has an unfinished pyramid because we should never think we are done.
I don't disagree with this, it's actually a portion of the point I was trying to make. That is, all other things equal, they should be equivalent. It's the "other things" here which may make the results different, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
For example, consider a parade scheduled from 11 AM to 1 PM on Sunday, known well in advance, and an impromptu protest that really gets way at some random point in the afternoon, most people didn't know about, and causes logistical problems for many people. I value and appreciate the need for both, but I also understand and support the police trying to contain and in some cases disperse (peacefully!) the second. Indeed, the anti-establishment bent the protests often have usually benefits from some police presence, IMO. It's a better story and reaches more ears.
There's the rub, though, isn't it? If the protest is against something that isn't in the public interest (cops killing black people indiscriminately without indictment, let's say) when is the public better served? By powers held over them by an authoritarian state, or by the protest against that state?
Everything in the above paragraph is a slight overstatement. But while there's arguably between 0-1 good times to yell "fire" in a theater (it could be argued that panicking doesn't help the situation), protesting actions by authority isn't quite so black and white.
Just as the exercise of free speech can prove annoying or vexing to a bystander that doesn't agree with that speech, so too can other exercises of more controversial rights, without those rights necessarily being a violation of the Constitution - at least the spirit of it.
Yeah, and that's the main reason I'd support making the obstruction of major roads into a very mild ticketable offense -- the slightly lesser other reasons being that some unfortunate people might lose their job as a result of the traffic jam or that the jam increases the chances of a serious accident.
Weighing the needs of the protesters to be heard vs. the financial needs of lower income workers is a big grey area that I'm totally unresolved on, but obstructing emergency vehicles is pretty cut-and-dried (for me).
"Yeah, and that's the main reason I'd support making the obstruction of major roads into a very mild ticketable offense"
In most (maybe all) major cities in the US (and probably most small cities, too), it is in fact a minor ticketable (and thus arrestable) offense. It is so in Nashville, and this police chief opted to not enforce the law in this case to help insure safety and to respect the right of assembly of the protestors. There are court cases that indicate that even gatherings that disrupt things (whether that's traffic or whatever), even without a permit, may still be protected free speech and assembly. It is a delicate balance that our courts are tasked with upholding.
It's worth noting that the people protesting often spend quite a lot of time discussing who will be affected by the protest and whether there will be undue hardships on people least able to cope with those hardships. It is rare that a social justice oriented protest does not consider, and have plans in place, to try to minimize the negative impact on those populations most at risk.
I've been pretty involved in protests and organizing in my city for the past several years, on the issue of police accountability and many others, and an emergency vehicle (fire truck, ambulance) would simply never have trouble getting through a protest, in my experience (and I've seen marches or rallies clear the way for EMTs).
Inconvenience is a thing that happens sometimes. My city shuts down downtown for a month for SXSW. That inconveniences everyone who doesn't want to participate in SXSW, and does so for literally weeks (not minutes like most protests do), so much so that it can take an extra hour to get some places during SXSW, and yet it doesn't raise the ire of people who get angry at the first sign of delay due to a protest.
In short, the needs of lower income workers on buses, trains, etc. is often discussed and factored into protest action plans.
I would assume the police would move aside cars & people to let the siren screaming vehicles get by. And at least in the USA, there's the "breakdown" lane to drive on the side of any major highway afaik. Now, if you want to debate about citizen's right to assemble vs citizen's right to drive in peace, that's another discussion. And in that discussion do note that in USA "Driving is a privilege, not a right".
The protests went further than just shutting down the freeways, at least in my city. Here they blocked a transit tunnel that moves commuters through downtown, forcing the buses to use crowded surface streets and completely disabling the light rail.
I understand your frustration, but is the light rail & public transportation a right or a privilege? We're getting pedantic here though, so I'm not extending this conversation. I'm just glad the police didn't show up with a tank and throw teargas and rubber bullets at them. That's all. Some compassion & respect was shown towards protestors and the only downside the police had to face was a few frustrated commuters, I'm okay with that. Since it's basically impossible to make everyone happy in this kind of situation, I think annoyed commuters is the lesser evil here.
That's fair. It seems police forces across the US have learned to be less confrontational against protestors, and in general this has been a good thing.
