How do you feel about "inconvenient" protesting

[000Ronald]

If you're going to protest by walking down a highway I'll counter your protest by running you over on that same highway.

And you're not the only one, either. [http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/04/st-louis-motorist-attempts-hit-protesters-car-waves-gun.html]

Anyway, I'm going to be that guy and say fuck the police if they're protesting on a public highway or road, they have the right to do that. Now, if we're talking about people's houses or businesses, that's a different, much more difficult question, but they at least have as much right to be on that road as you do.

And no, I don't care if it inconveniences you. They're protesting because people are being killed. Your callous indignation is half the problem.

 

[Rahkshi500]

Understandable, but it still seems to endorse the idea that the ends justify the means, which is a mindset I do not abide by. I don't think that because it had to be done before in the past means that it should be done again in the present. While I'm glad that some protests don't get violent, it can still call into question of the ethics behind it if we are not willing to respect the law. If we believe that it's okay to break the law for a cause that we support, then what's to stop others from breaking the law too for a cause that they support?

That's the problem with political causes, you're willing to make exceptions for your group, but not your opponents.

Don't get me wrong I'm not a major fan of 'illegal protests' at the best of times, but in countries where there isn't a way for the populace to be involved politically, then protesting is necessary. In countries with actual legal recourse for change it might be better for protesters to exhaust other options before protesting.

This is really a case by case issue for me.

Okay then. I guess there is really not much else I can say on this topic then, so I'll just pull out of the conversation then. I just wish that such actions wouldn't have to happen in the world in order to bring about positive change. Yeah, I know we don't live in a world of sunshine and rainbows and such, but still.

 

[spartan231490]

"inconvenient" protests are the only ones that actually do anything. Look at Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

 

[EternallyBored]

Lobby, political action, awareness campaigns etcetc...

In cases however where media is against the movement, or when it deals with an issue that the majority of the public doesn't care about, then sometimes protests are needed. That's pretty much the early of unions and civil rights basically and protesting is a tool like any other. It can be used for good ends or bad ends.

Understandable, but it still seems to endorse the idea that the ends justify the means, which is a mindset I do not abide by. I don't think that because it had to be done before in the past means that it should be done again in the present. While I'm glad that some protests don't get violent, it can still call into question of the ethics behind it if we are not willing to respect the law. If we believe that it's okay to break the law for a cause that we support, then what's to stop others from breaking the law too for a cause that they support?

That's the problem with political causes, you're willing to make exceptions for your group, but not your opponents.

Don't get me wrong I'm not a major fan of 'illegal protests' at the best of times, but in countries where there isn't a way for the populace to be involved politically, then protesting is necessary. In countries with actual legal recourse for change it might be better for protesters to exhaust other options before protesting.

This is really a case by case issue for me.

There's also the fact that sometimes even if you have political recourse, the system may be so corrupt or stacked against a particular cause that the only recourse becomes breaking the law to protest. Or if the law is entrenched, it can become difficult for it to be protested in a reasonable manner if the more powerful groups have an active incentive to continue the status quo

Most successful political and social movements use all the tools at their disposal and continue using the ones that work best, which tool works best is indeed going to come down to the cause and individual circumstances.

Protests and nonviolently breaking the law are valuable tools, but they are indeed situational. Breaking the law to protest something minor is going to do more harm than good, but if your problem is systemic, or unable to be addressed in another manner, nonviolent protest has proven to be an effective modern measure.

At least it's better than it was hundreds of years ago where the go-to option to get real systemic change was usually just to revolt and kill anyone in charge.

 

[Rahkshi500]

There's also the fact that sometimes even if you have political recourse, the system may be so corrupt or stacked against a particular cause that the only recourse becomes breaking the law to protest. Or if the law is entrenched, it can become difficult for it to be protested in a reasonable manner if the more powerful groups have an active incentive to continue the status quo

Most successful political and social movements use all the tools at their disposal and continue using the ones that work best, which tool works best is indeed going to come down to the cause and individual circumstances.

Protests and nonviolently breaking the law are valuable tools, but they are indeed situational. Breaking the law to protest something minor is going to do more harm than good, but if your problem is systemic, or unable to be addressed in another manner, nonviolent protest has proven to be an effective modern measure.

At least it's better than it was hundreds of years ago where the go-to option to get real systemic change was usually just to revolt and kill anyone in charge.

I see. Sorry to bother you about my initial question then.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Providing that the protesters are non-violent, then it comes down to how important I think their cause is.

