Is free speech under attack?

[Deleted member 37064]

And protests are, by nature, a way to bring attention to an issue people feel strongly about.

So, how do you feel about people protesting Planned Parenthood?

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Because, if a protest is without merit, and causes major issues, those who were doing the protesting should be held liable for damages, delays, etc. It nullifies their cause. Want to protest, stay on the sidewalk, too many people for the sidewalk, fine. Block a side street, there's ways around it. Many times, interstates are impacted for miles due to the backups.

Even if a protest has merit, blocking a major throughway isn't a way to get compassion. Where I live, BLM blocked the interstate many times, and they lost a lot of support and were villified for it. More so when they started throwing bricks at the police attempting to remove them from the interstate.

Who gets to decide if a protest has merit.

I have some strong political beliefs and when i see ppl protesting with the opposite of those beliefs i think their protest is without merit.

Can i remove them lol??

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Protesters will always be vilified by those they are protesting. Frankly, a lot of shit is hitting the fan and we should be out in the streets causing a commotion about it. Look at what South Korea did recently. A massive amount of people turned out to protest their corrupt President, and it worked! Maybe some windows got broken in the process, maybe not, but it got shit done.

People that are fighting for their rights don’t have the luxury of being nice about it. Especially against oppressors that have no issue using violence.

There's more people than just two sides of an issue. There's a number of people who are neutral or indifferent because they don't know enough, or the issue doesn't directly affect them. Yet, they are severely impacted by said protestors. These are the people who go from neutral to negatively viewing the protestors.

 

[dilligaf0]

So, how do you feel about people protesting Planned Parenthood?

That's their right. I may not agree with it but they have the right to protest it. They do not have the right to bomb or shoot people there however. That goes into the criminal violence aspect and exits mere free speech.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

So, how do you feel about people protesting Planned Parenthood?

Double post cos this is a great example.

Planned parenthood protests take different forms. The ppl that stand outside offices harassing patients ... are doing more than causing an inconvenience they are harassing private individuals.

When i was a little girl, my mother took me to anti abortion protests in nz. What i remember were silent vigils outside clinics, and marches that blocked traffic. Those..while i may disagree with the opinions being expressed.. i cant see any issue with.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Who gets to decide if a protest has merit.

I have some strong political beliefs and when i see ppl protesting with the opposite of those beliefs i think their protest is without merit.

Can i remove them lol??

Just like everything else, court of public opinion. But, to be more serious, if we're talking about basic human rights violations. Then, yes, those are are valid concerns. But, again, there's a right and a wrong way to protest. There's a way to gain public support, and grow it. There's also a way to severely lose it, and invalidate the cause.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

That's their right. I may not agree with it but they have the right to protest it. They do not have the right to bomb or shoot people there however. That goes into the criminal violence aspect and exits mere free speech.

I'm not talking violence, and is why I brought up the issue in a previous post. I am strictly talking about people standing on the sidewalk protesting. I do not agree with them harrassing people however.

 

[JoleneBrody]

There's a difference between sitting on the bus, blocking a sidewalk and blocking an entire interstate. World of difference.

what is it?

 

[dilligaf0]

Even if a protest has merit, blocking a major throughway isn't a way to get compassion. Where I live, BLM blocked the interstate many times, and they lost a lot of support and were villified for it. More so when they started throwing bricks at the police attempting to remove them from the interstate.

Losing support because people were inconvenienced is a possible side-effect of protesting. Throwing objects falls into (as I've stated before) a criminal violence that is illegal.
Nazis screaming obscenities while carrying tiki torches is a protest (although I find their views distasteful). Running over and killing counter protesters is violence and criminal.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Double post cos this is a great example.

Planned parenthood protests take different forms. The ppl that stand outside offices harassing patients ... are doing more than causing an inconvenience they are harassing private individuals.

When i was a little girl, my mother took me to anti abortion protests in nz. What i remember were silent vigils outside clinics, and marches that blocked traffic. Those..while i may disagree with the opinions being expressed.. i cant see any issue with.

Agreed, and this is the reason why I mentioned PP. There's many ways it's protested, and people tend to only think of violence and severely negative ways. As dilli mentioned, bombings, etc. Those are unacceptable.

