Protests

[jimboston]

one more thing, you are being way to lenient on the messages of the violent hateful movement.

You may be right.

I try to avoid the news as much as possible.

So I missed some of those more violent messages.

Obviously the "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) movement is based on a feeling in some communities that they are wrongly harassed by police... often to the point of violence and sometimes even death.

That is a valid point.

However, the police are on the street every day... and risk their lives to maintain order. They see a lot of things the general public does not see... and these things impact their decisions and actions.

The BLM people need to pay more attention to the police side of the story, Whereas I feel the police constantly review their actions and try to understand how better to interact with minority communities.

[/]

Absolutely not, if you need to throw a temper tantrum to get noticed, your cause is not worthy.

Of course people should have the right to organize on their own property, but they do not have the right to interfere with the private property of another. Public property is okay to a degree, so long as no other crimes are committed; roads are for cars, so blocking them is definitely illegal and unacceptable, and anyone blocking a health center needs to be removed by catapult. If the courts or the legislators are the problem, you should have the right go down to city hall or the courthouse and protest, so long as you do it off to the side, away from any entrances, fire exits, or parking spots. If on the other hand you think every random person that passes through the city needs to be shouted at through a megaphone, you are almost definitely the problem.

[Phatscotty]

The principle is one right can't block out another right. If it could, then how could there be any rights? Why wouldn't someone just exercise their right over another's to protest?

That's a "Chicken and Egg" scenario.

The Protestors have a right to protest, but they can't protest in a way that impacts my right to drive; but if I'm lawfully driving... that doesn't mean I have the right to stop them from exercising their right to protest. Does it?

So whose right come first???

The video you linked is extreme. The guy is the car was likely scared. The crowd of protestors starts acting like a mob. The driver gets more scared, he/she bumps someone... then the mob mentality starts taking over.

You don't see 3 mins before or 3 mins after... so you have to speculate based on what's in the video.

I say the driver had to keep moving, even if he/she hit a few more people. If he/she was pulled from his/her car he/she likely would have been beaten to death.

Interesting you see it that way, but maybe it's the way I said it too or the analogy used. Yes, the video linked was extreme, I did that intentionally to define the parameters. So now let's talk about the overall point. Let me try saying it another way

All rights come first. One right cannot infringe another right, and that's the only way rights can exist and be respected equally. If one right can be trampled by another, than all rights can be trampled.

One who says and does place their rights over anothers rights is an oppressive tyrant, and if one gets away with it you can bet yours ass it will happen over and over and over and over and over again and soon the populace will joke about the irony of the older generation believing they still have rights. Nor would it surprise me one bit to see one claim themselves special rights in the name of equality, fairness, and social justice.

[GoranZ]

Inspired by recent London taxi protests in which they have used their cars to block off city center roads for hours on end as part of their anti-Uber protests.

Judging from Uber's goals taxi drivers will become jobless in 5 to 10 years, its inevitable.

[Phatscotty]

[mrswdk]

From your post your issue with the Blacks Lives Matter protests appear to be the methods they started using, not the validity of the cause. So then the question is still 'which methods is it okay for protestors to use?', not 'which issues is it okay to behave disruptively in support of?'

I mean, would you be okay with the Occupy people turning up at the Christmas lights event and shouting their slogans, or would you feel like they'd gone too far as well?

Yes. My problem with the protest was the methods. I think the cause is justified. I don't know if i'd go as far as agreeing with all their claims, as I think there are (at least) two side to every story. However even if people disagree with their cause, you can't ignore the fact that a significant percentage of the population feels that they are targeted by police, That can't be healthy.

I may or may not have had a problem with the "Occupy" protestors showing up at the family oriented Christmas Lighting event. I probably would, but it might depend on the slogans they shouted, and the manner in which it was presented.

You're talking about families and their young children. So slogans like "Police Kill" are pretty "in your face"... appropriate for adults, but not appropriate for kids (IMHO). Slogans like "We are the 99%" are less "in your face". Also, at least from my experience here in Boston, I felt the "Occupy" protestors were in general less confrontational than the "Black Live Matter" protestors. I guess they should be a bit more indignant than the "Occupy" people... but I still feel they should think about how their message will be received, and act in a way that will help their cause.