For example, I'm going to be a lot more pissed off at a potential inconvenient protest about GTA V being pulled for Target than I am about something like that actual "I Can't Breathe" protests.

 

[Spearmaster]

An unlawful protest is just that: unlawful. People blocking a public highway should be arrested and charged.

Charged with what? What is the specific crime being committed?

There are a lists of laws about impeding traffic, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... on and on. I'm not going to spend the time listing all the specific statutes on a city and state level.

 

[Spearmaster]

An unlawful protest is just that unlawful. People blocking a public highway should be arrested and charged. If not, whats next, people protesting the protest blocking roads by blocking other roads in protest and them more people blocking other forms of transportation in protest of that protest's protest.

If your cause requires you be be uncivil and unlawful to get attention sorry, you have already lost. You prove nothing but your willingness to break the law.

Er, I hate to break it to you, but protests breaking the law in an nonviolent manner have been some of the most successful tools to actually make change and quite a few causes have indeed won using these methods. Most notably, the unlawful protests during the civil rights movement, disrupting public business and breaking the law nonviolently were some of the most successful tools of the period.

Anything in the last 30 years? Also is the problem as large and apparent as the civil rights movement?

If what you are protesting is what is perceived as an unfair law, then the willingness to break said law on a large scale is often the best method to get that law repealed.

That's not the case here unless there were protesting for their right to block highways during a protest.

While it doesn't always work, and being inconvenienced by a cause you may see as unimportant is understandably frustrating, history shows that nonviolently breaking the law and making a scene has often worked, and worked well, there's a reason people keep doing it, because it works.

I think its counterproductive when the civil disobedience overshadows the event that sparked it by a great margin. The story is no longer about the original issue but becomes about the civil unrest. Why were they shutting down the highway again? I have forgotten that part already.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

They shouldn't do it and deserve to be arrested.

For breaking which law?

Jay Walking is one that they are technically doing if they are blocking a road. So there's that.
But I don't really care if its suspected murder or breathing too loudly. If they are willing to inconvenience others like they do then I'm sure they are willing to spend a night in a cell or something for their cause.

 

[JimB]

Charged with what? What is the specific crime being committed?

There are a lists of laws about impeding traffic, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... on and on. I'm not going to spend the time listing all the specific statutes on a city and state level.

Probably for the best you're not in charge of arresting or prosecuting anyone, then. I'm willing to believe protesting in a highway is illegal, but in absence of actual statute, people really ought not to be arrested.

 

[JimB]

Jay Walking is one that they are technically doing if they are blocking a road. So there's that.

Okay, that's a place to start from. I guess the next question is, is incarceration a permissible response to jaywalking? It seems like something that's answered with a ticket and a fine, not imprisonment.

 

[gLoveofLove]

Charged with what? What is the specific crime being committed?

There are a lists of laws about impeding traffic, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... on and on. I'm not going to spend the time listing all the specific statutes on a city and state level.

Probably for the best you're not in charge of arresting or prosecuting anyone, then. I'm willing to believe protesting in a highway is illegal, but in absence of actual statute, people really ought not to be arrested.

He didn't say that those statutes don't exist, just that he wasn't going to list all the specifics. And even if he can't, it doesn't matter. Those laws exist. My ignorance of the specifics of them doesn't mean it's any less illegal. Those guys protesting should totally be arrested.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Jay Walking is one that they are technically doing if they are blocking a road. So there's that.

Okay, that's a place to start from. I guess the next question is, is incarceration a permissible response to jaywalking? It seems like something that's answered with a ticket and a fine, not imprisonment.

Over here an arrest for Jaywalking would at least get them taken to the police station and a fine which would solve the problem nicely.
No real need for a cell. I just get annoyed at people who make my bad days worse with shit like standing in the middle of the damn road. And it's always on my bad days. They aim for my bad days.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

If you stand off to the side of the road to protest or outside a building that's fine. When your protest interferes with folks going on their way to work, that is just plain wrong. You can get your message across without shutting the infrastructures down, anything else is going too far.
In my mind its the same as a DDOS attack, you're messing with the wrong people in the end and that just muddies your point.

 

[BytByte]

I think it's kind of a Catch 22. Either you get the word out and get hated on, or you stay out of everyone's way and then no one gives a toss about your cause. It really sucks for everyone involved. How about rather than getting mad at protesters for not letting you commute, get mad that our society makes commuting a normal thing. Traffic is banality incarnate and if we protest about that, then no one will be driving to get blocked by the protesters. Yay!

