USA Bill to make [disruptive] Protesting an "Act of 'Economic' Terrorism"

[Canpinter]

again would people support the KKKs right to block a polling station in a black area if people could still vote an hours drive away?

[Dadwen]

Violence isn't the only way for bystanders to die during peaceful protests. If protesters block an ambulance with a patient who is in critical condition, for example.

Traffic backup themselves are more dangerous all it takes is one driver going to fast or not paying attention to cause a accident, unintentional ones are bad enough we don't need to added backups that can be prevented into the mix.

[Belize]

again would people support the KKKs right to block a polling station in a black area if people could still vote an hours drive away?

I mean, GOP lawmakers are already doing this, so really your point is moot :V

[Dadwen]

Isn't that already illegal? I've no problems with people getting arrested for breaking the law.

I think the issues is some places the powers that be are to scared to uphold it do to PR reasons, I think we could probably get by with better enforcement before thinking about new laws to be honest.

*I would like the penalty upped though.

[Dextroden]

Don't even know what you're talking about tbh. I don't stay up to date on the countless protests that go on every month.

Nonviolent protest of desegregation by blocking schools and buses is aok.

[Canpinter]

I mean, GOP lawmakers are already doing this, so really your point is moot :V

come on give an actual answer yes or no and why

[Dextroden]

You should go protest murder laws by murdering a bunch of people.

Then you should argue in court that you were only exercising your right to protest!

But what part of nonviolently protesting Desegregation by blocking schools is violent?

[Underverse]

by all practical measurements i am restricted tho, protectors in the middle of the highway are not something i can reasonable be expected to anticipate and i can not leave my car or back up on a highway so i am stuck.

Practicality is important to consider for sure. But I don't think rights consider practicality. For example; if someone slashes your tires, that would not be considered a restriction to freedom of movement. That would be considered property damage. If someone stands in your front doorway, refusing to move, that would not be considered restriction to freedom of movement; that would be considered trespassing.

I again assert that, because people in traffic are able to move, the cause of the traffic jam is not restricting the right to freedom of movement. It's making it much harder to get somewhere using their car, often to the point where one might calculate that it's better to just sit in one's car and wait.

I want to add that I think there are large costs incurred by people who block traffic, but I don't think that these kinds of behaviors infract on lawful rights.

You do realize there are people that do drive a car that can't walk, plus are you going to tell a 80 year old lady with a heart condition to get out and walk, or a person with no legs, to try and push his wheel chair though miles of backed up traffic or over highway barriers.

Most of my above post applies here, but I'll add a couple other points: if someone can walk to their car, then they have at least some mobility. If someone has no legs, they shouldn't be driving. But if they're a passenger, the status of their freedom of movement hasn't changed - that is, they are reliant on whoever is driving them, and the inability for that person to carry out their intended task is not a reflection of the disabled person's freedoms.

[Dextroden]

Violence isn't the only way for bystanders to die during peaceful protests. If protesters block an ambulance with a patient who is in critical condition, for example.

But that's nonviolent, so it's okay.

- - - Updated - - -

how is it Fascist to limit random people from detaining other random people?

He won't let people nonviolently protesting Desegregation.

[Canpinter]

Practicality is important to consider for sure. But I don't think rights consider practicality. For example; if someone slashes your tires, that would not be considered a restriction to freedom of movement. That would be considered property damage. If someone stands in your front doorway, refusing to move, that would not be considered restriction to freedom of movement; that would be considered trespassing.

your mistake is to assume that they cant not be BOTH things at the same time. and rights have to consider practicality otherwise they are pointless. the fact i have the right to vote means nothing if the make a stipulation i have to do so on the moon, i have the right to vote in theory but not in practice.

[Dadwen]

Practicality is important to consider for sure. But I don't think rights consider practicality. For example; if someone slashes your tires, that would not be considered a restriction to freedom of movement. That would be considered property damage. If someone stands in your front doorway, refusing to move, that would not be considered restriction to freedom of movement; that would be considered trespassing.

I again assert that, because people in traffic are able to move, the cause of the traffic jam is not restricting the right to freedom of movement. It's making it much harder to get somewhere using their car, often to the point where one might calculate that it's better to just sit in one's car and wait.

