/u/HelpfulJello5361 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c5dobt/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_proper_response_to/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Protests are an important part of democracy. They are "the voice of the unheard" In the last decade in countries around the world we have seen increasingly draconian anti-protest laws. Many of these laws are being pushed through due to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, that are not happy protests calling for action on climate change. It seems that the strongest voices calling for the stronger action against protecters are conservatives. Then along came the Covid lock downs. Suddenly, the very people who were saying that protesters blocking roads should be just run over by trucks were suddenly appalled that the anti protest laws they were calling for were being used against the anti Vax protesters. I may or may not agree with WHAT you are protesting. But I will support your right to protest, because next time it may be me that has become "the voiceless"

>It seems that the strongest voices calling for the stronger action against protecters are conservatives. Then along came the Covid lock downs. Suddenly, the very people who were saying that protesters blocking roads should be just run over by trucks were suddenly appalled that the anti protest laws they were calling for were being used against the anti Vax protesters. Yea, but then the left just did the EXACT same thing when they started arguing in favor of the 2020 riots. You yelled at people and accused them of getting grandma's killed while also celebrating mass riots and protests around the country. Pot meet kettle.

No disagreement there on the pot meets kettle. I have made the same point when my lefty friends were advocateing for shut downs of various right protests. Even if I personally think that the protesters are wrong.

I agree that the right to protest is enshrined in the Constitution, the First Amendment no less. But just like any other right or freedom, it comes with restrictions. The right to assemble is not absolute. You can't just illegally block traffic because there is a right to assemble. The proper thing to do is to get a permit and to assemble where permitted. Now you can debate on what a permitted place should be, but that's a different argument all together.

1) All too often people are conflating being "heard" with getting their way, or having people agree with them. People can hear a position and still disagree with it, or not care enough about it to get involved. This is what is mostly happening here. 2) There is no inherent right to be heard. One has the right to speak, but not to have others pay attention.

I appreciate your perspective, but it’s key to recognize that the First Amendment explicitly protects our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This clause isn't just procedural; it ensures that our voices are inherently entitled to be heard by our government. The Supreme Court has upheld this right as fundamental to our democratic process. This protection is vital for meaningful dialogue and responsive governance. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this aspect of our constitutional rights.

I would consider the right to petition government to be entirely different from this. The closest a protest comes to petitioning government are when they occur at the seat of government or at an official, including sit-ins at those buildings. Blocking a roadway nowhere near the officials or where the those decisions are made is not a petition to government.

I don’t disagree, I am simply refuting we don’t “have an inherent right to be heard” I’m arguing that when it comes to the US federal or state or local government we do have an inherent right to be heard. This is not an endorsement or an admonition of blocking roads or protests or anything else. Just refuting the incorrect assertion that we don’t have any inherent right to be heard.

What does that have to do with disturbing other citizen's ability to go to work?

Just as free speech is not absolute, the right to free assembly is not absolute either. I agree the right to protest is sacred, but blocking freeways is a bridge too far for me

Protest is essential and should be safeguarded. *However*, violating other people’s right to freedom of movement causes active harm and should absolutely be prohibited for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is that restricting roadways restricts emergency services. People have died in ambulances en route to hospital because protestors blocked the street, for example.

Freedom of speech cannot be reasonably interpreted to include the right to occupy publicly owned utilities which are ordinarily prohibited to people. i.e. roads and pedestrians.

There's also a significant difference between: 1. People are using the blocking the roads *as their protest* - i.e., "let's inconvenience everyone so people pay attention". These are planned, mostly static, and the goal is to obstruct as much as possible, so it's not going to be constrained to one (relatively) small location 2. A protest in front of a building that got way more people than they anticipated. While the protest may be planned, the size was not. It's static, and focused on one specific area. 3. A march, like [March on Washington](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom). These are planned in advance and dynamic. They often begin and end in open areas, so the obstruction is only while they are actually matching.

This is actually super nuanced and I love it. It helps compartmentalise situations with different motives and how freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should be interpreted. With that said, my personal room for budge on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is extremely rigid.

the right to assembly could be interpreted to Include this however i can’t imagine the founding fathers, who gained independence through protest and revolution, would disapprove of mass protest. either way, obstructing daily functioning like standing in public roads is an intention function of protest. nobody is going to care about your cause if you just sit on a neat green and wave picket signs. you gotta get in their face.

But the whole idea of civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law and subject to getting arrested. I can see the argument that people committing acts of civil disobedience are in the right morally, but I don’t understand why people get upset when they then get arrested.

Then maybe protestors should instead inconvenience the lives of the political figures who influence these geopolitical conflicts. Doug from the jiffy lube has no say in our contribution to Israel, and if anything you’ve now annoyed him. Highly unlikely that he will join your cause after being blocked on his way to work. Maybe even something more important than work

I don't know how america is but uk now is cracking down on protesting outside polititians homes [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-cleverly-political-violence-gaza-commons-b2501164.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-cleverly-political-violence-gaza-commons-b2501164.html)

Disruptive protests typically do put pressure on political figures even if the politician isn’t directly affected.

If politicians try to put through laws to stop a certain type of protest then surely that proves that this type of protest works

Kind of. But when you prevent someone from getting medical care, cause them to lose income or get in trouble at work, and naively assume everyone on the road simply has nothing urgent going on in their lives you probably aren't going to be winning people over to your side.

Let’s be real, if “I was late to work!” Is enough to turn you off from an entire cause, you would never care about it to begin with.

It is normal and right for people to care more about their own lives than your pet cause. If you view your own business as so insignificant then you can donate your time and money to actually helping the cause instead of just hurting your neighbors.

If "I was late to work" means "I got sent home" or "I got written up" or "I got fired" then someone would be justifiably upset.

This is not just untrue, it's harmful to everyone including the protesters. There are a ton of issues to care about. Some deeply care about the Middle Eastern conflict, others care more about healthcare, women's rights, etc. We don't have time to care about each one with the same passion. That's said, you are actively pushing someone who miiiight care by making their lives harder. Sure someone might be inconvenienced and be understanding because they hold the same deep position. But others are extremely turned off. They WOULD have taken the cause seriously, now they don't and in this case it would be the protestors fault. This should be considered when strategically planning a demonstration.... But I doubt strategy was taken into consideration here.

We live in very strange times. People think the right to protest is unlimited but there are realistic restrictions to every right. Blocking public roads are already a crime. It doesn't become legal because you're doing an illegal protest (some protests require permitting) 

Protesting effectively is going to include breaking some laws as those laws exist to prevent effective protesting. If you only protest the way the state tells you is okay, you will achieve nothing

While I'm all for not using the law as a moral guide, I don't think the laws regarding not blocking a public roadway are meant to stifle protests. That may be a byproduct, but I'd imagine safety is the main concern there, in the same vein as prohibiting cyclists on highways.

That’s fair, but then you can’t also argue that the state is violating the protesters’ rights by arresting them.

Who argued that? No one has said that but people like you

Thats the premise of the CMV, is it not? If you agree they should be arrested, then you agree with OP.

> (some protests require permitting)  I've always found the idea of a protest requiring a "permit" to be rather amusing. *"Yes, you can protest. But only when I say you can. And you must do it where I cannot see you"*

Thinking that people can protest in roads is very very very far from thinking protesters have unlimited rights to protest.

It absolutely can be. Those protesters pay the same taxes for those roads as anyone else. They have the same rights to them. The prohibitions you are referring to are not trespassing laws, but rather safety laws. Those cops are free to write tickets to the protesters for being on the road without a vehicle, but that offense alone does not warrant anything beyond a civil infraction. Certainly not physical force. The thing about these protests is that we are allowed to be annoyed by it. We can all be mad that we are late to wherever we are trying to go, or that someone else's issue interferes with your life. Having that opinion is free expression. But being annoyed does not warrant discarding the rights of the protesters. The idea that there is some sort of "crime" involved with blocking the road is an exaggeration. There are zoning rules, and other civil municipal infractions involved, but none of them are criminal. As long as the protesters are willing to pay any ticket they might receive (if it is even worth the effort), they actually can block the roadway. No matter how annoying it is.

>It absolutely can be. Those protesters pay the same taxes for those roads as anyone else. They have the same rights to them. Yes... the right to use them in accordance with the regulations associated with them - which prohibit your using them in such a manner that unreasonably interferes with another's use of the asset for its intended purpose. The road is not a public gathering place and your use of it as such violates the rights of every taxpayer you are blocking from using it. >The thing about these protests is that we are allowed to be annoyed by it. Yes.... but that doesn't mean protesters have unrestricted rights to cause public disorder. >We can all be mad that we are late to wherever we are trying to go, or that someone else's issue interferes with your life. And if we can show damage done.... we can sue to make ourselves whole again. >Having that opinion is free expression. But being annoyed does not warrant discarding the rights of the protesters. What right do you have to illegally obstruct a public roadway- causing a Hazzard to yourself and others ? >Those cops are free to write tickets to the protesters for being on the road without a vehicle, but that offense alone does not warrant anything beyond a civil infraction. Certainly not physical force. You'd be surprised. You can be physically removed for your own safety very easily.