 

[chikusho]

Yes, people should only speak out about the injustices they are suffering at a time and place where it is convenient for me.
Besides, if they are protesting something I don't care about, or am not directly affected by, it can't really be that important anyway.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

From reading this thread you would think Martin Luther King and Ghandi were the only people in history to have a political opinion.
It really isn't as clear cut as:
Bring down public infrastructure = Guaranteed victory.
Don't bring down public infrastructure = Guaranteed fail.

People have protested in every form throughout history, and every method has had it's share of success and failure. We really need to get rid of this notion that disallowing people to bring down public infrastructure is somehow the "death of activism", that somehow nothing will ever change if people are only allowed to use the thousands of other protest methods at their disposal.
You can disagree with people's opinions on this matter all you like, but realistically, a protest is intended to change public opinion. No matter how much you call people entitled for wanting to use the roads they are legally entitled to use, that doesn't change the fact that plenty of people will think less of you and your movement for impeding their lives. So disruptive protests are not the be-all-end-all of activism that they seem to be portrayed here.

 

[Panzer Camper]

A lot of people here are missing the point of the inconvenient protests like blocking roads. They are illegal!!! And you should go to jail for doing them.

You block the roads, cops come and probably ask you to move your protest somewhere legal, and you say "NAY!!! I care so much about this issue I am willing to go to jail for it!" Then you go to jail for like 4 hours or whatever depending on the manner of your offense and go about your merry way ticket in hand. News covers the events and people go "Wow, they were willing to go to jail over that?" And if it's a stupid issue in the eye of the public like a group blocks major highways because they think peanutbutter is racist against smurfs then they accomplish nothing, but if they do the same thing over how blacks aren't allowed to own cars or something, people might be stirred to their side.

Not saying I agree or disagree with what they are protesting but for all the people that believe illegal protests should just be legal because you obiously agree with misunderstand how reality works when people you don't agree with then go protesting.

 

[JimB]

He didn't say that those statutes don't exist, just that he wasn't going to list all the specifics.

I know. I asked him to prove it's illegal, and he said, "No, I won't, so take my word for it." I make it a personal policy not to take the word of someone who refuses to prove what he says.

 

[maneyan]

Wow, the sheer selfishness evident here is really freaking depressing. So I take it strikes are morally deplorable as well? They inconvenience you as hell. Large-scale protests are SUPPOSED to inconvenience people, force the ones in power to change their minds, decide that the cost of changing this or that is less than the cost of not changing it because these protesters will continue. Oftentimes these things are done even though they're illegal, civil disobedience is a tool of democracy and all this banging on about it breaking laws of "unlawful assembly" and bla bla bla... Governments have no inherent right to tell people "no you can't object to what we're doing". They can make laws forbidding it but fuck those laws. The world changed because people worked together, dug their heels in and inconvenienced society enough to force change upon it. Again, to all of you people denouncing this. Do you, then, claim Ghandi and MLK shouldn't have done what they did? Let me quote V for vendetta here

the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. They were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

This is what it boils down to, people who think it's more important that they're not "inconvenienced" than that injustices are addressed are the ones who allow these things to happen. Sorry, but by taking a stance against these kind of protests you're implicitly giving your approval to injustices not being addressed because "it's inconvenient". People have struggled, fought and indeed DIED in the battle against injustices in society. Let's just as an example take the Czech Velvet Revolution, the massive protests that led to the fall of the Czechoslovak communist regime. You bet your ASS people were inconvenienced by the months of massive demonstrations and protests and a whole lot of people probably didn't care THAT much about the communist regime and just wanted to get on with their lives. So tell me, should Czechoslovakia still be a communist regime, should the blacks of America accept being second class citizens? Should India have submitted to remain a colony to Britain? None of these things changed without a whole lot of inconvenience.

And please: don't tell me "well that's different because those causes MATTER". Matter to who? The Trayvon Martin case certainly matters to a whole lot of people since it is so emblematic of how black people in america, no matter if they're gangsta or well-dressed and well behaved, all too often are massively disadvantaged. The minimum wage debate matters to the people who, despite working 60 hours a week, can't do more than live from paycheck to paycheck at best(and please please PLEASE don't give me this social-darwinistic "herp derp well minimum wage people are inferior creatures who don't deserve to be able to make a decent living anyway" bullshit). The desire for convenience and harmony is fertile soil for tyranny and the people are SUPPOSED to stand up for what they believe in. If that inconveniences you, well tough luck, move to a dictatorship and you won't have to be inconvenienced by people fighting for their rights.