The experience is so decidedly wonderful that if, for example, the protest were a Black Lives Matter movement I would change from a whole hearted support to complete opposition in every objective they promote.
I don't understand what is your point here, protests are supposed to be disruptive, disparaging the audience is not by design, if you feel that way then you don't really believe in the value of the protest, no?
You do understand how what you perceive and what they intend are different things, right? And that jumping from "it is inconvenient for me" to "they only intend to cause me harm" is a serious leap.
If the protestors are utterly incapable of bridging that gap it doesn't matter what their intentions are as they are failing to win hearts and minds. That leap you speak to is only a minor baby step. If they really wanted to convince me of the value of their message they could start by not intentionally pissing me off.
This isn't rocket science. This complete lack of common sense on behalf of the protestors typically indicates youth. Everybody else has since either developed a few drops of empathy or moved on to anything more self-indulgent.
It absolutely is not a baby step. In fact it is a really big deal to jump from your own experience to assuming the intent of other people. That is actually a really fast way to anger people in my experience, because it requires that you pretend that you understand what is going on in another person's head. Saying "your actions caused X" is pretty straightforward, but "you intended to cause X" or "you intended to cause X and X alone" requires mind reading ability on your part.
Again, you can disagree with it as a tactic, I genuinely do not care about that. What bothers me is that you're unilaterally asserting that you personally understand the intention of the protestors, which is quite the assertion, and one that you have only backed up by "this is how I feel about it".
So who fucking cares if some people got stuck in traffic. The protests are working, and the people who weren't even stuck in traffic but are complaining anyway because they hypothetically could have been (like this guy) should just be roundly ignored. Listening to their opinions is a terrible idea if your actual intent is to further the movement.
That is not correct. If you are blocking a freeway causing hours of traffic delays then I am not making assumptions about what's in somebody else's head. I don't care what their intentions are. They have made me disgruntled and digusted with their protest message completely alienating me from their cause. From that moment forward I would vote against and fund in opposition to everything they advocate.
As the audience all that matters is what's in my head, which I don't have to guess at. The inability for people to accept that reality tells me the things they are protesting about aren't important to them.
So given the protests in the U.S.recently have been about the treatment of minorities by the Police specifically the killing and abuse of black people. Are you saying that if you were to be stopped in traffic due to a such a protest you would then support, fund, and vote for more Police abuse and killing of black people? Is that really what you're saying?
As I’ve said repeatedly, the latter is an argument about the efficacy of this type of protest. You’re free to believe that, I don’t care. But understand that “it doesn’t work” is a completely unrelated argument from “its intended to do X”.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/502267-support-for-black-l...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/317321/believe-protest-actions-...
I think you should take a step back and really consider why you're arguing so vociferously over hypothetically being caught in traffic because of a protest when there are much larger issues at play here.
[0]: https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1968/no03...
If not, what is the point of your argument?
I'm not even going to waste my time explaining how free speech is different morally from rape, because I guarantee that this is crystal clear to everyone else except for you somehow.
You absolutely don't have a right to suppress others with your ideology.
'Freedom of expression' has nothing to do with shutting down highways.
The great thing about people on foot or on bike is that they can easily get out of the way of emergency vehicles, vs cars and trucks which often can't.
(I’m not arguing against protesting on the freeway, to be clear, just genuinely curious how often it helps vs hinders emergency vehicles.)
The ambulance didn't let that deter them. They took the foot or two we and the other left-lane drivers could give by getting REALLY close to the car to our right, and used it to careen down the left shoulder, scraping the side of their vehicle along the concrete barrier much of the way.
Just like nobody blames normal traffic for killing people via doctor delays.
That's because normal traffic jams aren't intentional.
No way. You do not have the right to arbitrarily lock down traffic for some arbitrary reason.
Wait until Trump supporters lock down traffic in LA all day because they legitimately believe the 'election was stolen'.
You can protest in the park or city square or somewhere where it doesn't stop a large number of people from going about their business.
You don't get to suppress others with your ideology.
I don't get it, are you trying to imply that protests should have no disruptive effect? That is a good recipe for complete political dysfunction. Civil disobedience is based upon disruption. It is our right as citizens.
Besides, if an ambulance or doctor needed to go through a protest, the vast majority of the time just asking gets them through.
You also have a voice. Use it.
You have no right to undemocratically wield power over others by physical force. You have no right to force others to suffer to compel them to your will which they did not choose.
No, seriously, this is insane. You want to, functionally, ban protests. There is absolutely no way you can have a functional country if you can't even have peaceful demonstrations.
Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at actually responding to what I wrote.
It is absolutely possible to protest without hurting innocent bystanders.