To me, the "right way" to protest is exactly as you stated: silent vigils, temporarily blockign side streets. I don't care the reasons, but I think many try to take things way too far on public protests and take them immediate to a level of extremism.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Just like everything else, court of public opinion. But, to be more serious, if we're talking about basic human rights violations. Then, yes, those are are valid concerns. But, again, there's a right and a wrong way to protest. There's a way to gain public support, and grow it. There's also a way to severely lose it, and invalidate the cause.

Who decides what the right and wrong way to protest is.

I was brought up in a family with values that glorified hunger strikes, non violent civil disobedience etc.

You are drawing lines in the sand and thats cool but they are your lines...my lines are a little different

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Agreed, and this is the reason why I mentioned PP. There's many ways it's protested, and people tend to only think of violence and severely negative ways. As dilli mentioned, bombings, etc. Those are unacceptable.

To me, the "right way" to protest is exactly as you stated: silent vigils, temporarily blockign side streets. I don't care the reasons, but I think many try to take things way too far on public protests and take them immediate to a level of extremism.

We didnt blovk side streets we blocked molesworth street.

Its the only way to get to our parliament and would have stopped lots of ppl getting to work on time

I remember being taught how to non violently resist arrest at age 12. Lol.of course my mum probably wont agree with the way im using those skills as an adult... but i digress.

I think this subject is really interesting but so much of it comes down to personal perspectives... ultimately theres two ways to protest. Legal protests and illegal protests. Legal ones get permits for marches etc. Illegal ones screw it. Our govts have every right to arrest us for taking those actions but..to be completely honest... the act of being dragged away in a paddy wagon is part of why these actions are popular. They show the strength of your convictions and they get media attention for your cause.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

what is it?

National security? Tongue in cheek, and also dead serious.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

We didnt blovk side streets we blocked molesworth street.

Its the only way to get to our parliament and would have stopped lots of ppl getting to work on time

Is that a multi-lane, major highway with speeds in excess of 50mph and was it done during high peak traffic times? Or, was this a main city street within the city? Based upon the map I'm seeing, it's a major inner city street. Not a highway, expressway, or interstate such as what I'm talking about.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Is that a multi-lane, major highway with speeds in excess of 50mph and was it done during high peak traffic times? Or, was this a main city street within the city? Based upon the map I'm seeing, it's a major inner city street. Not a highway, expressway, or interstate such as what I'm talking about.

Lol this is nz we dont have multi lane major highways ..

Ok thats a lie we do have some now. But... my post wasnt meant to point out that difference..personally i dont see one. If its got a permit, great. If it doesn't..welp arrest me.

 

[dilligaf0]

The anti-war protests (in the 60's and early 70's } were loud and inconvenienced people, but that's what it took to get people's attention. Yes, many did become violent and there were arrests, injuries and it cost much support for the cause. There are always a few people that go to extremes and hurt the cause for personal grudges.
The Kent State University protest was not violent at the time Nixon sent in the National Guard. The Guard shot and killed 4 unarmed protesters. There are always overreactions on both sides of an issue.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Lol this is nz we dont have multi lane major highways ..

Again, major difference between impact. Try shutting down an 8-lane major highway at peak rush hour and see how many people are supportive of your cause.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Again, major difference between impact. Try shutting down an 8-lane major highway at peak rush hour and see how many people are supportive of your cause.

Fair enough.... you could argue it is a poor marketing decision. Lol.

You are protesting right if you are both drawing attention and turning the tide of opinion. Pissing some ppl off may come hand in hand w that.. but theres a balance of course.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Fair enough.... you could argue it is a poor marketing decision. Lol.

Yes, exactly what I mean by "right and wrong way to protest". If you want to gain support for a cause, do it in a way that makes a big statement and draws attention to those you are protesting. But doesn't cause major issues with those not involved. Be considerate of those not involved and don't turn them into casualties of war.

 

[dilligaf0]

Again, major difference between impact. Try shutting down an 8-lane major highway at peak rush hour and see how many people are supportive of your cause.

How many protests that didn't inconvenience anyone have ever been successful?
If the only argument against a cause is that their protesters caused a traffic jam, there is no argument against it.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

What about the people protesting the Kav hearings? They were loud and annoying. No one was violent, but over 200 people got arrested. Was that right? What should they have done differently? Not shown up at all?

There’s the free speech issue. If we the people can’t go to the capital and tell our representatives to their faces that we have a problem with their actions, then we don’t really have free speech, do we? Are we just supposed to call them until they no longer answer? Cause that’s not getting us anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

How many protests that didn't inconvenience anyone have ever been successful?
If the only argument against a cause is that their protesters caused a traffic jam, there is no argument against it.