As an aside, Boston is still "on edge" from the Marathon Bombing in 2013. People with their kids, at night, are more likely to be annoyed when the estimated crowd at an event like the lighting is doubled, and the "rowdiness" factor is magnified significantly.

I mean everything you're saying sounds like you should be answering 'no' in my poll.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

What I wanna know is when the horse-drawn carriage drivers are gonna protest the taxis for taking their business away.

-TG

[jimboston]

Absolutely not, if you need to throw a temper tantrum to get noticed, your cause is not worthy.

Public property is okay to a degree... roads are for cars, so blocking them is definitely illegal and unacceptable... you should have the right go down to city hall or the courthouse and protest, so long as you do it off to the side, away from any entrances, fire exits, or parking spots.

In a major city your restrictions are nearly impossible to meet for a protest of any size.

If you get 2500 people protesting in front of the Massachusetts State House, they are going to disrupt traffic. No matter how peaceful they are. They will block sidewalks, and parking spaces, and hinder other people working in the city trying to get from Point A to Point B. There's no area "off to the side" in an already congested city.

I see a difference between "blocking roads" and "causing some traffic disruptions".

Example... in Boston last year. Two separate protests for the BLM cause.
1) A small handful of individuals chained themselves to steel barrels filled with cement, and blocked Interstate 93... both on the North and South sides of Boston. They did this around 7:30am... perfectly timed to cause the most disruption. The aim of the protest was to cause a major traffic jam. 29 people were arrest for

2) A larger group of people walked down Mass. Ave. in Cambridge. They were moving, not stopping and blocking traffic. Their "parade" caused traffic problems, but not to the same extent that the blocking of Interstate 93 did. The protestors did stop a couple times and had "die-ins"... and other protestors traced their bodies with chaulk. This protest was peaceful, there were no arrests. No one bashed up the cars of commuters as they drove by.

The first protest was on an Interstate... the second was on a main road, but still a regular street in the city. The disruption cause by the first protest was significantly worse than that cause by the latter. In the first protest, the people formed a human barricade.. they weren't moving. The second protest was a "parade" of moving protestors.

There is a difference... you have to allow for some disruption.

[jimboston]

The principle is one right can't block out another right. If it could, then how could there be any rights? Why wouldn't someone just exercise their right over another's to protest?

That's a "Chicken and Egg" scenario.

The Protestors have a right to protest, but they can't protest in a way that impacts my right to drive; but if I'm lawfully driving... that doesn't mean I have the right to stop them from exercising their right to protest. Does it?

So whose right come first???

The video you linked is extreme. The guy is the car was likely scared. The crowd of protestors starts acting like a mob. The driver gets more scared, he/she bumps someone... then the mob mentality starts taking over.

You don't see 3 mins before or 3 mins after... so you have to speculate based on what's in the video.

I say the driver had to keep moving, even if he/she hit a few more people. If he/she was pulled from his/her car he/she likely would have been beaten to death.

Interesting you see it that way, but maybe it's the way I said it too or the analogy used. Yes, the video linked was extreme, I did that intentionally to define the parameters. So now let's talk about the overall point. Let me try saying it another way

All rights come first. One right cannot infringe another right, and that's the only way rights can exist and be respected equally. If one right can be trampled by another, than all rights can be trampled.

One who says and does place their rights over anothers rights is an oppressive tyrant, and if one gets away with it you can bet yours ass it will happen over and over and over and over and over again and soon the populace will joke about the irony of the older generation believing they still have rights. Nor would it surprise me one bit to see one claim themselves special rights in the name of equality, fairness, and social justice.

I understand what you are saying... but your point, the end result, is unclear.

Is it OK for Protestors to create havok and disrupt the lives of other people or not... and to what degree???

