blackjack21 wrote:Generally, it is up to protesters to petition for a permit, identify where they will be, estimate how many people will show up, how many police will be needed to ensure order, etc.
The so-called "peaceful protests" have generally been unlawful assemblies tolerated by the Democratic party establishment, because they seem to have calculated that it will have political benefits for them.
1. Protest organizers have no responsibility to decide the amount of police forces required to ensure order, although they could (and in many cases should) deploy some kind of volunteer order management units themselves, to prevent their own activity from sabotages from all
possible sides, be it more emotionally unstable protesters, anti-protesters who oppose the protests, or
the police who happen to take the matter personally.
2. The peacefulness and lawfulness of assembly are actually independent of each other
. On many occasions, it's the unfairness from the authority or establishment that provoke protests. When the said authority are particularly intolerant to dissent (e.g. China), they often move to declare any
assembly that might make them look bad illegal. It is absurd to imply unlawful assemblies being equal to violence, and it is even more absurd to slander
whatever political group by suggesting they purposefully tolerate or endorse protests just to make the establishment look bad. This really sounds like truth distortion to me.
While the Member posting the quoted text often comments against China, he often sounds pro-establishment or pro-government of his own place
, and often speaks against those who attempt challenge the dark side of the established order (again, at his own place). Unfortunately, such posts often resemble pro
-China propaganda, just with different subjects. I admit that I am slightly angry whenever I see them.