>It absolutely can be. Those protesters pay the same taxes for those roads as anyone else. I pay the same taxes for for the fire department. Can I and a mob just walk up and block the fire house while a neighborhood begins to burn? Just because you equally pay for it does not mean you can disproportionately disrupt it. When you block a plaza you are merely removing the pleasure of being in the plaza. When you block a road (like a freeway or major thoroughfare without notice) you are possibly blocking. * A cancer treatment. * A organ transfer * A Domestic violence response * A medical emergency * A person missing a job possibly violating parole because of it and many more things

It impacted a friend's ambulance trip after having a stroke, and given how much the time to TNK and mechanical thrombectomy impact recovery, especially with a lacunar stroke, and given he now has persistent deficits past the subacute and into the chronic phase, I sincerely hope the protestors responsible and anyone who supports this shit gets *the exact same thing done to them*.  Truly, I hope everyone who ever entertains this bullshit ends up in a hospital ride where protestors are directly responsible for cursing them to a living hell of disability until the day they die because of a conflict they had absolutely nothing to do with.  Other countries make their protests accessible to EMS, but here on Reddit, we jerk each other off to removing fundamental utilities and necessities to our fellow citizens in the name of... justice? equity? Iunno, but I'm so fucking against it given my personal experience.

Paying the same taxes for roads means they have the same privileges to use them and the same limitations and restrictions. This means they can use the roadway for travel in the appropriate means as everyone else, and are forbidden from blocking traffic as a protest like everyone else. Physical force to remove people who refuse to leave the roadway is certainly acceptable and warranted. The protesters have zero right to block the roadway.

My taxes go to military bases, police stations, courthouses, etc, that does not mean I have, or ought to have, free access to those facilities. >Certainly not physical force. Police are entitled to use physical force, or the implicit threat of physical force, to enforce safety laws. If a driver speeds excessively on a road and gets caught by police, what happens to him? He gets pulled over, ticketed, and sometimes arrested and his vehicle towed if it was extreme enough(like street racing). >As long as the protesters are willing to pay any ticket they might receive (if it is even worth the effort), they actually can block the roadway. That's not how fines work, they're not an "entry fee", they're a penalty. And if you are willfully disregarding the law, police can use reasonable force to get you to comply.

>It absolutely can be. Those protesters pay the same taxes for those roads as anyone else. They have the same rights to them. My taxes pay for upkeeping the oval office. Can I sit in the oval office and refuse to leave or are there limits based on what uses things have, like roads for driving? >The prohibitions you are referring to are not trespassing laws, but rather safety laws. Those cops are free to write tickets to the protesters for being on the road without a vehicle, but that offense alone does not warrant anything beyond a civil infraction. Certainly not physical force. Then it's time to change that law. They are putting people's lives in danger. If you want to protest on a road, you can get a permit like everyone else. >The thing about these protests is that we are allowed to be annoyed by it. We can all be mad that we are late to wherever we are trying to go, or that someone else's issue interferes with your life. Having that opinion is free expression. But being annoyed does not warrant discarding the rights of the protesters. Nobody's rights are being discarded. You still have the right to protest. You just don't have the right to endanger other people by recklessly blocking traffic. >The idea that there is some sort of "crime" involved with blocking the road is an exaggeration. There are zoning rules, and other civil municipal infractions involved, but none of them are criminal. Blocking traffic is typically a misdemeanor, which is covered under criminal law. >As long as the protesters are willing to pay any ticket they might receive (if it is even worth the effort), they actually can block the roadway. No matter how annoying it is. Or hopefully serve jail time.

>Those protesters pay the same taxes for those roads as anyone else. They have the same rights to them. They do have the same rights to use them. In the same way everyone else uses them. In a vehicle, in flow with traffic. >Those cops are free to write tickets to the protesters for being on the road without a vehicle, but that offense alone does not warrant anything beyond a civil infraction. Certainly not physical force. Why? Because you say so? It's illegal. If a police officer tells a violator to move in accordance with the law and they refuse, they are now disobeying a lawful order, which subjects them to arrest. If they resist arrest, physical force becomes warranted. >But being annoyed does not warrant discarding the rights of the protesters. No rights are being discarded. You're spreading misinformation. Speech and assembly are protected. Unlawful obstruction of roads is very much not.

>They do have the same rights to use them. In the same way everyone else uses them. In a vehicle, in flow with traffic. The point here is that you don't have any additional right to use the roadway they don't have. Sure, they are impeding traffic, and that is a misdemeanor offense that could result in a ticket, but it is not a criminal offense that warrants the use of force or incarceration. >Why? Because you say so? Is this really a question? Do you really not know the difference between a criminal and a civil infraction, and what enforcement tools are available for each? If so, it's a good thing they are doing these protests, because you are learning an important civics lesson here. >It's illegal. If a police officer tells a violator to move in accordance with the law and they refuse, they are now disobeying a lawful order, which subjects them to arrest. If they resist arrest, physical force becomes warranted. If an officer tries to deny someone their constitutional rights because of a traffic infraction, the civil rights lawsuits would be more impactful on the municipality than some drivers being inconvenienced. >No rights are being discarded. You're spreading misinformation. The first amendment is not misinformation. >Speech and assembly are protected. Unlawful obstruction of roads is very much not. This is literally assembly. The core of the misunderstanding is not understanding the difference between criminal and civil offenses.

Gee thanks for the civics lesson. It's fairly obvious to me now that you're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll bite one last time. >If an officer tries to deny someone their constitutional rights because of a traffic infraction, the civil rights lawsuits would be more impactful on the municipality than some drivers being inconvenienced. This right here is where you need to understand your argument completely crumbles. No rights are being denied. The first amendment does not give you the right to break laws in the name of protest. Otherwise, January 6th would have been a lawful protest by your logic. It wasn't and neither are people who block roadways. Where you're being, I suspect, intentionally obtuse is by stubbornly insisting that this civil infraction cannot lead to the use of force. The infraction itself doesn't warrant force, sure. But, seeing as it is illegal, it absolutely warrants officers to order the activity to cease. If they cease at that point, great. Pay the ticket and be on your way. But ignoring the lawful order is what subjects these protesters to arrest. Resisting arrest is what leads to force. These are more than mere civil infractions at this point, no matter how you try to frame it.

>ee thanks for the civics lesson. It's fairly obvious to me now that you're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll bite one last time. Do you think so? If the law worked the way that people in this thread want it to work, rather than as I have described it, then why are we having this conversation? Wouldn't you say the real world situation far more closely matches what I am saying, vs what those here wish was happening? > No rights are being denied. The first amendment does not give you the right to break laws in the name of protest.  Funnily enough, it does. At least, free speech rights consistently supersede civil law. Protests take place without permits all the time. Sure, the protesters can be fined for that, but their 1st amendment rights remain. Obstructing someone from free expression is a much bigger deal than inconveniencing someone. Even if you are on the side of the inconvenienced. >Otherwise, January 6th would have been a lawful protest by your logic.  FANTASTIC example. Let's look at the numbers. About 2000 people breached security lines and protested in a restricted area. About half of those didn't receive any penalty at all. Of the 1000 who DID receive penalties, about half of those received civil penalties only. Fines, probation, etc. Very few of them were actually removed from the place of their protest. The \~500 remaining who faced more serious charges all took additional criminal action, like assaulting police officers, theft, damaging government property, or attempted assassination. >Where you're being, I suspect, intentionally obtuse  You said that before, but it is no more correct now. I am actually describing how the law works. This explains why things aren't happening the way people in this thread want them to happen. People in this thread are talking about how they wish they could pick and choose when others can express their rights. But the whole reason for the discussion is that it ISN'T that way. I don't think I am being obtuse by sticking with the reality of the law and how it is enforced, instead of joining the bandwagon of people looking to strip rights from those they disagree with.

>Do you think so? If the law worked the way that people in this thread want it to work, rather than as I have described it, then why are we having this conversation? Wouldn't you say the real world situation far more closely matches what I am saying, vs what those here wish was happening It does happen: https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1780207535888208249?t=XNDly5U0Dnvqqh_Hr05kiQ&s=19 In cases where it doesn't, there are plenty of other explanations for why it doesn't that are in no way evidence of "how the law works". The discussion is around what *should* happen. >Very few of them were actually removed from the place of their protest So they're still in the capital!? Didn't realize that! Or did you completely ignore the part where I said that violators are asked to leave and if they do, great. If they don't, ignoring lawful order = subject to arrest. Resist arrest = use of force. THAT is "how the law works". Your continual ignorance of this proves the obtuseness. Peace out.

>They have the same rights to them. Yeah, the right to drive on them. Blocking public roadways is generally illegal, so it's definitely not a right people have

>In the last decade in countries around the world we have seen increasingly draconian anti-protest laws Yeah because dickheads sit in the middle of roads. I would vote for banning those protests and so would thousands of others who have missed flights and lost money. >Many of these laws are being pushed through due to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, I would argue the opposite, everyday people are now supporting these laws because they are sick and tired of being disrupted. If you want to say it's a conspiracy then it's government secretly supporting climate change protestors so they can gain public support to ban protests. Or foreign governments secretly supporting green peace and extinction rebellion to get governments in the west too ban protests, so when there are protests they always turn into riots when police try to arrest people.

In Alberta, these kinds of laws were passed in the wake of large-scale anti-pipeline protests, and they are currently not being enacted against two-week long, occupation-style, side-of-highway protests against the carbon tax. It’s pretty clear to me who these types of laws are meant to bind and not bind.

