Resorting to kinetic means throws all of that out the window.
You want to make a point, and be heard? Stop committing crimes and taking other people's rights away.
You're entitled to be upset when someone blocks your car. But framing it as a civil rights issue rather than a practical one (and calling someone blocking your car "kinetic") makes you come across as un-serious.
If the government were to install roadblocks and check your identity card before letting you leave your town, that would violate your freedom of movement. If a local private militia did the same thing, it would be as well. But being slightly delayed by a bunch of environmentalists blocking a specific form of transit doesn't meaningfully violate anything.
The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
There is a whole slew of laws and regulations dealing with people who inconvenience others on purpose.
Freedom of movement specifically exists for when "your lives depend on it" - it is a vital right to preserve and the freedom to make that 40 km walk has saved countless lives over the centuries.
The point of protesting in a manner that is truly disruptive is to force the problem to be dealt with. This concept seems to allude many, to them the only acceptable form of protest is one that is entirely ignorable. I’m not sure we would have many of the important freedoms we have today without people choosing to be disruptive in this manner you find unacceptable.
I get what you're saying but you're very narrowly trying to define right of movement to make your argument and without your narrow definition it falls apart.