[Unthinking Majority]

No, not always. As AFAIK and I have already pointed out, some people have already been fired for doing so. Other places have made protesting illegal, or have made it so there is no choice.

True but we still have the right to do it and the law/government can't stop you. Employers also have a right to fire people that give their business a bad name when they say things certain people find offensive, but that's another debate.

Blocking traffic is not that big a deal. Jaywalkers do it but we do not run them over or arrest them. So do people who are double parked.

Jaywalkers can be fined, as are people who double-park. Blocking traffic is a more serious crime than those others because it affects a lot more people and takes away the rights of people using the street. Public streets are owned by everyone, one citizen or a group of citizens have no right to control its use any way they choose. They can ask for consent from the representatives of the citizenry (municipal gov) if they want to close it for some purpose, like a parade etc.

Would you be equally ok with a group of alt-right protestors blocking an intersection on your way to work because they want Congress to let Trump to build the wall?

Off topic. You really heed to start a thread where you can write down all,of your thoughts on “rioters”.

It's not off-topic, we're talking about protestors. I don't need your permission to mention topics you don't want people to discuss for ideological reasons. This thread isn't a "safe space" for the far-left.

[Unthinking Majority]

If PoFo were around in the 1960s and 1970s you would have been here posting about how you support MLK but believe that him being thrown in jail was justified because he inconvenienced people by marching on streets.

From this article about the Selma marches: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/ ... 965-437394

"On March 17, Judge Johnson ruled in favor of the demonstrators. “The law is clear,” the judge wrote, “that the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups ... and these rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways.”

If it's legal then it's legal, so i have no problem. I'm not a lawyer, i don't know how these things work.

There's also questions about things like a large group protesting on a public sidewalk. 1 or 2 people protesting is fine, because other people can use the sidewalk, but a large group may block others from using the public sidewalk they have a right access. Sometimes you need a permit or something. Again, I'm not a lawyer. If it's illegal, you can choose to use civil disobedience.

There's also the question of, in a free country, does the perceived degree of righteousness of your cause give you more right to break laws while protesting than if you were protesting an unpopular view? I would think that in a free country of equal rights everyone should have equal access to them, such as the right of free speech, assembly, and protest. The content of said speech shouldn't matter, unless it threatens violence/genocide etc.

[Unthinking Majority]

No that is for the Police, if you are on the road blocking and attacking cars... you should be run over.

Remind me never to step on your lawn!

[KurtFF8]

From this article about the Selma marches: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/ ... 965-437394


If it's legal then it's legal, so i have no problem. I'm not a lawyer, i don't know how these things work.

There's also questions about things like a large group protesting on a public sidewalk. 1 or 2 people protesting is fine, because other people can use the sidewalk, but a large group may block others from using the public sidewalk they have a right access. Sometimes you need a permit or something. Again, I'm not a lawyer. If it's illegal, you can choose to use civil disobedience.

There's also the question of, in a free country, does the perceived degree of righteousness of your cause give you more right to break laws while protesting than if you were protesting an unpopular view? I would think that in a free country of equal rights everyone should have equal access to them, such as the right of free speech, assembly, and protest. The content of said speech shouldn't matter, unless it threatens violence/genocide etc.

What a stupid criteria for supporting protests. Only if it's legal? So you would have been against the protests against segregation because they were breaking laws, or against John Brown because slavery was legal.

i don't know how these things work.

Yes, you make that clear very often when you post here.

[Pants-of-dog]

True but we still have the right to do it and the law/government can't stop you. Employers also have a right to fire people that give their business a bad name when they say things certain people find offensive, but that's another debate.

While you may technically have the right to free speech, if the government or business can exert leverage on you to force you to stop talking, do you really have the right?

Jaywalkers can be fined, as are people who double-park. Blocking traffic is a more serious crime than those others because it affects a lot more people and takes away the rights of people using the street. Public streets are owned by everyone, one citizen or a group of citizens have no right to control its use any way they choose. They can ask for consent from the representatives of the citizenry (municipal gov) if they want to close it for some purpose, like a parade etc.

Yes, I understand this argument. It is similar to the way my government made protest illegal. We technically have the right to protest, but we can not do so on “essential infrastructure”, which can includes streets and sidewalks if the police or the government want to. You can see the similarities between your argument and theirs.