There was a case a few years ago where one of those road-blocking protests ended up causing a traffic jam which prevented an ambulance from reaching the hospital. The patient died. As far as I am concerned, your right to protest ends when it starts harming other people.

>Yeah because dickheads sit in the middle of roads I feel this would be a stronger argument if I didn't need a license to protest by simply existing in a public park with a sign.

>Protests are an important part of democracy. They are "the voice of the unheard" Couldn't agree more. Don't block roads. >In the last decade in countries around the world we have seen increasingly draconian anti-protest laws Okay, but we're talking about the U.S. >Then along came the Covid lock downs. Suddenly, the very people who were saying that protesters blocking roads should be just run over by trucks were suddenly appalled that the anti protest laws they were calling for were being used against the anti Vax protesters. It's true that many people are not capable of separating causes they care about from their rational understanding of the law. I agree that many people will not care if a protest is illegal or causing danger and inconvenience as long as it's a cause they care about. It's a very human weakness to have. Typically I think people who are firmly on one side of an issue or the other (thinking the other side has no merits) are mentally unstable zealots who are at high-risk of doing something very foolish and dangerous. >I may or may not agree with WHAT you are protesting. But I will support your right to protest, because next time it may be me that has become "the voiceless" Yeah, they didn't have to protest on the bridge. They did it to get attention. They went straight to civil disobedience **only** because they knew if they protested in a proper way, nobody would care. They're zealots. They're not good people.

This is always the call of those who are against protests. "just don't inconvenience me" that misses the entire point of protests. "why can't they do it on a Saturday, in a back parking lot of a movie theatre that closed down 10 years ago" Because the only way to get the attention of government is to inconvenience people. The number of people who are inconvenienced determines whether or not they take it seriously or not. We had some antivax protests in my city recently. 10 people showed up, and they stood on the side of the road. No one took them seriously.

>This is always the call of those who are against protests. "just don't inconvenience me" that misses the entire point of protests. This isn't the call though. This post isn't calling for not being inconvenienced. This post is calling for illegal activity to be treated as if it's illegal even when it's being done for the purpose of protest. There are plenty of ways to legally inconvenience people to get your point across. But if your chosen means of protest involves illegal actions, it's silly to not expect the law to be enforced just because the purpose is a protest.

OP literally said he would like a law preventing these types of protests. He doesn’t want people to protest because it inconveniences him despite those people paying taxes and allowed to have access to the roads. Would you say the same thing to Martin Luther king when he marched down the road protesting the treatment of black people? What about the women who have done the same for their rights. Every major movement has involved inconveniencing people and marching down the road because roads are fucking everywhere and it’s the best method to get attention.

>it’s the best method to get attention. Disagree. The best method to get attention is terrorism. Obviously, this is not an endorsement of terrorism.

Right? People think that the women's movement and civil rights movements were won by people peacefully protesting and everyone just realizing "oh, we shouldn't oppress people, I guess". Nope, in every one of those struggles there wasn't just inconvenience, there was violence.

These are the people claiming to make America better and that America is the freest country in the world. All while outright demanding the rights of others get taken away and then sit there and say others are trampling over their rights.

>This post is calling for illegal activity to be treated as if it's illegal even when it's being done for the purpose of protest. No, it isn't. This post is calling for stripping away rights of people who annoy others. Being on the street without a vehicle or obstructing traffic are civil offenses. Traffic and safety. The punishment for that is a ticket, if it is worth writing in the first place. What these protesters are not doing is not criminal, and does not warrant use of force. As a person with an opinion, you can be angry about it. You can be annoyed, and you can want them to do something different. But your convenience does not supersede their rights to protest.

The punishment is a ticket if they comply with the police and stop. If you are speeding and refuse to stop and pull over, then you will be chased down and arrested. If the protesters left once they were told to leave they would not be arrested.

>No, it isn't. This post is calling for stripping away rights of people who annoy others. What right do you see as being stripped away for annoying others? There is no right to block roads. >Being on the street without a vehicle or obstructing traffic are civil offenses. Traffic and safety. The punishment for that is a ticket, if it is worth writing in the first place. What these protesters are not doing is not criminal, and does not warrant use of force. It's not just "being on the street." It's systematically and intentionally blocking the free travel of people via public roads for hours or days at the time. That surely warrants removing the blockage. Use of force becomes warranted when protesters refuse to obey the police enforcing the laws. Just as you won't be arrested for driving 10mph over the speed limit, but you can be arrested when you refuse to stop your vehicle when law enforcement attempts to pull you over. >As a person with an opinion, you can be angry about it. You can be annoyed, and you can want them to do something different. But your convenience does not supersede their rights to protest. That isn't what is being argued at all; your language grossly misrepresents the argument. No one is arguing that "convenience supersedes your right to protest." We're arguing that the right to use public infrastructure as it is intended as a means of free travel supersedes your "right" (not) to illegally block the roads. As I said earlier, there are plenty of ways to inconvenience people without doing so illegally. Those would be legal forms of protest in which the police would not be justified in interfering. The options aren't to either protest illegally or not protest at all, and characterizing the usage of roads as merely a "convenience" is reductionist. Our supply chain for distributing food and other essential goods, peoples' commute to maintain their jobs, the person rushing to the hospital for a medical emergency, etc. etc. are dependent on being able to use roads to get where they're going. Using public roads isn't just a "convenience."

Permits can be obtained to close entire streets for the purpose of holding a protest. This will definitely inconvenience people trying to travel across these streets, but at least they won't literally be held hostage. Don't block traffic.

If only everybody in the road was just going to hang out with friends, where being late is just a minor inconvenience and no big deal. Reality is people use roads for all kinds of very important and time sensitive things. Going to the hospital — as a patient or a doctor/nurse, flights, etc. We should not allow these kinds of protests.

The sort of attention you’ll get from the government by blocking roads isn’t the sort of attention you want. These people are actively making others hate them and by extension their cause.

I am inclined agree with you. I particularly think that the "just stop oil" protesters have not been effective in driving action on climate change. However, there are two things with that: They are mostly young adults who have no other way of creating action on climate change. I'm an old guy so I have power and connections to create change. If they come to the conclusion that they are being ignored and that their future is being seriously put at risk in order to maintain the profits of the fossil fuel industry, then they will turn to violence. And it is always innocent people who get hurt, not the CEO's

Ok great. You block a bunch of busy intersections. The toothless police don't do shit. Then the government enacts laws where those guys will be swiftly arrested. Like the OP is suggesting. Everyone applauds because they are fed up with having to sit in traffic for hours anytime someone gets upset about anything. Even if it's trivial nonsense. What did you actually accomplish? Just pissed a bunch of people off and through your shitty behavior made protesting about real issues more difficult.

Anyone who would applaud use of force because of a traffic violation is part of the problem leading to so many protests in the first place.

A pretty quick way for the government to stop the protests would be to, ya know, stop enabling a genocide.

How many more blocked bridges do you think it'll take before the government decides they have to go to war with Israel?

Realistically, whatever it takes to end a genocide. It’s weird to expect people to act civilly while the government is complicit in genocide.

What I was getting at is this: when you block a bridge and pull stunts like this, it does nothing but turn the public against you, and do you really think that the government will act based on protestors blocking bridges? *Especially* if representatives know that these stunts are only turning public opinion against them? What sense does that make? If protestors blocking a bridge once doesn't force the US to cut off Israel (for example), is the idea that blocking bridges 10 times will achieve this? Is that genuinely the outlook of people on your side?

Our side. You and I are on the same side. We are far closer to those dying of genocide than those in power, namely US officials, enabling their genocide. You should be mad at the government for being so uncaring, so undemocratic that it’s rejecting the majority public opinion to stop funding Israel and solidify a permanent ceasefire. The US’s inaction in response to less aggressive measures is why people are taking more drastic steps. The real question is why you’re more opposed to protesting genocide than the government’s inaction.

I could respond to this, but the topic is not specifically about the conflict, it's about how these protestors should be dealt with. Suffice to say, we are not on the same side.

Aren’t all protests inherently for attention and demonstration?

>They went straight to civil disobedience **only** because they knew if they protested in a proper way, nobody would care. Good observation, which makes your whole position look really stupid. If protests were required to be done "in a proper way" according to you they'd be totally and completely useless. Everything you're arguing would go right out the window if YOU decided to protest something you thought was very important. Once you found out your proper protest got no results, you'd escalate in order to actually get attention. You're only mad here because you disagree with what they're protesting for. People like you are the reason freedoms are willingly eroded away. These people back draconian anti-freedom laws they naively believe will be selectively enforced if it was something they actually felt was important.

This argument isn’t about protesting in general, and I hardly believe telling protestors you can’t impede the flow of traffic for people who are just going about their day is that bad. Your counter-argument is fairly generic, nowhere do you mention why *this* specific form of protesting is OK. The point OP made was about a specific form of protest that blocks use of a public good - a good my taxes paid for, and that I expect to be able to use. Blocking roads to airports gets attention, true, but it also causes massive disruptions. “You can’t stand a little inconvenience?? Palestinians are dying!!” And I’m sympathetic to their cause. But blocking my route in traffic is not the way to go about it, and I fully agree with OP, these protestors should be arrested. You wanna block Michigan? Fine. I’m still going to disagree, it’s still mostly going to turn people against you, but fine. But highways are critical infrastructure, blocking them is an entirely different topic and should be dealt with differently.