Every protest will inconvenience someone, true. However, blocking a major interstate/highway in a major metropolitan area has many hidden impacts. Traffic gets backed up for miles, there's a high risk of accidents due to it. Emergency vehicles can't get through, there's patients who have died in ambulances due to some of the blocked interstates due to protests. Backed up traffic causes economic loss, environmental issues, etc.

Let's also not forget the risk to the protestors due to people not seeing them. Now, you've really shut the interstate down and was the cause worth unnecessarily losing a life over?

 

[AmberCutie]

Seems this thread has turned into a debate on the entirety of the 1st amendment rather than just the Free Speech element of it.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

What about the people protesting the Kav hearings? They were loud and annoying. No one was violent, but over 200 people got arrested. Was that right? What should they have done differently? Not shown up at all?

There’s the free speech issue. If we the people can’t go to the capital and tell our representatives to their faces that we have a problem with their actions, then we don’t really have free speech, do we? Are we just supposed to call them until they no longer answer? Cause that’s not getting us anywhere.

I have no issues with people protesting so long as it's non-violent, non-threatening and without harrassment. But, again, as @Miss_Lollipop pointed out, harrassing people is taking it to a different level. That is where I have issues. Same with people harrassing Congressmen/women while they are out to eat.

 

[dilligaf0]

Every protest will inconvenience someone, true. However, blocking a major interstate/highway in a major metropolitan area has many hidden impacts. Traffic gets backed up for miles, there's a high risk of accidents due to it. Emergency vehicles can't get through, there's patients who have died in ambulances due to some of the blocked interstates due to protests. Backed up traffic causes economic loss, environmental issues, etc.

Let's also not forget the risk to the protestors due to people not seeing them. Now, you've really shut the interstate down and was the cause worth unnecessarily losing a life over?

Those same inconveniences were caused by "bridgegate" in New Jersey from a political stunt. Differences?

 

[dilligaf0]

Seems this thread has turned into a debate on the entirety of the 1st amendment rather than just the Free Speech element of it.

If you read the OP's later comments, she said her post was more about violations of anti-trust laws. Therefore she misrepresented her own subject matter.

 

[JickyJuly]

Because, if a protest is without merit, and causes major issues, those who were doing the protesting should be held liable for damages, delays, etc. It nullifies their cause. Want to protest, stay on the sidewalk, too many people for the sidewalk, fine. Block a side street, there's ways around it. Many times, interstates are impacted for miles due to the backups.

Even if a protest has merit, blocking a major throughway isn't a way to get compassion. Where I live, BLM blocked the interstate many times, and they lost a lot of support and were villified for it. More so when they started throwing bricks at the police attempting to remove them from the interstate.

I'm not specifically talking about blocking highways, just saying that protesters will weigh out what they're protesting against with what they're willing to do for it. IIf someone is willing to throw themselves into traffic for a cause, we should talk about why... not how much they've bungled up traffic. Not every protest is about something that makes sense, but if a large group of people is willing to risk death or arrest, chances are good they have something we should hear and understand. It doesn't make sense to stand at the sideline and rate their protesting form. If it becomes actually violent, of course, that's worth noting. But, there's a lot of gray area once peaceful protests start being treated as violent before they are too.

As far as planned parenthood goes, I think those protesters are uninformed, entitled, selfish, misogynist and classist. But, I won't try to repaint them as violent. They do often spill onto the street as well though.

 

[dilligaf0]

I have no issues with people protesting so long as it's non-violent, non-threatening and without harrassment. But, again, as @Miss_Lollipop pointed out, harrassing people is taking it to a different level. That is where I have issues. Same with people harrassing Congressmen/women while they are out to eat.

You have a point.
Please do not venture into the rhetoric of dinner vs. pipe-bombs that has become popular. That should be a whole other thread if it's argued.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Those same inconveniences were caused by "bridgegate" in New Jersey from a political stunt. Differences?

I had to look that up, as was not familiar with it. I think that's BS as well and those responsible for it should be held liable same as I stated for protesters.

 

[AmberCutie]

If you read the OP's later comments, she said her post was more about violations of anti-trust laws. Therefore she misrepresented her own subject matter.

Yeah I'd say that is even farther from the original subject matter if Free Speech was the intended topic (which, it's in the title so...).