Support NeoGAF

[Red]

This is perhaps the scariest and most insidious part. Damaging the right to protest and eliminating opposing votes in future elections at the same time

These are deeply, fundamentally evil people.

 

[Jmanunknown]

which they do enforce generally. many people fail to understand that being arrested is also a function of protesting. people intend to disrupt in civil way and are willing to sacrifice their own self interests to prove a point. this is a good thing obviously but some in here seem to think otherwise.

I agree that people do not realize being arrested is also a function of protesting. I mean MLK himself the guy we just had a national holiday for and who is a beacon for non violent and peaceful protests was arrested more then 30 times.

The people who seem to think their are "right" ways to protest are either oblivious to history or willfully ignorant.

Here are two quotes from MLK about violent protests and riots from two different speeches he gave.

"Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity."

…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

You don't have to agree with me, just please don't put words in my mouth.

You didnt quote any piece of legislation linking riots and blocking traffic. You juat posted a bunch of pictures of rioters in response to Slaven showing civil rights marches on the street. So no words were put in your mouth. Again, why would you do that in response to the GOP weaponizing the law. You think it's justified?

And nothing in where I quoted you on mentikns the gop or the law at all for reference. Its just you claiming violencw at prorests.

 

[radios shipping overview]

The GOP hate dictatorships so much that they lopped back into loving and wanting to be them.

They've always been selective about which dictatorships they opposed. They supported many. They really only hated Communism, and that was about power and influence more than ideology.

What's in the balance now? Power and influence.

 

[mrhyderager]

I disagree with several of these measures, but the protesting on highways and major intersections is not, in my opinion, peaceful protest. This puts innocent people at risk.

Ambulances have been stopped in the middle of emergency trips by that. People relying on the police that are stuck in traffic are affected. People losing their jobs because they cannot get to work and their families suffering unduly.

I'm all for freedom of protest. Just do it literally anywhere else. Running out into 55+ MPH traffic endangers yourself and innocent drivers - and while i think it's obviously going to get your issue a lot of visibility, when you're endangering people you go from peaceful protest to violent protest.

 

[Not]

How do we stop these people? Is there any precedent in the US for laws that criminalized protest?

 

[Jmanunknown]

I disagree with several of these measures, but the protesting on highways and major intersections is not, in my opinion, peaceful protest. This puts innocent people at risk.

Ambulances have been stopped in the middle of emergency trips by that. People relying on the police that are stuck in traffic are affected. People losing their jobs because they cannot get to work and their families suffering unduly.

I'm all for freedom of protest. Just do it literally anywhere else. Running out into 55+ MPH traffic endangers yourself and innocent drivers - and while i think it's obviously going to get your issue a lot of visibility, when you're endangering people you go from peaceful protest to violent protest.

Your not for freedom of protests when your talking about literally taking away forms of protests. if you lived in the 1960's you probably would have really disliked people like Martin Luther King,John Lewis, and Rosa parks.

 

[More_Badass]

I disagree with several of these measures, but the protesting on highways and major intersections is not, in my opinion, peaceful protest. This puts innocent people at risk

How does that make it not peaceful? By removing that means, you remove the most powerful element of protesting, to disrupt. It's supposed to be disruptive to the everyday status quo or else it isn't effective

And reducing the effectiveness of protesting also puts innocent people at risk. More people than those inconvenienced by protesters

 

[Opto]

My ACLU donation gonna get a work out

 

[mrhyderager]

How does that make it not peaceful? By removing that means, you remove the most powerful element of protesting, to disrupt. It's supposed to be disruptive to the everyday status quo or else it isn't effective

And reducing the effectiveness of protesting also puts innocent people at risk. More people than those inconvenienced by protesters

It's not just an inconvenience to die in an ambulance on the highway. It's not just an inconvenience to accidentally kill someone who ran out in front of your car on the highway. It's not just an inconvenience to get killed because you had to slam on the brakes when traveling 50+ MPH.

If you believe in interpreting the 2nd Amendment as allowing restrictions and limits, then it's hypocritical to believe the same cannot be said for the 1st. Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Petition are not to be taken lightly. But the core of this country's ideals of personal freedoms has always been that your rights end where they infringe on others.

 

[Baron Von Beans]

I'm pretty sure being a pedestrian on most freeways and interstates is illegal already and there is no need for additional laws. They just need to enforce the current one.