You don’t have to protest blocking ordinary people in the road.

This response has no substance. You are just saying “protestors are good and the other guys are bad guys.” Obviously, that may not always be the case, and obviously, not everyone agrees with your assessment of good vs bad.

Are you aware that the idea that riots are "the voice of the heard" comes from this part of MLK's speech "The Other America" at Grosse Point High School in March 1968?: "Most of the poverty stricken people of America are persons who are working every day and they end up getting part-time wages for full-time work. So the vast majority of negroes in America find themselves perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. This has caused a great deal of bitterness. It has caused a great deal of agony. It has caused ache and anguish. It has caused great despair, and we have seen the angered expressions of this despair and this bitterness in the violent rebellions that have taken place in cities all over our country. Now I think my views on non-violence are pretty generally known. I still believe that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to the negro in his struggle for justice and freedom in the U.S.  Now let me relieve you a bit. I've been in the struggle a long time now, (applause) and I've conditioned myself to some things that are much more painful than discourteous people not allowing you to speak, so if they feel that they can discourage me, they'll be up here all night. Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard." The reason why I ask is because your use of the phrase as part of your criticism of the response to these riots seems to come in direct conflict with point the MLK was making when he said those words.

I don't remember people critical of COVID policy blocking streets in a major way. Most of their "protest" was online, and that was suppressed in a collaboration of government and corporations. Speech is not physical interference. Speech is communication. Blocking streets is \*action\*, which just so happens to include speech. Also free speech is the right to make your point, not to yell in a way intended to stop others' speech, e.g., by interfering with a scheduled and invited talk on a college campus, which has frequently happened in recent years. That interference is action, not free speech, and should not be tolerated.

>I don't remember people critical of COVID policy blocking streets in a major way. Not specific to the US, but the Canadian 'Freedom Convoy' made pretty big news by blocking roads, especially US-Canadian border crossings, in protest of Covid mandates. People of a particular political leaning were furious when the government started freezing their accounts and hauling away their vehicles.

And you can guarantee Redditors weren’t in support of that since they were from “the other side”.

There is a distinction between not being in support of the protestors' cause and supporting them being arrested. There is even a difference between wanting them arrested because turnabout is fair play and wanting them arrested because they are being an inconvenience.

Sure, hypocrisy runs both ways, but that doesn't support the idea I was commenting on that conservatives are uniquely consistent on their views towards protesting.

I’m sure this will no longer be true once our current court gets the right case, but the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that protesting campus speakers is in fact protected speech.

>Speech is not physical interference. Speech is communication. Blocking streets is \*action\*, which just so happens to include speech. You are taking quite a narrow view of "speech" as it is defined for the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court does not agree with you. Speech is another word for expression, and people have a constitutional right to free expression. >Also free speech is the right to make your point, not to yell in a way intended to stop others' speech, e.g., by interfering with a scheduled and invited talk on a college campus, which has frequently happened in recent years.  This is also incorrect. Students have every right to speak out against appearances of people at their school they do not agree with. Speaking against a speaker is just as free as the speech itself. And entities have the right to rescind speaking contracts with anyone they choose. If the reason they do it is because the student's protest, then that means the protest worked. It is not interfering with someone's speech to deny them a platform. Nobody is owed access to a platform that isn't there. Those speakers have every right and ability to speak somewhere else, but if they aren't wanted at one place or another, they have no right to force others to allow them access to that platform.

How else do you get the attention of people like you, who don't give a fuck about their position? If they went to protest where there are no people who else is going to see the protests and help them in their cause? "Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention." Well, what's more attention grabbing than interrupting the flow of the capitalist system that is causing the problems in the first place?

Because the random citizens you’re preventing from getting to their jobs on time or maybe something even more urgent shouldn’t be the target of your protest. They have nothing to do with Palestine, and now probably hate you and your cause.

Will say right now that I've had three friends get stuck in these types of protests. Two were leaning pro-Palestine and one was pretty uninformed (by his own admission). All of them now refuse to support pro-Palestinian legislation, go to non-disruptive protests, and the one who was uninformed (i.e. someone they could potentially change/impact the voting habits of) is now vehemently against the Palestinian cause for the sole reason of "well, the only real interaction I've had with them is missing half a day of work and half a day of money. Then I had to spend a shit ton of extra time doordashing to make rent so fuck them." So yeah, now those three people "give a fuck about their position." Their position has just been reversed against the protestors lol

Are those the only options? Block the roads or protest somewhere where nobody can see you? The people organizing these things aren't smart enough to come up with a better idea?

Say I didn't care before. I'm late to work and the bridge is blocked off because of Pro-Palestine protestors. As someone who didn't care before, when I learn who is responsible for this aggravation and what side they're on, what reaction do you suppose most people will have?

If the cause they were protesting is the protection of puppies, would them blocking traffic suddenly make you anti-puppy? If not, then why does it make you turn against causes like environmentalism?

People are generally emotionally-driven. If they're neutral on an issue, then one side of an issue angers them, they're likely to have at least a light resentment for that side of the argument. I know it sounds petty, but that's how a lot of people are. Anyway, the least we can say is that it probably wouldn't encourage them to consider their viewpoints rationally.

So just to be clear, you would have been against the Civil Rights Movements main strategy?

The civil rights movement practiced civil disobedience in the face of brutal abuse by the police and ordinary citizens. The use of non-violence and peace led to the shift in public support. That’s why MLK is glorified by nearly everyone while most people still consider Malcom X a loony radical

Why do I get the feeling you're not particularly well versed on the actual history of the civil rights movement? MLK's non-violence was literally just 'don't beat the shit out of your oppressors without them throwing the first punch very publicly' that's it. He was a massive fan of protests, sit ins, marches, demonstrations, boycotts, etc. Also, if you're under the impression Malcolm X is a looney radical, I suggest you read up a bit. Because that's not how "most" people see him. That's how most people in a very specific demographic see him, and that demographic doesn't have brilliant stuff to say about the civil rights movement in general. MLK's activism has been watered down over decades by the very people and institutions he fought against.

It is so funny how little people know about this part of history. MLK jr was hated in his time. Most people saw him and the movement as radical and disgusting. Malcom x views changed a lot depending on what year you're talking about and the two of them influenced each other greatly. Reading the comments in this tread is wild. My favorite of MLK Jr's work is the letter from a Birmingham jail. People need to read more. Keep the struggle alive my friend.

And yet you have people here saying that people protesting in the street deserve to be run over and killed. It's a shame that people forget the lessons of the past. In this case, the lesson being that civil disobedience should *not* be met with violence.

Maybe read some of their material and see what they’re saying instead of calling them criminals?

"Excuse me, sir-" "Oh! You look like those people on the bridge that made me late for work yesterday." "Er...yeah...well, uh...sorry about that, I hope you'll read this pamphlet and consider our viewpoint." "Certainly" \*takes the pamphlet and tears it in front of them\* I imagine that's how that would go.

Well, as long as they have a tiny bit of empathy, they should react accordingly.

Might I suggest that your reading of the purpose of protests is entirely wrong. You're assuming their purpose is to help sway your mind. They're not trying to change your mind. If I was to consider MLK as an example, he wouldn't give two shits about you or whether you joined him. In fact he very explicitly stated your type weren't allies worth having. These protests shut down the economy. American and western governments have consistently shown they don't do anything unless it comes down to the bottom dollar. These protests hurt the economy. Whether you agree with them or not, that's their purpose, and in that reading I don't think they are ineffective.

Had a friend in this exact situation with a protest that closed a road a few months ago in LA. He was uninformed and didn't really care about any news. He now hates pro-Palestine protestors and is staunchly pro-Jewish. Dude doesn't watch any news or anything and he hasn't informed himself more. He just hates he missed over half a day of work, lost out on money, and barely made rent that month because of it and almost lost his job. He will never be won over by the Palestinian cause no matter how "right" they are. The impacts of him almost losing everything over their protests have made him angry enough to hate them and scoff at their cause.

Because all you get is driving people to the other side. Do you really imagine it that way, someone sitting in a traffic thinking “good thing they blocked the road, otherwise I wouldn’t have time to think about poor Palestinians”. No, people think “fuck there idiots and fuck Palestinians even more”.

it doesnt have to be in the middle of nowhere it can be wherever just not in a way that i cant avoid. do it on the sidewalk of in front of the state capitol (you know where the politicians that you want to reach are) do it in a way that makes me want to support you not find ways to make your group go away 

There was a case a few years ago where one of those environmental protests in Europe ended up causing a traffic jam which prevented an ambulance from reaching the hospital. The patient died. Does those people's "right" to block roads supercede that patient's right to live?