I've expressed this in a sub-optimal manner, but I'm concerned about what I see as an erosion in the degree to which we give police officers discretion about how to do their jobs in the name of what amounts to a political ideology. I'm also concerned about what I see as a mentality of fear and distrust against authority (of all types, not just law enforcement), and the tendency to act on this fear rather than trying to ensure that those who have authority have it for the right reasons.
> In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn't "inflammatory speech" as it's used in Brandenburg (although it may be inflammatory in another sense). So while the case referencing "fire in a crowded theatre" has itself been overturned, that's not the same as saying you can now literally shout fire in a crowded theatre. At the very least, you'd be liable for negligence.
Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.
To clarify further, I could call my landlord a terrorist because he'll come banging on my door if I don't pay him on time. That induces fear, yet I think we can all agree my landlord is not a terrorist for wanting to collect his rent.
"Terrorism" is a laughably flexible term that could be used to fit just about anything given the right wording.
If you have to resort to calling someone a terrorist in order to get me on your side, you've failed to state why I should agree with you without resorting to FUD.
The protestors are using fear (the fear of being attacked by police) to achieve a political goal (somewhat murky but the general gist seems to be to accelerate the depolicing of cities).
> The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state.
My view is it's gone the opposite direction. We've neutered our police forces such that they can't even protect the rights of citizens to go about their business without being impeded by anti-authoritarian protestors, and we've accepted that as a fact of life. If this country didn't have the inertia of having the world's reserve currency and the largest industrial capacity for a crucial ~50-60 year period, nobody would invest in us given our social unrest.
> The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
Yeah, that and the dead children, schoolteachers with their legs blown off, orphans left behind after their parents were shredded or burned to death, etc that results from actual terrorism. That's basically the only difference.
"The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric."
Are you serious? You see no difference between beheading someone and sending out a video of it, and peacefully stopping traffic for a few minutes, other than the way they talk about it? Flying airplanes into buildings, and disrupting a train schedule for a little while by peacefully locking arms, are the same thing to you? Suicide bombers, and a (simulated, and peaceful) "die-in" in a shopping mall, those are morally no different?
That's such an unreasonable, and inflammatory, position to take that I'm genuinely not even sure how to communicate with you.
Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom.
We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.
Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right
What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom.
If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.
>You want to use the road. They want to use the road.
No, I want to use the road, they want to block the road.
It's not magic. As a society we have come together, formed a government, and agreed upon how land should be used. The majority agreed we should tax everyone (essentially) and build roads and sidewalks as a means of navigation. There is even a permitting process to use roads for other purposes, such as parades, legal protests, and road races.
Blocking the road isn't using it, nor is it legal, nor is it relevant to their cause.
The problem I have is that you're making arguments of semantics ('coercion'? Really?). So I'm responding with arguments of semantics.
So, what happens to your argument when a majority of people want the protest? Anyone can claim the silent majority for themselves.
What happens when the person approving the permits refuses to give it out because they don't feel like it? Do you wait the months it takes to take the government to court? What if you have no money? Is everyone just supposed to wait around until the judge supplies a court order?
Ultimately the issue is this: bad shit happens from time to time, and people feel the need to make themselves heard. In a healthy society, they should be allowed to do so. If that sort of action carries on impeding everyone else for a while, then sure, then it's time to say it's gone on too long. But the idea that you should never even be slightly inconvenienced because of someone else's issues is somewhat... inhuman.
I say this as someone whose transport home is a tram that goes right down my city's favoured protest route (it leads to the parliament house). Whenever there's a protest, permitted or not, my ride home gets severely delayed or I have to find alternate transport ($$ taxi). But you know what, that's part of life. Shit happens. And ultimately, most people are protesting in some form or another for an increase in civil liberties, and to be frank, most of the "screw those people for getting in the way" brigade are either ambivalent or oppose the broadening of civil liberties.
I feel like there's something terribly wrong with your viewpoint.
If you want to protest, go stand in front of our government houses, go stand in front of the people whose jobs affect our lives.
As it is, some people like to believe that standing on a highway will change something. What does it accomplish? Do highway blockages win people over or just alienate more people who should be on the side of the protest? I'm sure in some cases, people get annoyed enough that they finally give in to whatever is demanded (see France).