The right to protest is generally accepted to mean that people are allowed to walk in the street in an effort to be heard.
I responded to what you wrote, and your arguments fall flat. Even during massive protests with millions of people ambulances get where they need to get and doctors go where they need to go.
Stop being disingenous about what you're advocating. You're advocating confining people to their cars on the highway. Including old people, little kids, sick people. To force them to listen to you.
No, the standard is potentially killing people.
You have a misunderstanding of what is legal, what is not, and what a peaceful protest is.
Blocking traffic is already banned.
That's 100% illegal in all cases.
'Protests' which infringe on the rights of others are just another form of fascism.
'My Fascism is Worthwhile' is not a civic or moral argument.
You can protest peacefully, vote, engage in other forms of civic obedience, but you can't do it at the expense of others, full stop.
As soon as someone starts trampling on your rights for a cause you don't agree with you'll scream 'victim' and then maybe have a different perspective.
No - you don't.
This is illegal, and it happens only by virtue of force.
You absolutely have no right do do this - you just have he power to do it 'if you have enough people'.
So yes, if you have an aggressive mob, you can get away with illegal things, that doesn't mean it's lawful.
Good for them? That's a valid protest. You don't have to stay out of the way in the free speech zone. (Not to say that separation is never appropriate, but not most of the time.)
It's valid to protest things which are not true?
So we can block traffic in LA to raise awareness that 'Aliens are coming'?
No - absolutely not.
Your arbitrary definition of what you consider to be a 'valid protest' is not relevant.
You 100% do not have the right to block highways under any circumstances. Full stop.
You can of course, block highways if you use force to do it, i.e. by amassing such a large, unlawful group so that 'nobody can do anything about it' - which is of course illegal and completely trampling other people's basic rights.
The rest of us are 'not for it' - and that's why it's well enshrined into law.
Your pet ideology is no reason to obstruct others.
If you can convince LA County to shut down the highway for a 'march' over the 'weekend' - then that's fine.
Otherwise, fines or jail.
You have no right to do that any more than you have a right to randomly slap people on the street to make them listen to you.
Use your vote and your voice.
If you set the bar at "your point has to be true before you can protest", then goodbye free speech. Because who exactly gets to decide what is true, and therefore is legitimate to protest over? The government? The media? That is an insanely dangerous power to give any institution, which is why the first amendment is purposefully interpreted to put the minimum number of restrictions on what is forbidden.
This is not true at all.
These arguments are purposefully conflating 'speech and protest' with the right to block traffic and infringe on other people's rights.
You can 100% stand in front of city hall to tell us about 'Alien Invasions' if you want.
You can 100% not block traffic to do it.
You have more opportunities for expression today than at any time in history, use those 'vehicles' instead of blocking 'vehicles'.
Now you're arguing about the difference between civil disobedience (which necessarily involves breaking norms or laws) and simple protest. This is a fair distinction, but genuinely a tedious one. Yes, standing around in the street is illegal, that's the point. We're not going to work out anything new here that hasn't been discussed over the past century.
What I'm reacting to is you setting the bar based on the content of the speech. That is super dangerous territory, one that I would strongly condemn. The moment you say that tactics become legitimate or illegitimate based on the content of the speech, which is something the highlighted quote was saying, then you're heading into the land of no more free speech.
So you fully support anti-abortion protestors blocking the entrance to abortion clinics?
That's 'civil disobedience' and 'breaking the law' for the 'content of speech' (in their view) of 'saving lives'?
Seems pretty legit? Saving lives?
What about White Supremacists burning down 'desegregated schools' in protest of 'desegregation'?
Or some 'burning crosses' on the streets in front of the NAACP? I mean, hey, it's their right to 'protest'?
How about 'Anti-Vaxxer' protesters surrounding evil big corporate pharma research centres and not allowing anyone in or out (civil disobedience) because 'big pharma' is giving everyone autism?
Or a much more mild case: two days ago in Montreal a small group of protestors brought down a national monument, as police watched and refused to intervene.
So how many protestors do I need exactly to tear down monuments? What's the 'headcount' threshold for the Washington monument coming down? I mean, he did own slaves ...
It's not tedious to distinguish between what is illegal and what is not, it's literally at the heart of civilization.
And no - we generally don't care what your 'cause' is - if someone really wants to 'protests' for 'segregation' - that's totally fine, they can make nice placards and sit in the park.
It's incredibly naive to ignore the damage and harm caused to a lot of people in the wake of a lot of unfortunate protests which have turned violent, let alone the problems caused but otherwise more basic civil acts.
There are 1000 ways to protest, if you want to sit on the sidewalk and get dragged away, that's fine, just don't get in other people's way.