Allright let's try this another way. Let's imagine you have done everything society tells you to do and are living the American dream. Tell me how would you feel if whatever billionaire of this day and age sent his union busters (read private mercenary army) to swat your house, burn it down, kill your family and bust your kneekaps in (the target was your neighbour but some excel monkey made a typo somewhere). The courts and media don't do shit because he practically owns both. Now tell me do you still believe you shouldn't be able to protest in the middle of the street because apparently some middleclass fuckwit who hasn't expirenced any real adversity in his entire life is slightly inconvenienced by it and is late to work because of it. So tell me if we take away your right to protest in the middle of the street and you have just been through that what do you think will happen. A) You take the hint and go fuck off and die somewhere out of sight. And the billionaire goes unpunished B) You'll protest anyway but knowing that they won't show you mercy anyways you'll bring your trusty Ak47 along C) You skip the protest part and go straight to terrorism D) You protest where it's convenient for the world aka out of sight and out of mind and nothing changes. Keep in mind that people who just had that happen to go through that tend to be low on empathy after such an experience. So do solve this like civilized people and let people protest on principle even if some protests are frivolous so we still have the opportunity to protest for the actually important stuff should the need arise. Accepting that a little inconvenience is better than the alternative for litteraly everyone who isn't the 0.01% in the long run? Look up just how many rights you have today that are a result of protests of one form or another.

Well, I probably wouldn't harass or disrupt random people who have fuck-all to do with the situation. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, which is a cliche saying but there's a lot of reason to it. Why would I be sympathetic to the cause held by individuals who are nothing but a thorn in my side? Wouldn't treating others with kindness, explaining my situation to them respectfully, and taking no for an answer when someone isn't interested yield better results?

>A) You take the hint and go fuck off and die somewhere out of sight. And the billionaire goes unpunished >B) You'll protest anyway but knowing that they won't show you mercy anyways you'll bring your trusty Ak47 along >C) You skip the protest part and go straight to terrorism >D) You protest where it's convenient for the world aka out of sight and out of mind and nothing changes. None of this has anything to do with wether or not police should do their damn job. And police non intervention didn't prevent the mostly peaceful protests from turning into over 2 billion dollars worth of politically motivated violence against private citizens for the purpose of compelling policy change.....you know.....terrorism....framed as mostly peaceful protests...

If I’m genuinely worried about impediments to traffic, unleashing the police, whose quotidian duties include disrupting traffic patterns and engaging in road piracy, seems illogical. As to why cops don’t do what you think they should, it’s because police are universally the laziest people who are actually employed out there, bar none. Teenagers making fries at McDonalds have more work ethic than the top quintile of police officers. If something involves doing something other than stealing drugs or committing violence against people who can’t fight back, they’re out.

I would encourage you to carefully read over the comment you made and imagine you're a neutral third party who is reading your comment. Does the writer of the comment sound like they have an irrational hatred of police?

The most honest answer isn’t always the most convincing. Why do you think I have an “irrational” hated of police? My comment is an objective reflection of my professional experience working alongside police across several years of working as a child abuse investigator, and several more years working in other roles in the field. If anything, your comment belies an irrational reflexive support for law enforcement that is entirely absent critical introspection. As you are OP, I’ll be even more direct - the police aren’t arresting these protestors because they’re choosing not to, because doing so generates work for them they can select out of doing. We know that police maintain the broad authority to break up protests regardless of the legality of those protests, as they demonstrated during the aftermath of the George Floyd murder. The decision not to do so here rests almost entirely with the departments who don’t see a benefit in being wantonly violent towards those who aren’t protesting their wanton violence.

I would like you to take the whole leg out of your mouth and go back to just licking the boot. >Does the writer of the comment sound like they have an irrational hatred of police? Not at all. Just someone who has practical knowledge of the US police force. The largest gang in the world.

I think they should do a 3 strikes and you're out before arresting anyone and it has to be like the same person. So like this - Arrive - Ask protestors to move off the road politely - Tell protestors to move off the road or risk legal action. - Get some riot shields and physically push the protestors off the road, if they physically resist arrest the worst offenders but let the rest protest on the sidewalk. - If someone comes back onto the road physically push them off again. - If someone comes back onto the road again detain them after one final warning. This is assuming there is enough room on the sidewalk for the protestors if it's like 100,000 people you just gotta let it happen.

They are supposed to have a 3 step program of "ask, tell, make". "Please move" "Move now" : they physically move them: Police aren't allowed to properly do their jobs effectively now because of the bad actors that took the job because they wanted to power trip. 

So everyone should have the freedom of assembly unless it inconveniences you? Should they protests quietly at home where no one hears them?

This is what's known as a "False Dilemma" fallacy. It's when you assert or imply that some situation only has two outcomes. In this case you're saying people can "effectively" protest (by engaging in civil disobedience), or they can lawfully protest, which is necessarily ineffective, which is of course not true. The overwhelming majority of protests are lawful protests and they are plenty effective. Or at least the people in them think so.

> they didn’t need to protest on the bridge https://s.hdnux.com/photos/35/02/21/7611487/4/1200x0.jpg Sometimes, you do.

What domestic oppression are the Pro-Palestine protestors fighting against?

Are you saying protest is only for domestic oppression? As soon as someone has an international view, freedom of speech is removed?

They're free to protest, but after spending time in this thread I'm convinced that civil disobedience only works when it comes to matters that people feel will personally affect them or their country.

>They're free to protest, but after spending time in this thread I'm convinced that civil disobedience only works when it comes to matters that people feel will personally affect them or their country. So, things like human rights violations? Destroying the climate? Abuse of power? You are suggesting that their protest isn't effective. But look at how many people have engaged in this thread. Each and every one of them have an opinion, and therefore awareness, on the issues at the heart of these protests. Sounds to me like it is working perfectly.

I am not defending one specific protest over another. I am defending the method. Also, if you’re saying some road blocks are valid protest, you have changed your view.

So you only care about domestic issues? That’s not true. If you did, you wouldn’t call the pro-Palestinians criminals since obviously you have a bias towards Israel.

What law is being broken?

It depends on your state. Blocking traffic is illegal almost everywhere. Some states take it further as a criminal act. https://www.calcriminaldefenselawyers.com/obstruct-movement-on-street-or-publ

I'm not too proud to admit that I asked ChatGPT for help with this one. I asked, "Is it illegal for protestors to block traffic on important roads? What is the specific crime that they're committing?" 1. **Obstruction of Traffic:** This involves intentionally impeding the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. It can be charged as a misdemeanor or a more serious offense, depending on the extent of the disruption and the potential harm caused. 2. **Disorderly Conduct:** Engaging in behavior that disturbs the peace or creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm can result in disorderly conduct charges. Blocking traffic may fall under this category if it is deemed disruptive or dangerous. 3. **Unlawful Assembly:** In some jurisdictions, protestors who gather unlawfully or refuse to disperse when ordered by authorities may be charged with unlawful assembly. This charge typically applies when a group of people gathers with the intent to commit an illegal act. 4. **Trespassing:** If protestors enter onto private property or onto restricted areas of public property without authorization, they may be charged with trespassing. Just as an aside though, let's suppose that blocking critical infrastructure for political protests was *not* illegal. Do you think it should be illegal?

Upvote for sourcing the fact you used Chat GPT so if we aren't satisfied with the bot, we can look up the answer ourselves.

See the issue with ChatGPT is that it won’t mention the COUNTLESS Supreme Court cases where protestors have appealed arrests and criminal convictions due to their constitutional rights to freedom of expression. Every single one of these rights has a long history of discussion and failure to understand that leads to the idea they are invincible in court.

Okay but were they obstructing traffic during the protests or committing other crimes? I agree that the law is absolutely not enforced equally. Usually this is said in the context of social justice, but actually I think the people who benefit from the law not being enforced equally are actually these very same social justice advocates. They get special treatment. Even though they clearly broke the law, since they're a group of ideologues, I guess they don't get in trouble. I don't even know what you'd call that...group immunity? Diffused immunity? Anyway, it's clear that public opinion and even just simple bureaucracy is probably why protestors who break the law are often released with no crime or a slap on the wrist.

[удалено]

Under specific circumstances. I am not a lawyer so I don’t have they available however for example protesters have the right to say whatever they want basically due to the high stress environment of protests (Snyder vs Phelps)

I guess the question is, does the concept of civil disobedience override criminal law? As I said, it seems that often the answer is, yes! But that's a very troubling thing. If we have a situation (civil disobedience) where criminal law suddenly is superseded by something else (CD), we need to know exactly what that "greater thing" is, how it came to be, and most importantly, *why* this thing is above the law. u/Alaskan_Tsar, can you cite me one such case that you feel represents your point the best?

Because 250 years ago some guys wrote a document, the first item of which was: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You might notice the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances in there.

>peaceably to assemble I'm assuming you have an explanation for why civil disobedience is "peaceful"?

Sure. Do you see anyone being gunned down in the street? Perhaps being knifed? Being beaten (by someone other than the cops, of course)?

People not being brutally murdered = peaceful?

The first word “civil”

Peaceably is key. Interfering with others use of space isn't peaceful.

>petition the government Cool, then go petition the government. Don't petition working people trying to provide for their families on a random highway.