Occupy Wall Street happened in a park, and on already highly congested streets. People were there for so long that it acually made the news, and it stayed on the news for weeks. Just imagine what the protestors could have accomplished if they had a single unifying goal or message!
It seems the only purpose for blocking automobiles is to annoy people until they can't take it anymore. Instead of effecting real change.
> All you have here is an argument of semantics. Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.
I feel like you missed the point. For obvious reasons I'm not allowed to park my car in the middle of the freeway, and that is arguably a Good Thing. Protesters blocking the freeway aren't much different then that. We built roads with the intention of people using them to get from place to place, people seeking to impede other peoples use of roads to accomplish that goal are obviously going against the main intention of the road.
What they're doing is comparable to blocking the doors to a library instead of simply standing outside and protesting, it's just they would get much less sympathy if it was a library. Both still prevent people from using public property for it's intended use by the public.
I'm not missing the point, I just think there are better ways to make it. The road is being used to protest. Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.
The objection is not really that the road is being blocked, but that some group of people care more about their protest than they do about other people's convenience, and that just cannot stand. People should be only allowed to protest if people who wouldn't protest aren't bothered by it.
I don't think this has anything to do with the difference between blocking or using, or 'intended use' -- whatever that philosophical quandary is supposed to mean. This is about efficiency and cost. At what cost should a protest be illegal? "At the inconvenience of a small public" is what I'm hearing.
Addendum: "Intended use" is not a data point. It is not something that an intelligent person can use to make decisions. "Actual use", yes. Things in really are actually used. They are never "intendedly used," and talking about it as such is a moratorium on creativity. Those protesters certainly intended to use the road as a platform for protesting. Are they not voting citizens of their country who also helped pay for those roads? Intent is the least important thing in the world.
> Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.
Except it doesn't, because cars can share the road as long as all the cars keep moving. Of course, if you add too many cars people start to slow down, but that's an issue of the road being to small. This honestly isn't really much of a debatable point because there are lots of freeways that have minimum speed limits, meaning that if a car is blocking the road by going to slow (or stopped), it's breaking the speed limit and thus breaking the law, only for the reason of going to slow. Thus, it is illegal to block the road in such a way. The only times that it would be legal is if it you applied for a permit (Which they didn't do here).
Again, we come back to the library example. Is it legal for people to stand and block others from entering a library? Yes they're legally allowed to stand in-front of the library doors, but at what point does it infringe on the rights of others to use the library and become illegal?
The entire thing reminds me of this quote:
> "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
> Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.
Uh, no. You still seem to be missing the point.
Roads are designed for cars to be moving, and in some cases, foot traffic is explicitly prohibited except under specific circumstances (like highways). People are legitimately in danger if you have a posted speed limit of 60MPH or 100KPH, and you have a car simply stopped in the road. Or in this case, a crowd of people on foot.
>Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.
Huh? I suppose one could say, bathing, singing, peeing, blocking, using, and jazz hands are not mutually exclusive categories of human behavior.
All these people need is a tub full of water in the middle of the highway and they can do all those things at the very same time. So then, what the fuck is your point?
Because my point is that jazz hands are for Broadway, bathing is for your tub, peeing is for your toilet, and driving is for the road. Why would you argue with that?
The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it.
Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument.
The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
I should think that the difference between blocking traffic for a short period of time and terrorism is death and suffering. I would say the only similarity between the two is that they both seek to advance political agendas. This is like saying the only difference between a filibuster and terrorism is rhetoric.
so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run?
Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.
The fact that being late one day can get you fired speaks to the state of labor rights in the US.
Think of all of the things that could make you late. Protests, sure, but a broken down car, a car accident (yours or somebody else). Hell, if the President comes around they shut down a bunch of lanes of traffic.
So, to use the examples you're replying to here, do you also believed that organized labor doesn't have the right to strike if it might make you late to work, and that the NYT isn't allowed to run an article outing you as a major criminal if that might cause you to be terminateD?
I'm sorry, but whether or not you're inconvenienced is of absolutely no consequence and should have no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people to protest.
If a bit of a delay on the roads is all you've got to complain about, you've got it pretty damn good.