This could be how it gets done, because yes pedestrians and a lot of vehicles (bikes, quads, things like that) are illegal on the freeway.

ECONOMIC TERRORISM?

Jesus mother fucking tap-dancing H Christ on a pancake.

I absolutely LOST it when I read this. Made almost everyone around me at work look in my general direction. I've heard the expression used before, all different versions, but this is by far the best one.

 

[paragonpro]

If this passes i dont know if I can live in this country anymore. I stand by being against rioting, but revoking people right to protest is some straight up faccist shit.

 

[More_Badass]

It's not just an inconvenience to die in an ambulance on the highway. It's not just an inconvenience to accidentally kill someone who ran out in front of your car on the highway. It's not just an inconvenience to get killed because you had to slam on the brakes when traveling 50+ MPH

Pretty sure protestors aren't running out into the middle of high-speed traffic to protest. We're talking about large assembly. Traffic, not people accidently getting run over

As for the former, has that actually happened? Or is it just a hypothetical?

 

[Siegcram]

I love how these hypothetical people blame the protesters for losing their jobs and not the boss firing them for something unique and completely out of their hands.

Not that I believe it actually happened to begin with.

 

[UberTag]

If this passes i dont know if I can live in this country anymore. I stand by being against rioting, but revoking people right to protest is some straight up faccist shit.

That will be a sign that you'll need to join a violent revolution to overthrow the government. Or you'll need to move. Plenty of other countries out there that won't be outlawing protests.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

RIP Nana Ruth

 

[mrhyderager]

Pretty sure protestors aren't running out into the middle of high-speed traffic to protest. We're talking about large assembly. Traffic, not people accidently getting run over

As for the former, has that actually happened? Or is it just a hypothetical?

I had read a story indicating it had, but upon researching it now the sources are admittedly not the most reliable. Nonetheless, you can obviously see the potential for an event like this to occur, right?

 

[Darryl M R]

Are we now playing a game of "what if"?

 

[More_Badass]

I had read a story indicating it had, but upon researching it now the sources are admittedly not the most reliable. Nonetheless, you can obviously see the potential for an event like this to occur, right?

It hasn't happened now and I don't recall it happening 60 years ago, or during Occupy, or in Ferguson, and so on, so honestly, I think discussing the potential of something that hasn't happened in any protest for years doesn't seem like a very reasonable argument.

 

[mugurumakensei]

I had read a story indicating it had, but upon researching it now the sources are admittedly not the most reliable. Nonetheless, you can obviously see the potential for an event like this to occur, right?

The ambulance being blocked isn't really likely. Ambulances are given freedom to go off route in emergency situations. Life flight exists and if there was an immediate risk of someone dying, they are already probably being life flighted. Unless a city is massively underfunded, the worst that's going to happen is some people are inconvenienced.

 

[How About No]

The ambulance being blocked isn't really likely. Ambulances are given freedom to go off route in emergency situations. Life flight exists and if there was an immediate risk of someone dying, they are already probably being life flighted. Unless a city is massively underfunded, the worst that's going to happen is some people are inconvenienced.

Thanks, this alleviates my fears a bit

I respect those who take to public roadways to have their voice heard but nervous about emergency situations like that happening

Nana Ruth can live another day <3

 

[chrislowe]

How can anyone think its a good idea to protest at highways?

I would be pissed if people stopped me at road when I am not a part of their protest.

Reading posts here made me first think that protesting was going to be illegal and I was mad first but then I read the topic again.

Protesting should always be legal but there are better and more effective ways then making innocent people mad.

 

[How About No]

How can anyone think its a good idea to protest at highways?

I would be pissed if people stopped me at road when I am not a part of their protest.

Reading posts here made me first think that protesting was going to be illegal and I was mad first but then I read the topic again.

Protesting should always be legal but there are better and more effective ways then making innocent people mad.

Standing on a freeway is already illegal, why would we need more laws to punish people further? And why is vile shit like this okay:

- North Dakota has a bill that allows drivers to not be charged with anything if they hit and kill a protester "accidentally"

?

 

[Dr.Acula]

How can anyone think its a good idea to protest at highways?

I would be pissed if people stopped me at road when I am not a part of their protest.

Reading posts here made me first think that protesting was going to be illegal and I was mad first but then I read the topic again.

Protesting should always be legal but there are better and more effective ways then making innocent people mad.