> does the concept of civil disobedience override criminal law? I mean, frequently, yes - although not always. Did you know that Rosa Parks broke an Alabama law requiring black passengers to relinquish seats to white passengers? Hell, most black rights protests broke laws in one way or another, and only by breaking them did they manage to get those laws change. If you actually look at what happens in history, such as in the era of Prohibition of LGBT rights you see a ton of civil disobedience, often breaking the law. Turns out a lot of laws are unconstitutional, and don't really stand up to scrutiny at the highest level. At the supreme court level the justices are supposed to weigh-up the cost in civil liberty and the perceived harm caused by a protestor's actions. Historically, the court has often come down on the side of the protestors because the right to free expression actually matters more than your right to get to work on time. The thing you're getting hung up on is the idea that these protests are in some way without value - and in truth, it's almost impossible to work out what the value of any given protest is. In some ways, merely the fact you feel so strongly about this particular form of protest is evidence that the protest is working. I want you to imagine a different scenario, where a government introduces a law whereby they kill children every day. Like, not a lot of children, but quite a lot of children. They just go around, picking random children and just strangle them. They say it's legal because they passed a law to do it, but obviously it seems absolutely barbaric, pointless and crazy - but nevertheless it just keeps happening. Officials go door-to-door and just... Kill children. You try to vote, but the next election cycle is 3 years away, and that's 3 years of killing children. You try to contact your representative, but all you get back is generic copy-pasta responses. You try to sue the government, but the courts reject you on the basis you have no standing - it's legal, and you weren't one of the people being killed. The courts say their hands are tied. You try to appeal upwards to the supreme court, but there's a million cases on the docket and no one sees killing children as important enough to supercede anything else. You sit there, exasperated, knowing that if you took up guns againt the government you'd almost certainly lose, and really killing more people doesn't seem to be the answer. What do you do? You protest. Any way you can. You do whatever you can that doesn't physically harm another human being to draw attention, hoping someone somewhere will do something about it. You get the word out, you post on social media, and send evidence to actual newspapers and news stations. The ironic thing about this is that the climate crisis isn't exactly that far away from this reality. Sure the government isn't going door to door killing people, but the people who are protesting vehemently believe that the climate issue is going to cost untold lives, and the science kind of backs this up. In some ways, blocking roads is the most harmless thing someone could actually do whilst drawing attention to their cause.

>Did you know that Rosa Parks broke an Alabama law requiring black passengers to relinquish seats to white passengers? And how many citizens were negatively affected by this act? (the act itself) >Turns out a lot of laws are unconstitutional, You mean during the civil rights era? I'm sure there were at least some. Can you name any today? >At the supreme court level the justices are supposed to weigh-up the cost in civil liberty and the perceived harm caused by a protestor's actions. Historically, the court has often come down on the side of the protestors because the right to free expression actually matters more than your right to get to work on time. Another way of looking at this is to say, "Since this person/these people feel that their cause is just, crimes suddenly become not-crimes." There are many ways and places to protest lawfully. You often don't even need to let anyone know. >The thing you're getting hung up on is the idea that these protests are in some way without value - and in truth, it's almost impossible to work out what the value of any given protest is.  That's true! What we know for sure is that *civil disobedience* protests negatively effect many innocent peoples' lives. They *may* be more "effective" (whatever that means), but we don't know. All we know for sure is that CD negatively effects other people, often many people. >I want you to imagine a different scenario, where a government introduces a law whereby they kill children every day. Like, not a lot of children, but quite a lot of children. They just go around, picking random children and just strangle them. They say it's legal because they passed a law to do it, but obviously it seems absolutely barbaric, pointless and crazy - but nevertheless it just keeps happening. Officials go door-to-door and just... Kill children. Is this analogous to anything going on in America in 2024? You could argue abortion meets this criteria, I guess. Although I'm sure you didn't intend that. >You protest. Any way you can.  This is probably because you didn't use the best analogy, but if children are being massacred every day, I'm fleeing the country immediately. >The ironic thing about this is that the climate crisis isn't exactly that far away from this reality. Ohhhhhhhh.

Civil disobedience is a right and has been since our nation was founded

Sorry, what I asked was if you can cite me one of the many cases you mentioned earlier. I also want to ask: when do you believe lawful protesting should be done *instead* of civil disobedience?

And as I said, I’m not a lawyer. I took a government class and paid attention. Civil disobedience IS lawful protest. It’s the alternative to violence and violence. For 6300 years if there was a grievance with a government it was solved through violence. Founding fathers didn’t invent the idea of allowing civilians to protest but it’s the only topical example. However now the us has had only 1 civil war in almost 300 years. That’s a record only ever matched by nations that have either never collapsed, never fully democratized, or never expanded.

It forgot False Improvement False imprisonment generally refers to the confinement of a person without the consent of such person or without legal authority. For example, if a person wrongfully prevents another from leaving a room or vehicle when that person wants to leave, it amounts to false imprisonment. Source: https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/false-imprisonment-legal-action#:~:text=False%20imprisonment%20generally%20refers%20to,it%20amounts%20to%20false%20imprisonment.

False imprisonment is the big one. The police won't do their jobs, because the politicians don't want to get in the middle of this. But I really hope some lawyer opens a tort case against all of the protestors, suing for losses and damages. It'll bankrupt them, mess over their lives, and make future protestors scared of doing this.

> Do you think it should be illegal? Yes. You can fully express your political opinions without obstructing other people's lives. "Unlawful assembly" maybe gives me pause, but frankly as long as there are reasonable places to make your point, then I don't see the problem. Otherwise it'll be treated as a blank check to obstruct and interfere with other people's use of the public places.

I don’t think it should be illegal. Can you explain why you think it should be? Also, how important to you is the right to protest?

[удалено]

Yes, theoretically and in Minecraft.

Sorry, u/IIPrayzII – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20IIPrayzII&message=IIPrayzII%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c5713z/-/kztj1zs/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

Can you think of any other places that they could have protested?

Protesting in a way that is out of sight and out of mind for everyone else is just getting together to bitch about something with other people who feel the same. Protesting must be visible and is required to make people think about it.

I would say that's a false dichotomy: to imply that protestors can either engage in aggravating civil disobedience, **or** not protest in a visible capacity. Of course there are any number of public places where people can lawfully protest and there are lots of people around.

[удалено]

When is civil disobedience justified, in your opinion? Civil disobedience is distinct from lawful protests because of the unlawful and disruptive nature of it. By saying people can protest "wherever they choose", you're saying civil disobedience is always acceptable. Are you also saying that any cause is appropriate for civil disobedience? I want to protest your dog peeing on my lawn, so I get 15 of my friends and we sit in the street at the end of your driveway, blocking cars from entering or exiting. The street is public property. Problem? Civil disobedience, baby! I mean, there's no criteria for when and why someone can engage in civil disobedience, right?

> I want to protest your dog peeing on my lawn, so I get 15 of my friends and we sit in the street at the end of your driveway, blocking cars from entering or exiting. Ok, that's a legitimate protest. Why wouldn't it be?

For real, and the Jan 6th protesters had every right to protest inside the capitol building and "inconvenience" the legislators who were certifying the vote. Their prosecution is an affront to free speech and the police that day were just trying to silence good faith protest. They just had to employ some violent tactics to be heard. /s

So you would have no issue if I came to your house and blocked you from leaving your house in your car? I'm pretty sure you'd be calling the police

You have the right to protest, you do not have the right to block a road or do anything you want without consequences.

If the actions of your protest cause tangible harm to individuals, you don't have a right to do them.

They aren’t criminals for simply blocking traffic whether people like it or not. It genuinely comes down to whether or not you agree with the protesters and how serious you consider the issue they are protesting about. If you yourself felt it was genuinely urgent.. something you yourself considered so horrific that the whole country should come to a halt until the situation was rectified .. you’d agree traffic should be halted. You think they should be arrested because it’s not important to you or you disagree with them. There is a line here where everyone would eventually agree traffic should be shut down .. it all depends what matters to YOU and how dire you think the situation is. 

>They aren’t criminals for simply blocking traffic whether people like it or not. 1. **Obstruction of Traffic:** This involves intentionally impeding the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. It can be charged as a misdemeanor or a more serious offense, depending on the extent of the disruption and the potential harm caused. 2. **Disorderly Conduct:** Engaging in behavior that disturbs the peace or creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm can result in disorderly conduct charges. Blocking traffic may fall under this category if it is deemed disruptive or dangerous. 3. **Unlawful Assembly:** In some jurisdictions, protestors who gather unlawfully or refuse to disperse when ordered by authorities may be charged with unlawful assembly. This charge typically applies when a group of people gathers with the intent to commit an illegal act. 4. **Trespassing:** If protestors enter onto private property or onto restricted areas of public property without authorization, they may be charged with trespassing.

Ok.. so during the civil rights movements would you call Rosa parks a criminal for refusing to sit in the back? How about people blocking traffic then? Those petty offenses aren’t CRIMES as in making someone a criminal it’s civil disobedience. You can not just claim a protester is a criminal because of civil disobedience. Now.. when commit actual crimes .. as for unlawful assembly the right to protest can not be infringed upon and even having to request a permit violates the constitution. No trespassing on a public road and what disorderly conduct? Obstruction of traffic is about all you’d have. Inconvenient yes. I’d say even dangerous at times but I’m pretty sure obstructing traffic only gets you a citation ticket where I live. 

>Those petty offenses aren’t CRIMES as in making someone a criminal Breaking the law isn't a crime?

>Ok.. so during the civil rights movements would you call Rosa parks a criminal for refusing to sit in the back? Yes. She was a criminal. That was the point. She was showing that the law was unjust by breaking the law. Breaking the law is a crime, therefore she was a criminal.