This isn't about blocking roads or stopping transit. Its about being heard. Unfortunately it takes more than a sternly worded letter to voice their frustration and outrage, and here you are trying to take one of their few remaining outlets away from them.
Upvoted, but your comment sounds a bit self centered.
"Anybody who enjoys social freedom because others have toiled, and some are still toiling, for it should give up his freedom when the state needs it."
You enjoy many benefits because the "citizens" you speak of contribute to the state and make it so you live there happily and safely. Now when these people, together as citizens, feel like their "social contract" is being abused, they have a right, through the government, to put an immediate and sharp hold on your freedom to have the matter resolved.
Now in this case, if the police did not act, you can consider it as an approval. If you disagree with this method, you also have the right to protest in the same manner.
Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.
I place "The World According To Monsanto" in the same league as "Zeitgeist" and "Loose Change". Great if you want affirmation of your worldview, pretty underwhelming if you're interested in facts.
I'll take my facts from doctors, university professors, whistleblowers and affected families over corporate mouthpieces any day, thank you very much. Experts interviewed include:
- Robert Bellé, Ph.D., French National Center for Scientific Research
- Dan Glickman, US Secretary of Agriculture, 1995-2000
- John Hoffman, Vice President of the American Soybean Association
- Richard Burroughs, D.V.M, FDA Veterinarian, 1979-1989
- James Maryanski, Ph.D., Biotechnology Coordinator at the FDA, 1985-2006
- Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Staff Scientist of the Consumers Union
- Samuel Epstein, Ph.D., President of the Cancer Prevention Coalition
The first GM crop to be licensed for human consumption in the US was the Flavr Savr tomato, which contained a trait that improved their shelf life and appearance. It was a commercial flop and taken off the shelves after a few years on the market.
> * GMOs tend to promote monoculture and pesticide use.
That's true for industrialized agriculture in general and not specific to GMOs. Growing GMOs doesn't promote monoculture or pesticide use any more than growing conventional crops do. In fact the same farmers that grow GMOs often grow conventional crops at the same time, or switch from year to year, with very little change in their practices.
> * Studies have shown that the same developments that make GMOs more insect resistant can also make them more difficult to digest.
> * When it comes to animals, GMOs tend to have much poorer quality of life and tend to be completely incapable of surviving without constant support (chickens who can't stand on their own, cows who can't go more than 48 hours without milking, etc).
I am not aware of any GM livestock in use. Monsanto, the bogeyman of anti-GMO activists, does not research or produce GM animals. AFAIK the only GM animals on the market are things like glowing goldfish.
> * GMOs almost never focus on the true value of a food item, but rather the sell value. A food that looks nutritious is more valuable than one that actually is and GMOs make it easier to create that false association (deep red tomatos that taste like wall paper glue, etc).
Again this is a broader symptom of industrialized food production and is not related to GMOs. Yes, there are GM traits that are meant to do what you expect (e.g. the Flavr Savr tomato which was a commercial flop, and the Arctic Apple which is just recently rolling out) but this is a trend that goes back decades.
Funding for GMO seed development is a hard problem, so the only people really doing it are the monsantos of the world. Which pretty much guarantees that the product is going to be fubar. You can bet that industrial seed research, if it were subjected to any rigorous safety standards, would go much the same way as industrial drug design, with all of the falsified studies you care to count. As it is, it's easier to ban the practice than trust the big producers.
The Open Source Seed Initiative is doing some really cool work to change this, and sits at an interesting place in the GMO debate. But barring a huge amount of institutional and policy support, I'm sticking on the side of banning GMO's.
> Funding for GMO seed development is a hard problem, so the only people really doing it are the monsantos of the world.
This is emphatically not true, unless you mean it in the trivial sense (where "monsantos" are "any companies funding GMO seed development".)
Its not quite as inaccurate as saying the microsofts of the world are the only people really funding software development, but its the same kind of inaccurate.
Propaganda works both ways, and Sourcewatch has a massive blind spot when it comes to anti-corporate propaganda. Their page on Monsanto is full of uncritically repeated propaganda from the likes of Vandana Shiva.
Very cool. Years back I attempted to write a web app in Python to chat with MegaHAL, and though I managed to get something working, I was in way over my head at the time and the app had too many bugs to release to the public.