Would you be equally ok with a group of alt-right protestors blocking an intersection on your way to work because they want Congress to let Trump to build the wall?

That would be hilarious. I would actually film that and put that on YouTube. Mostly because I do not live in the US and it would be extremely weird for the local alt-right to care about that.

But to address your point: I would not care that much. For personal reasons, traffic issues are not a problem for me, especially when it comes to my daily commute.

And yes, even if I drove and it was a major inconvenience for me, I would still assume that the local alt right could protest. This way we can counter-protest and whatnot.

[wat0n]

I find it hilarious to see @KurtFF8 or @Pants-of-dog pretending to be liberals in favor of civil rights. If you care so much about them, where are your condemnations when cops or the military shoot protesters to kill in places like Cuba or Venezuela?

[AFAIK]

Whenever an effective protest technique is used the authorities change the law. Occupy protesters camped on sidewalks whilst leaving space for pedestrians so the Mayor changed the law, they wore Guy Fawkes masks so the government enforced a 150 year old law against wearing masks in public, then they were illegally evicted from Zuccotti park and a new law made it illegal to sleep there.

Tony Blair made it illegal to hold any kind of protest within 1 mile of parliament because he felt the gov't shouldn't be made aware of people's grievances.

[maz]

I find it hilarious to see @KurtFF8 or @Pants-of-dog pretending to be liberals in favor of civil rights. If you care so much about them, where are your condemnations when cops or the military shoot protesters to kill in places like Cuba or Venezuela?

Well, obviously they are hypocrites. If some random groups of people on the right were attacking motorists, chasing them or shooting at them as they attempt to escape, throwing molotov cocktails police, executing their political rivals in the street and going on Vice News and bragging about it, posting their political rivals personal information with explicit intent to harm, they'd be on here making threads about how horrible it all was.

[Oxymoron]

Remind me never to step on your lawn!

LOL I just had this debate with a coworker funny. I was saying if you go into someone's property uninvited the owner of the property
should have a right to shoot you. My coworker things I am a sociopath.

[Unthinking Majority]

What a stupid criteria for supporting protests. Only if it's legal? So you would have been against the protests against segregation because they were breaking laws, or against John Brown because slavery was legal.

I didn't say that at all. The point of protest is to protest against laws you don't like. You're mentally retarded.

[KurtFF8]

I find it hilarious to see @KurtFF8 or @Pants-of-dog pretending to be liberals in favor of civil rights. If you care so much about them, where are your condemnations when cops or the military shoot protesters to kill in places like Cuba or Venezuela?

This comment just shows your ignorance about these things. Extrajudicial killing by police is not a widespread issue in a place like Cuba as it is in the United States.

I didn't say that at all. The point of protest is to protest against laws you don't like. You're mentally retarded.

Another temper tantrum in the place of debate. It's ironic that you whine about "reading comprehension" all the time, and then post this which clearly misunderstands what I was saying.

[wat0n]

This comment just shows your ignorance about these things. Extrajudicial killing by police is not a widespread issue in a place like Cuba as it is in the United States.

Interesting to see you didn't mention Venezuela, I wonder why?

And as for Cuba: They are notoriously opaque about their figures, and heavily censor any inconvenient facts. But quite recently, in fact, they had their own George Floyd. And of course they quickly repressed protests.

[KurtFF8]

Interesting to see you didn't mention Venezuela, I wonder why?

And as for Cuba: They are notoriously opaque about their figures, and heavily censor any inconvenient facts. But quite recently, in fact, they had their own George Floyd. And of course they quickly repressed protests.

Venezuela is a much more complicated place right now because there's been an open (and often violent) struggle between the right and the Left. Thus there have been a lot of cases of clashes between police and the violent right wing.

Do you have any legitimate sources about the Cuban case you're talking about?

[wat0n]

Venezuela is a much more complicated place right now because there's been an open (and often violent) struggle between the right and the Left. Thus there have been a lot of cases of clashes between police and the violent right wing.

One can say the same about the US if he feels like it.

Do you have any legitimate sources about the Cuban case you're talking about?

Sure:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba ... SKBN2413R5

A leftist source if you want:

https://www.workersliberty.org/story/20 ... er-protest

[KurtFF8]

Thanks, wasn't aware of this situation.

Either way, the point stands that this is not a common thing in Cuba unlike the United States.