Unless you're a law-maker, protesters don't care if YOU don't like them, they're not trying to get your attention, but the attention of law-makers. So even if you still vote for your incumbent despite disruptions, at some point the incumbent is going to look bad for their inability to stop the disruptions. So they have two options to stop the disruptions: hurt or help those doing the disrupting. The people who are disrupting are willing to take that gamble on being hurt or helped because they don't have the basic things they need: Jobs, education, personal security and safety in their communities, etc.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

You know what's Economic Terrorism? All the shit they pulled that lead to the Great Recession. Or when the shut the fucking government down.

 

[Got]

jesus christ, it's like ignorant whack-a-mole in here. fucking exhausting.

 

[PeterLegend]

Eh i would hate commuting to work and going home then to be stuck on a freeway....

 

[TalonJH]

How can anyone think its a good idea to protest at highways?

I would be pissed if people stopped me at road when I am not a part of their protest.

Reading posts here made me first think that protesting was going to be illegal and I was mad first but then I read the topic again.

Protesting should always be legal but there are better and more effective ways then making innocent people mad.

It worked for for the civil rights movement. Protest are about disruption and not necessarily making people like you. When they cover the civil rights movement they leave out that the public wasn't happy with what was happening.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a disruptive consumer boycott that sought to use the power of black consumers to hurt the bus company and force the city to address black demands. The Birmingham, Ala., campaign that King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference waged in 1963 was a campaign of mass civil disobedience designed to overflow the jails and cripple downtown businesses and city function. Key to the work of many civil rights organizations, from SCLC to the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, was mass civil disobedience because they understood that injustice would not be changed without disrupting civic and commercial life.

The civil rights movement made most Americans uncomfortable. From presidents to ordinary citizens, many regarded it as ”extremism." People regularly called MLK and Rosa Parks communists and traitors, not just in the South but also in the ”liberal" North, for their critiques of police brutality and their support of housing and school desegregation. Although our public imagination focuses on Southern-redneck racism, both Parks and King came to see the white ”moderate" as key to the problem. As King wrote from a Birmingham jail in 1963, ”I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens' Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to &#8216;order' than to justice [...] who constantly says: &#8216;I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.'"

Parks spent many decades grappling with how hard it was to be a ”troublemaker," and with the stigmatization and punishment of black people who dissented endured. She noted how those who challenged the racial order as she did were labeled ”radicals, soreheads, agitators, troublemakers." Politically active for two decades before her bus stand (and four decades afterward), Parks despaired for years before the boycott that no mass movement was emerging.

”Such a good job of brainwashing was done on the Negro," Parks observed, ”that a militant Negro was almost a freak of nature to them, many times ridiculed by others of his own group." She struggled with feeling isolated and crazy, writing how she felt ”completely alone and desolate, as if I was descending in a black and bottomless chasm."

The majority of the American public did not support the civil rights movement while it was happening. In May 1961, in a Gallup survey, only 22 percent of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57 percent of Americans said that the sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negro's chances of being integrated in the South.

Lest we see this as Southerners skewing the national sample, in 1964, a year before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, in a poll conducted by the New York Times, a majority of white people in New York City said the civil rights movement had gone too far: ”While denying any deepseated prejudice, a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes' receiving &#8216;everything on a silver platter' and of &#8216;reverse discrimination' against whites." Nearly half said that picketing and demonstrations hurt black people's cause. In 1966, a year after Selma and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, 85 percent of white people and 30 percent of black people nationally believed that demonstrations by black people on civil rights hurt the advancement of civil rights.

http://www.theroot.com/mlk-would-never-shut-down-a-freeway-and-6-other-myths-1790856033

 

[leroidys]

What the fuck is with the title change? That is NOT what the article says, and not what all of the proposals are about.

 

[cdyhybrid]

If people cared as much about these issues as they did about the inconvenience of protests, protests wouldn't be needed.

People just want to live in their bubble and ignore the bullshit happening in the world until it directly affects them.

 

[timetokill]

Will the mod that changed the title of my thread to an incorrect title please change it back? Not all of the proposals are about freeway-blocking.