I want to add that I think there are large costs incurred by people who block traffic, but I don't think that these kinds of behaviors infract on lawful rights.

I've asked this before, but what about those stuck in the traffic that can't reasonably just walk away, heart issue or other medical issue, it's ok to trap them there because they can't just walk away, they need that mode of transportation for their freedom of movement. (and intent is at play here in a accident it's was not an intention to hold them up where as the blocking is)

[Canpinter]

I again assert that, because people in traffic are able to move, the cause of the traffic jam is not restricting the right to freedom of movement. It's making it much harder to get somewhere using their car, often to the point where one might calculate that it's better to just sit in one's car and wait.

I want to add that I think there are large costs incurred by people who block traffic, but I don't think that these kinds of behaviors infract on lawful rights.

you said yourself tho that they cant leave there car and move

[Dug]

Nonviolent protest of desegregation by blocking schools and buses is aok.

Oh, right. I mean that was their right to protest but as it turns out, the overwhelming consensus was that wasn't okay as the laws were changed. If people care enough about it then the laws will change to reflect the will of the people.

[Belize]

come on give an actual answer yes or no and why

No, it wouldn't be O.K. for th KKK to block voting stations, because it'd be inconstitutional.

It'd be ok for the KKK to block traffic holding Nazi banners for all I care.

There's a difference.

[anveena]

you said yourself tho that they cant leave there car and move

but they can get out and walk while leaving their car on the road

[Dadwen]

He won't let people nonviolently protesting Desegregation.

he's a lost cause, can't give a straight answer to anything, and for him it's ok for some to block others, but not another group, at least in my case I don't think anyone of the general public has the right to stop anyone else that are going about their lawful business.

**using his logic they can just walk around and craw in a windows to vote if the place is getting blocked so it's alright to block the polling places.

[Dug]

I think the issues is some places the powers that be are to scared to uphold it do to PR reasons, I think we could probably get by with better enforcement before thinking about new laws to be honest.

*I would like the penalty upped though.

I can agree with that. If people are breaking laws then people should be held accountable for their actions. Now whether a particular law is just or unjust is a different matter but then that goes back to protesting.

[Canpinter]

but they can get out and walk while leaving their car on the road

yup who cares about if you can actually use your rights in any meaningful senses its more important that a peace of paper says you have them

- - - Updated - - -

No, it wouldn't be O.K. for th KKK to block voting stations, because it'd be inconstitutional.

It'd be ok for the KKK to block traffic holding Nazi banners for all I care.

There's a difference.

so the morality of a situation is based on the constitutionality to you?

[Belize]

so the morality of a situation is based on the constitutionality to you?

Morality is subjective.
Not holding the door for a quadriplegic is not moral, but it's not illegal.

Some people might consider voting to not be something that is available to everyone (the KKK to follow your example), however, the law disagrees.
On the other hand, blocking a street with immoral to your eyes perhaps, is not illegal as a form of protest. And I wouldn't consider it immoral either. You might though. But as it stands, right to protest is one of the founding principles to this country.

I mean, can you imagine if the Boston Tea Partiers had just said "Well, protesting is not really legal so we'll stay home I guess". It defeats the purpose of protesting.

There's also a distinction between protesting for right and protesting against rights. In your example, the KKK would be protesting to take someone's rights away, as its explicit purpose. On the flipside, the Civil Rights marches were to objectively gain rights, and equality, and causing traffic/road closures is a consequence of the protests, and thus would not infringe on other's rights of freedom of movement as its explicit purpose.

Maybe I'm the only one that sees the nuances though.

[Dadwen]

yup who cares about if you can actually use your rights in any meaningful senses its more important that a peace of paper says you have them

- - - Updated - - -



so the morality of a situation is based on the constitutionality to you?

by his logic all we need to do is say all the people on the highway are going to protest something or going to vote for something, or going to "some" constitutional thing like even going to court and all the blockers should be arrested right away.

**whats even better going off his logic all the KKK has to do in that case is say they are protesting something stupid like cop cars that have 4 tires when they block the poling place.