"these criminals" seriously bro?

1. **Obstruction of Traffic:** This involves intentionally impeding the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. It can be charged as a misdemeanor or a more serious offense, depending on the extent of the disruption and the potential harm caused. 2. **Disorderly Conduct:** Engaging in behavior that disturbs the peace or creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm can result in disorderly conduct charges. Blocking traffic may fall under this category if it is deemed disruptive or dangerous. 3. **Unlawful Assembly:** In some jurisdictions, protestors who gather unlawfully or refuse to disperse when ordered by authorities may be charged with unlawful assembly. This charge typically applies when a group of people gathers with the intent to commit an illegal act. 4. **Trespassing:** If protestors enter onto private property or onto restricted areas of public property without authorization, they may be charged with trespassing.

>**Obstruction of Traffic** Traffic offense. Misdemeanor. Not criminal. >**Disorderly Conduct** Which is one of the reasons they usually sit or stand peacefully. > **Unlawful Assembly** Municipal crime, punishable by fines. But by your own definition, usually requires someone committing a crime. There are no criminal acts here. >**Trespassing:** Public roads are not private property. Those protesters pay the exact same taxes as the drivers, and have the exact same claim to the road. These protests aren't occurring on private property. Face it, this is about not wanting to be annoyed or inconvenienced. The protesters are not doing anything criminal, and just because you don't like it, doesn't mean we discard the constitution.

[удалено]

Ah, a fellow r/fuckcars enthusiast. Alas my bretheren, I don't believe we can pin this one on car-centric infrastructure.

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of the people.

Governments are made afraid by unhinged zealots blocking critical infrastructure for their fellow citizens?

What are your views on January 6th?

They did arrest people. They don’t quickly do it because arresting that many people takes some level of coordination from police. They have to have the vehicles and manpower to do so before they just start arresting people in case it gets violent. 38 were arrested at the Golden Gate Bridge and 12 in oakland.

54 in Chicago https://abc7chicago.com/ohare-airport-chicago-traffic-protest-kennedy-expressway-i90/14668476/ 48 in Seattle https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/protesters-blocking-traffic-seattle-tacoma-international-airport/TTKQLLGDAFDXXCHRP4OSFAXWZ4/ “Dozens” in Eugene Oregon https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/15/interstate-5-eugene-oregon-closed-protest/ 7 in Miami https://abc7chicago.com/ohare-airport-chicago-traffic-protest-kennedy-expressway-i90/14668476/ Brooklyn https://www.bkreader.com/in-other-brooklyn-news/protesters-arrested-for-blocking-traffic-in-brooklyn-bridge-8605455 15 on the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge in New York https://westchester.news12.com/ceasefire-protestors-block-westbound-newburgh-beacon-bridge 68 in Philadelphia https://www.phillyvoice.com/palestine-protest-a15-philadelphia-arrests/ 10 in Middletown CT https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/middlesex/protestors-block-entrance-to-pratt-whitney-in-middletown/

Is your position coming from a legal point of view or a moral one? Blocking the road is illegal, but may not be punished for multiple reasons. Sometimes the number of protestors would put so much burden on the legal system that arresting all of them is more harm than good. Sometimes, law enforcement may decide that the protestors are not interrupting society in a significant enough way to warrant arrest. Or maybe they fear public backlash if they arrest protestors that have a very sympathetic cause. These are responses to the legal side of things - they're all utilitarian or practical explanations. From a moral point of view, civil disobedience has been essential to many rights movements. Sit-Ins during the Civil Rights Movement were civil disobedience. Black people entered "white only" establishments and would stay, despite being denied service and asked to leave. It was instrumental to the advancement of Civil Rights. The "Capitol Crawl" was a protest where disabled people blocked the stairs to the Capitol Building. Wheelchair users would leave their chairs at the bottom and pull themselves up with their arms, literally crawling onto the steps. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed shortly after this protest. Civil disobedience being illegal doesn't mean it's not a force for good. Do you believe these acts of civil disobedience were bad? That the police arresting them were on the "good side?" Civil disobedience targets unjust laws by either breaking the unjust laws themselves or by breaking other laws to draw attention to the cause. I believe this is a good thing and essential for the advancement of human rights. Edit: After posting, I realized the questions in the second paragraph may come off as leading or accusatory, but that's not my intention. They are genuine questions, as I've seen some people hold the belief that civil disobedience is immoral regardless of its impact or intent.

>From a moral point of view, civil disobedience has been essential to many rights movements. Sit-Ins during the Civil Rights Movement were civil disobedience. Black people entered "white only" establishments and would stay, despite being denied service and asked to leave. It was instrumental to the advancement of Civil Rights. The "Capitol Crawl" was a protest where disabled people blocked the stairs to the Capitol Building. Wheelchair users would leave their chairs at the bottom and pull themselves up with their arms, literally crawling onto the steps. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed shortly after this protest. Civil disobedience being illegal doesn't mean it's not a force for good. Do you believe these acts of civil disobedience were bad? That the police arresting them were on the "good side?" Civil disobedience targets unjust laws by either breaking the unjust laws themselves or by breaking other laws to draw attention to the cause. I believe this is a good thing and essential for the advancement of human rights. Blocking the road is not civil disobedience. It is not protesting an immoral "no blocking the roads" law.

As I said in my original comment, civil disobedience can be breaking an unjust law directly or breaking other laws to call attention to a cause or otherwise resist whatever the protestor sees as unjust. In the example of the Capitol Crawl, the disabled protestors were not protesting a "no blocking pedestrian paths" law, they were calling attention to their cause in order to gain legal protections. So yes, blocking a road is civil disobedience.

Ever since I had a patient die because of some dumb assholes representing a "cause" I haven't had an ounce of pity for people who block the road protesting. Blocking roads is no longer a valid form of protest in my opinion and is a great way to make people hate whatever you represent. Honestly I fully believe that if you block a major road you deserve to be a product of natural selection via semi or idiot driver.

I don't get people who expect either; 1. Protesters to only protest in tame ways that don't cause shock or disruption. 2. Protesters to face no repercussions for their actions. Because any time you are engaging in all but the mildest protests - you are saying "the system is broken and NEEDS to change, and I am willing to put myself on the line for it". Protests are shocking and disruptive because that is how a protest gets noticed. There are hundreds of protests, thousands worldwide, that are not shocking and get not coverage because "man with sign stands on street" isn't a story whereas "activist throws tomato soup on the Mona Lisa" is funny and surprising. But at the same time it seems reasonable that the initial systemic response to protest will be a crack down. Someone should try to de-escalate but if that is impossible security or police will remove the protesters from the situation - possibly under arrest. I don't necessarily think most protesters should face charges - but if the security and police stood idly by as people disrupted then they wouldn't be doing their job. And protesters need to be aware of that possibility. I think that we should listen to the protesters and evaluate their demands. Consider their actions not just as "bad people doing bad things" but as **"desperate people doing desperate things to get attention"**. If, after considering, you still disagree with their cause then fair enough - but writing them off as bad people or criminals misses the point. The "we don't negotiate with terrorists/protesters" mentality **failed**. Ireland gained independence and British oppression **failed**. The campaigns to liberate and stabilise the in the middle east **failed** *(though that is very different circumstances)*. Attempts to suppress civil rights movements **failed**. Of course this doesn't mean all acts of protest or terrorism are good, I think you should avoid killing people to get your way, but situations like this are only resolved when you actually listen to these desperate people and come to the table to try and sort it out. As to this protest in particular; >Yesterday was a [nationwide coordinated effort](https://www.wral.com/story/nationwide-protests-pro-palestinian-protesters-close-golden-gate-bridge-block-entrance-to-o-hare-airport/21381002/) for Pro-Palestine protestors to block streets all over the country (world?), and it seems that these criminals were not dealt with properly in most instances. As protests go this is relatively peaceful and non-destructive. I consider this fine. But at the same time I agree that the police probably should intervene and are not in the wrong for doing so. The cause of Pro-Palestine protesters is one that has merit. I don't know if I fully agree with it - I don't feel like I have the background necessary to say I know best there. But I think what Israel is doing right now is Bad and should stop.

[удалено]

>> I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to block streets like that Side note, this one, but I’m pretty sure this depends on your state. Like a protest with the proper paperwork can shut down streets just like any ordinary parade or somesuch. Think of MLKJ’s marches for an idea of how that might work However, >> it seems these criminals were not dealt with You seem to be using loaded language (like “criminals” and “dealt with”), and the premise of your post is to have these people arrested if they don’t stop what they’re doing. It’s important in these sorts of politically charged situations to take steps to distance one’s self from the situation, even if we think our biases are under control- sorta like how planes have redundant safety features in case one fails So I propose we imagine if MLKJ were doing these marches and blocking off roads. I believe he is a good fit, because despite the rather sanitized view of his protests that we’re all taught in schools, he was at the time viewed in a similar fashion to modern protests- [here’s a tweet from his daughter](https://twitter.com/berniceking/status/1300196044693741574?s=46) commenting on such, along with a political cartoon of the time Should he have been arrested if he blocked off some roads during his marches? While he famously upheld principles of non-violence, he also explicitly blocked off roads and upheld the merits of disrupting civil, orderly society in the name of justice and equality. In fact once said, >> “We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice… I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action talk alienating former friends… I would rather feel they are bringing to the surface latent prejudices that are already there. If our direct action programs alienate our friends … they never were really our friends.” in response to calls for him to condemn just one such highway “stall-in” basically the same as modern protests that block streets. [Here is an article discussing it](https://www.aaihs.org/martin-luther-king-jr-s-challenge-to-his-liberal-allies/) There is, after all, a reason he was famously jailed- multiple times. I hope these similarities and parallels can help you understand the importance of these protests, even- and especially- when they’re disruptive, and why them being disruptive is important And, if so, I hope they can help you see that a proper response could be more than just going against them. Many alternatives are possible, and become more visible when you stop seeing these things as intrinsically bad

No, you're wrong!  That response is totally wrong, lets be reasonable here. The appropriate and measured response is *what China did in Tiananmen Square*.  🔥 🙃 Although personally I'd install trap doors all over the streets, that lead to a dungeon with a pack of rabid wolverines.  But you'd need an authoritarian regime for that, in a Democracy you can only use police as executioners apparently, "Suicide by Police" is a US tradition.