If you read my posts, you will see I believe that protestors have the right to protest. I also believe that we as citizens have to accept that there will be protests that may cause "disruption" to our lives. So this disruption may make us late for an appointment, or may annoy us... and we have to accept that if we want to live in a "free" society. Lot's of things cause disruption... road work, some "dignitary" driving through town, a major sporting event. Protests are just another potential source of "disruption".

At some point protests may cross a line, and infringe on my rights (or the right of other people not involved in the protests).

We are all going to disagree on THE EXACT POINT where a protest may (or may not) cross this line.

Some may say a "human blockade" is OK... others will say no. More may say "it depends".
Some may think it's OK for protestors to shout in their face as they walk by... other may say no.

I think the vast majority would agree that protestors shouldn't physically touch or assault passerby, that they shouldn't damage public or private property, and that they shouldn't topple cars or light fires. Can we agree on this???

... of course we all know that protests can escalate and turn into "mobs", and when that happens it's clear (to me) that the participants are in the wrong.

[mrswdk]

One right cannot infringe another right

Of course it can. If BLM protesters aren't allowed to obstruct roads when they protest then the right to totally unhindered protest is infringed on by the right to freedom of movement. Pretty sure there was another thread recently where Mets or Tails or someone was talking about how there can never be such a thing as 100% freedom.

[jimboston]

I mean everything you're saying sounds like you should be answering 'no' in my poll.

I did answer "No"... mainly because of the example you provided; but the real answer is "it depends", as your question is way too open-ended.

Inspired by recent London taxi protests in which they have used their cars to block off city center roads for hours on end as part of their anti-Uber protests.

-> I don't think Taxi Drivers have a right to block roads. I can't imagine any scenario whereby this is an "acceptable" reaction to Uber. Taxi Drivers could strike, they could walk a picket line at city hall, they could sue the city and attempt to force the city to create restrictions on Uber drivers... or regulate Uber in some way.

The gov't could stop Uber simply by taxing the company excessively; and/or requiring Uber to "hire" drivers as employees and not contractors. The problem with any of these actions is that the market/Internet will adapt... just like it has for music downloads.

I think Uber is creating a short-term problem for Taxi drivers, but I don't pretend to know the solution. One factor is that every city seems to regulate Taxi's in a unique way; and so no one solution will solve the problem in every city.

Still... I know the solution is not going to be expedited by actions like this one. Not only (do I feel) this protest was illegal. I also think that the Taxi drivers are likely hurting their own cause. They will "piss off" the public; and lose the support of some people who otherwise might sympathize with them. It's illegal and dumb.

Should people be allowed to protest in a way which disrupts the lawful activities of others?

This question is too open ended to be answered by a "Yes" or "No".

Define "disrupt". It's all a matter of degree.

EVERY protest of any consequence will cause SOME LEVEL of disruption. There's no avoiding it.

Even a peaceful parade, one that was planned months in advance... where protestors get permits... and the police and public are notified. Even that will "disrupt" someone.

[mrswdk]

EVERY protest of any consequence will cause SOME LEVEL of disruption. There's no avoiding it.

An online protest usually won't. Maybe we should move protests to online only :3

[/]

Absolutely not, if you need to throw a temper tantrum to get noticed, your cause is not worthy.

Public property is okay to a degree... roads are for cars, so blocking them is definitely illegal and unacceptable... you should have the right go down to city hall or the courthouse and protest, so long as you do it off to the side, away from any entrances, fire exits, or parking spots.

In a major city your restrictions are nearly impossible to meet for a protest of any size.

If you get 2500 people protesting in front of the Massachusetts State House, they are going to disrupt traffic. No matter how peaceful they are. They will block sidewalks, and parking spaces, and hinder other people working in the city trying to get from Point A to Point B. There's no area "off to the side" in an already congested city.

I see a difference between "blocking roads" and "causing some traffic disruptions".

