this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
540 points (87.7% liked)
Asklemmy
44136 readers
1026 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Disruptive protest, no matter how annoying, is valid and should be protected under law. When the government moves to ban protest and dissent, they've crossed the line into authoritarianism.
The right to protest is a fundamental of democracy, and we should not accept any erosion of the fundamentals of democracy.
I hate, hate to ask this, but would this have made January 6th "valid"?
No. "Valid" is not the word.
"Legal" to a point, and then abruptly lethal to those who escalated it to violence and crimes against the nation. (Yes, that means that, by the book, Trump should already have swung for this alone.)
That wasn't a protest, it was an attempt at a government takeover and overthrow. It was an attempted coup, with a whole list of people to install that were never voted into office. That's not a protest. Maybe protesting is part of that, but that's not a protest.
Questions of it being valid or not don't apply to things that are not protests.
Well it was a mostly peaceful protest after all
What do you mean by "protected under the law"? And what constitutes disruptive protest?
*Peaceful protest yes. Protest that doesn't violate the rights of the people who live and work in the area.
They stated disruptive. If no one elses rights are violated it is not disruptive. At minimum disruptive to me would have to include intentionally blocking roadways and holding up everyone else. (Which does violate the rights of people who live and work in the area). So your stance sounds as if to be opposite of the person you commented on.
Then it should be lawful to manually get the protesters off of the road.
It should be legal to manually get the
into the 
You mean like the Nazi in Charlottesville tried to do?
Go seek help before you kill somebody.
Nah, I don't want to kill anyone, I don't even own a car. I just made fun of something I thought was ridiculous with something even more ridiculous.
I personally never even saw such a protest, but I think it's very ridiculous to "protect by law" blocking people, that maybe even agree with you, from reaching the cemetery, weddings, or other important events on time.
Edit: btw why is everyone attaching images that take up half my phone's screen and make their comments hard to read? Is this some new trend?
If protests arent disruptive they're effectively politcally-charged social gatherings.
And no, you dont get to just "Move people out of the way" so you can get to your event, job, or whatever. Protestors do get run over - its not funny or ridiculous, it's fucking pathetic.
Yep, fully agree.
What I meant was ridiculous was suggesting something that pathetic.
if you wanna run over people that bad, why not try playing GTA?
If you wanna annoy people that bad, why not try playing GTA?
try it bitch
Why is your whole comment redacted lol
Hope you're okay with taking in your last sights through a spiderweb of punctured glass