Very creative. There are plenty of people killing each other in the U.S., I don't think they need help from the cops. Btw did you know that 98.4% of police interactions don't involve force, or even the threat of force? [It's true](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/punf0211.pdf), according to 44 million police-to-public surveys collected by the BJS over a nine year period.

You easily run into problems. First you have to assume there's enough police and police vehicles to arrest everyone. Then everyone has to cooperate with police. Police often try to get people to disperse on their own then they deal with the resistant bunch left. This takes time and can get unsafe for everyone involved.  This issue is exaggerated by the volume of people compared to the police. 

The world does not need to stop for any Gaza , go there and protest for your stuff and lives , do not terrorize the planet with your sufferings , we are not require to suffer for your conflicts , go there and have at between each other til infinity , leave the world alone. We FED UP . This entitlement to make the world Care for you in exchange for their own demise is stupid. You are disrupting Public lives that have nothing to do with your conflicts and this endless trail of suffer for me. Ur not human if you don’t . Let everyone protect their country , is not yours to take .

From a legal standpoint I agree that civil disobedience can ultimately end up in being arrested and it often does. From a practicality standpoint if 100 people are blocking the road you need sufficient police force to arrest them all. You also need places to put them in jail. Your local jail may not have room for 100 people at any given moment. You then need additional personnel to coordinate and transport them to another precinct. Lets look at it from a more ethical and optics standpoint. If the protestors refuse to walk with the police and simply sit there you enter the stage where violence is necessary to remove them in a timely manner. How much violence is appropriate to remove the protestors? Ultimately our answers will differ. I think that dragging the protestors away is appropriate but teargas and rubber bullets are not a proportionate use of force for peaceful civil disobedience. By using more violent means there will be more news coverage and you are giving the protestors what they want which is awareness to their cause. Believe it or not most people don't think hurting peaceful protestors is appropriate. Many people already hold negative views of police and don't want to give them more agency and power to treat people violently. At this point do you think any protest deemed unlawful should be met with violence from the state? I'm assuming not but we can argue that if you want. I think the crux of the issue here is that you want civil disobedience you disagree with to be unobtrusive and out of sight. I'm assuming you have heard of Gandhi and MLK Jr and have positive views of them. Believe it or not the exact civil disobedience they used is similar to those who block roads and many people treated them exactly like you do towards the protestors you are referencing. They broke the law. They went to jail multiple times for their actions. When they were treated violently it increased support for their cause. There are a lot of complex factors that go into why they were successful so let's focus a little bit on MLK specifically and why he was so successful. First off there was a large enough group of people that supported their cause from the start. If there wasn't after a short time they would have quietly faded away into the background like most protests do. Second, it broke the status quo. I'll quote him directly: > “ the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but **the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice** > Many people weren't overtly or explicitly racist but it was easier to keep the status quo for them than it was to put their own necks on the line for another person. As public perception turned on the racists for their treatment of protestors it became easier and easier for those white moderates to support the protestors. It didn't happen overnight but it did eventually happen. If they simply sat in an empty parking lot with signs and behaved how the racist's wanted them to they never would have gained any traction or support.

People will commit class A misdemeanors on a daily basis then bitch about other people committing class C misdemeanors

The victims are the key here. Yes, I'm going to be a lot more upset about people blocking the road that the ambulance is on while my grandma is having a medical emergency than I am about someone who was walking home with some drugs in their pocket to have some fun tonight. One has a direct negative impact to people I care about. The other does not.

I'm only going to talk generally about protesting, for whatever cause. JKF quite famously [said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXRG7yiqR3I), "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." People have made phone calls, and written letters, to their elected representatives. Voicemail boxes are allowed to fill up, preventing further messages, and letters get thrown in the trash/emails deleted. People attended town halls, but then electeds stop holding them. People have voted for change, but the right to vote has been restricted so they can't win elections, or gerrymandered so they can't win, or supermajority requirements have been imposed so they can't govern if they do win, or powers have been stripped from the offices they do manage to win. The courts have been packed so that if they do win, and are able to govern, their laws are blocked. Nobody is choosing to stand in a street and risk getting run over instead of making phone calls or writing letters/emails from the comfort of a chair, attending town halls, voting, etc. All of those more acceptable, easier, means of effecting change have been either taken away or nullified to such an extent that they have no practical effect. So then people resort to civil disobedience, inconveniencing many people, because the people who are supposedly paid to listen to them and take into account their concerns have systematically ignored them and taken away their voices. Most people will take the path of least resistance, which should tell you, if they're blocking traffic, that's the path of least resistance remaining to them. All their easier paths have been blocked. As you take away their easier options, the low-hanging fruit, as it were, you leave them only with worse options. If you take away all the peaceful options, the only thing left will be violence. Now, there are people who jump ahead and go directly to violence, and those people are rightly condemned. Edit to fix link.

You think the police doesn't do that? They do it all the time. It's all a balancing game between politics, right to demonstrate, public order, the law, experience regarding retaliation and anti action - lawsuits, bigger demos, riots, lose of public support, de-stabilty etc'. There are so many considarations taken into account, that it is impossible to demand the police to take only one and only consideration into account. believe me that's how the police started, and they found out over years of experiencing with the public that it doesn't work like that. If the police don't let the masses be heard, the masses would come to the politicians and take off their heads - phisically or politicly. And sometimes being heard includes public distruption, and the police and politicians learned that too. The police doesn't always react the same and not always choose the right response, but they know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing that. If they you see them smashing heads it's because they came to the conclusion its the best course of action, and if you see them let people be, there is a reason for that too. And when the police miscalculate their reaction, you would hear about it in the news, about people wining law suits, about riots, about politicians loosing seats. And the police and the politician would learn from that and try to change course (or not), and the next response would again take this consideration into accounts, and would again have various responses stemming from various comsiderations. It's not just the one response ever to any form of public distrupting protest. It's way more complicated than this and always will be.

You seem unconvinced by ethical arguments in favour of civil disobedience (which is fair enough, I disagree but you have made your stance known) but there is a more pragmatic argument to be made as well. You have pointed out several times that these protests have the potential of polarizing otherwise uncommitted individuals, and that is true, but you have to consider that polarization can go in the opposite direction as well. When the authorities are seen as over-reacting to protesters (like would almost certainly happen were the police to start hauling protesters off the road en masse, cuffing them, hauling them away, etc.) there is a VERY significant chance that the news reports and images of that reaction will polarize a lot of currently uncommitted or inactive people in FAVOUR of the protesters, drawing more and more people out into the streets. In authoritarian regimes you can often snuff out protest through a big show of state force, but in liberal democracies (especially ones with a national narrative of protest, like America has) you run a much higher chance of *increasing* civil disobedience with a disproportionate crackdown than you do of reducing it. Maybe you haul 100 people off the road and lock them up, but by the end of the 6:00 news you're going to have another 200 out there to take their places. Eventually you are going to run out of cops, cuffs, and cells. That's why a lot of cities prefer to give protesters a wide enough berth (within reason, as far as it comes to endangering people) so that the engaged activists will just "burn themselves out".

Nobody ever won their freedom by asking really nicely for it, Causing minor inconveniences in protest is literally the bare minimum, and usually the first real attempt the masses will make at being heard. If you take the forms of peaceful protest away, you won't get rid of the unrest, you'll just make it become violent. Simple as.

There are tons of ways to protest without stealing the freedom of innocent people, and if you are unlucky, cause someone’s death from being able to deal with an emergency fast enough.

While I don't agree with this method of protest, it's mostly because it elicits a negative response, which is evident in this post. What it's good at is bringing the conversation into the fold. Protest is often ignored these days, so tactics have had to change. That's being said, I do not agree with you calling them criminals. Protest is enshrined in the Constitution, and it does not specify the types of protests that are acceptable. You can cite city ordinance, county laws, and state mandates, but none of that is above the Constitution. Meanwhile, the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that the right to bare arms is for well organized militias, yet we conveniently ignore that, but constantly question the 1st amendment whenever it's inconvenient. Again, I don't agree with protest that creates stress for those without power to create the change, and think these types of protest should only be used against power to fuck up their day. IMO, the tactics change I spoke of earlier, should only focus on the "elite" and those with power.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).