Example... in Boston last year. Two separate protests for the BLM cause.
1) A small handful of individuals chained themselves to steel barrels filled with cement, and blocked Interstate 93... both on the North and South sides of Boston. They did this around 7:30am... perfectly timed to cause the most disruption. The aim of the protest was to cause a major traffic jam. 29 people were arrest for

2) A larger group of people walked down Mass. Ave. in Cambridge. They were moving, not stopping and blocking traffic. Their "parade" caused traffic problems, but not to the same extent that the blocking of Interstate 93 did. The protestors did stop a couple times and had "die-ins"... and other protestors traced their bodies with chaulk. This protest was peaceful, there were no arrests. No one bashed up the cars of commuters as they drove by.

The first protest was on an Interstate... the second was on a main road, but still a regular street in the city. The disruption cause by the first protest was significantly worse than that cause by the latter. In the first protest, the people formed a human barricade.. they weren't moving. The second protest was a "parade" of moving protestors.

There is a difference... you have to allow for some disruption.

Bah, you highfalutin big city folk. I live in one of the top 50 biggest cities in America, and I've never heard of a local protest with more than a few hundred people. Apathy FTW!

I don't see why a protest need be a solid mass. If 2,500 people cannot fit on the courthouse lawns, they shouldn't all be there. There are literally miles upon miles of public properties intended for the express purpose of pedestrian foot traffic everywhere; why not line up side by side along stretches of sidewalk, breaking formation to clear public entrances and crosswalks? (Think "hands across America" with breaks every few feet.) Even in a congested city, with backs to the wall it would only reduce passing sidewalk space by about a foot.
Why not have a fundraiser and legally book a park or a stadium for an event?
It is perfectly possible to make a statement without disrupting anything at all.

Even if you have a right to assembly, once you begin to endanger others it must be regulated. Even if you theoretically have the right to enter a building or an elevator, there are still occupancy load laws to prevent structural, fire, and other assorted safety hazards that must be followed, this isn't a Japanese subway where you can all just pile on top of each other while a gloved man pushes you from behind.

In this same vein, excessive public assembly not only disrupts traffic and business, it also may cause more serious issues such as increased risks of trampling, heat stroke, pick-pocketing, brawling, destruction of property, hit and run, and so on. It is far safer for everyone involved or uninvolved if everyone gives one other a wide berth of movement at all times.

Here is a site detailing exactly what constitutes a lawfully organized protest within the USA. Anything beyond this scope is technically unlawful.
http://occupypeace.blogspot.com/2011/11 ... ns-on.html

Keep in mind, the First Amendment is between citizens and the government. Therefore, the right to peaceably assemble is on public property only.

[mrswdk]

I live in one of the top 50 biggest cities in America

Oh lordy.

[Bernie Sanders]

Strikes in Europe are usually totally pathetic. Greeks and French complaining because their retirement age has been raised to over 60, subway drivers in London protesting about doing night shifts as part of 4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Only in Europe.

Yes, let's worry about the little guy making a decent living

According to Wikipedia, an income of $70-80,000 per year would put someone within the top 10% of American earners. Just how many Israeli millions has Bernie made during his career that he so casually dismisses even some of the richest people in America as 'the little guy'?

Bernie Sanders’ net worth is $528,014

Looks like I'm not as rich as you think. Never used my office to enrich myself, unlike the Communist Party members have in China.

[mrswdk]

Strikes in Europe are usually totally pathetic. Greeks and French complaining because their retirement age has been raised to over 60, subway drivers in London protesting about doing night shifts as part of 4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Only in Europe.

Yes, let's worry about the little guy making a decent living

According to Wikipedia, an income of $70-80,000 per year would put someone within the top 10% of American earners. Just how many Israeli millions has Bernie made during his career that he so casually dismisses even some of the richest people in America as 'the little guy'?

Bernie Sanders’ net worth is $528,014

So you just referred to people richer than yourself as 'the little guy'?

Surely you wouldn't demean yourself by engaging in fatuous hyperbole for the sake of getting people to take your side?

[mrswdk]

In any case, I find it hard to believe that a man who made $200,000 last year alone is only worth half a million. Is Bernie also an asset-concealing tax dodger?

[tzor]

Looks like I'm not as rich as you think. Never used my office to enrich myself, unlike the Communist Party members have in China.

Better put the popcorn in the microwave ... this is going to be fun.

[iAmCaffeine]

4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Got a source for that?

I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. In London, Manchester and Liverpool there are groups who call themselves "love activists". I don't support them, but they're generally okay. Sure, they smoke weed and party at the weekend but that's rather irrelevant in the big picture. They squat in abandoned buildings so that the homeless can come with them and have shelter for however long the group manages to hold the building. They also camp out in public areas in tents etc. to show their support; I don't have exact details off the top of my head. Of course, there are a few who go over the top but they don't last long.

Some protests can get the attention deemed necessary without causing major disruption. They're fine. Protests that cause major disruption and/or harm shouldn't be tolerated.

[mrswdk]

4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Got a source for that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33459515

A tube driver's starting salary is 49,000GBP ($75,000), for which they currently work 36-hour weeks. The 32-hour thing is something I remember reading in a Standard article about the Tube strikes - part of the deal being offered to them in return for the launch of 24-hour Tube services is a 32-hour, 4-day week rota (although they've gone on strike so many times about this unfair deal that 24-hour Tube has now been punted into the long grass).

$75,000 a year, with 43 days holiday and no need to ever put in more than 36 hours a week, in return for making a train move jerkily forwards along a set of tracks (when they aren't delayed or cancelled). It's nice working in the European public sector, huh?

[jimboston]

EVERY protest of any consequence will cause SOME LEVEL of disruption. There's no avoiding it.

An online protest usually won't. Maybe we should move protests to online only :3

I wouldn't call and online movement a protest.

That's more like a Boycott or a Letter Writing Campaign. These have their places.

Unless you are talking about Hacktivism... which is another thing all together.

... but this thread is about Real Life, "Brick and Mortar" Protests.

[mrswdk]

Don't you tell me what my own thread is and isn't about sonny boy.

[Bernie Sanders]

4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Got a source for that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33459515

A tube driver's starting salary is 49,000GBP ($75,000), for which they currently work 36-hour weeks. The 32-hour thing is something I remember reading in a Standard article about the Tube strikes - part of the deal being offered to them in return for the launch of 24-hour Tube services is a 32-hour, 4-day week rota (although they've gone on strike so many times about this unfair deal that 24-hour Tube has now been punted into the long grass).

$75,000 a year, with 43 days holiday and no need to ever put in more than 36 hours a week, in return for making a train move jerkily forwards along a set of tracks (when they aren't delayed or cancelled). It's nice working in the European public sector, huh?

What do you think they should earn? With vacation and holidays, paid day offs should be required. Not sure if you ever worked an honest day in your life, but everyone should "work to live", NOT "live to work"

[mrswdk]

4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Got a source for that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33459515

A tube driver's starting salary is 49,000GBP ($75,000), for which they currently work 36-hour weeks. The 32-hour thing is something I remember reading in a Standard article about the Tube strikes - part of the deal being offered to them in return for the launch of 24-hour Tube services is a 32-hour, 4-day week rota (although they've gone on strike so many times about this unfair deal that 24-hour Tube has now been punted into the long grass).

$75,000 a year, with 43 days holiday and no need to ever put in more than 36 hours a week, in return for making a train move jerkily forwards along a set of tracks (when they aren't delayed or cancelled). It's nice working in the European public sector, huh?

What do you think they should earn? With vacation and holidays, paid day offs should be required. Not sure if you ever worked an honest day in your life, but everyone should "work to live", NOT "live to work"

Days off already are required in the UK. The legal minimum in the UK is 28 per year. Given that the job of tube driver is bordering on 'unskilled', they could easily shave a third off that salary and have their holiday entitlement reduced to the legal minimum (which is what everyone else gets). 35k GBP a year with standard private sector entitlements is more than enough.

I notice you've carefully avoided addressing how humble man of the people Bernie S manages to pull off the dual feat of both looking down on $70,000 USD earners as 'little men' from his $200,000 annual income ivory tower and also reporting a net worth of a mere $500,000. Just how hard are you cooking those books, Bernienator?

[Bernie Sanders]

Get rid of your Mao picture and replace it with the Koch brothers. Your economic philosophy is right up their alley.