 

[More_Badass]

It worked for for the civil rights movement. Protest are about disruption and not necessarily making people like you. When they cover the civil rights movement they leave out that the public wasn't happy with what was happening.


http://www.theroot.com/mlk-would-never-shut-down-a-freeway-and-6-other-myths-1790856033

History really does repeat itself, huh? You can find those same kinds of comments, mindsets, and reactions today

 

[JayDub]

Don't know how to feel about this. For one, its annoying as hell. But on the other hand..its one of the most effective ways to bring attention to whatever it is you're protesting.

I don't know, so conflicted.

I've been caught in two so far. And its not fun.

 

[Abounder]

It should be a felony to block a highway, but yea extending it elsewhere is a bit much even for me.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Isn't it already illegal to block a freeway? I don't think they are giving out protest permits for interstates.

 

[More_Badass]

It should be a felony to block a highway, but yea extending it elsewhere is a bit much even for me.

At what point do you stop from there? If it's felony to block a highway, what about a parkway? What about that main street intersection?

And you realize that making it a felony means those protesters lose the right to vote

Here's one example of a parkway (Pelham Parkway in the Bronx)

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

Yeah, blocking any major roadway should definitely be illegal.

I'm just picturing all the nightmare scenarios...women in labor unable to get a hospital because some idiots decided to block the freeway in protest; people unable to get to work and potentially lose income or their jobs entirely.

 

[More_Badass]

Yeah, blocking any major roadway should definitely be illegal.

I'm just picturing all the nightmare scenarios...women in labor unable to get a hospital because some idiots decided to block the freeway in protest; people unable to get to work and potentially lose income or their jobs entirely.

1) The former hasn't happened, so you're just doing what ifs. That's a dangerous road to go down because then you can start using what ifs to justify anything

2) The onus should be on the employer. Do you get fired because a massive snowstorm made you, the boss, and others late to work?

 

[Siegcram]

Yeah, blocking any major roadway should definitely be illegal.

I'm just picturing all the nightmare scenarios...women in labor unable to get a hospital because some idiots decided to block the freeway in protest; people unable to get to work and potentially lose income or their jobs entirely.

None of those are a thing. How are you people not tired of parroting each other's worthless scenarios?

Is a protest really that scary that you all revert to the same lizard brain response?

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

None of those are a thing. How are you people not tired of parroting each other's worthless scenarios?

Is a protest really that scary that you all revert to the same lizard brain response?

Why should you have the right to prevent others from going about their day because you want to protest? Typically your beef isn't with the people you're affecting.

 

[Generate]

Why the hell would you block a freeway? That sounds like a colossally bad idea no matter what the protest is about.

 

[Cyan]

The original thread title was "Republicans move to criminalize protesting in 5 states and counting..." which is inflammatory and inaccurate. The headline on the article was "Republican lawmakers in 5 states propose bills to criminalize peaceful protest" which is also inflammatory and inaccurate.

Barring the anti-union bill from Michigan, the common thread is disruptive protests, particularly those that block freeways. I can change it to "disruptive protests." Or if you have another thread title in mind that accurately describes the story you can let me know.

 

[Abounder]

At what point do you stop from there? If it's felony to block a highway, what about a parkway? What about that main street intersection?

And you realize that making it a felony means those protesters lose the right to vote

Here's one example of a parkway (Pelham Parkway in the Bronx)

Definitely a tricky slippery slope and losing the right to vote does suck. But causing even more distractions on our roads is not something I support, protest elsewhere.

On a tangent can't wait for self driving cars to deal with this lol

 

[Siegcram]

Why should you have the right to prevent others from going about their day because you want to protest? Typically your beef isn't with the people you're affecting.

That's literally what a protest is. Disrupting others to make your voices heard.

At least learn the meaning of the words you concern-troll about.

 

[LionPride]

Jesus Christ...

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

That's literally what a protest is. Disrupting others to make your voices heard.

At least learn the meaning of the words you concern-troll about.

But you're then making your voices heard to the wrong people. If the protest is something government-related, how is making me late to work helping your cause? Make your voices heard to those people in government that can affect what you're trying to change.

 

[More_Badass]

But you're then making your voices heard to the wrong people. If the protest is something government-related, how is making me late to work helping your cause? Make your voices heard to those people in government that can affect what you're trying to change.

You complaining is making their voice heard. Because enough people complaining makes the government react.

Definitely a tricky slippery slope and losing the right to vote does suck. But causing even more distractions on our roads is not something I support, protest elsewhere.

Would you be against say MLK blocking Pettus Bridge during the Selma march. Should they just have protested elsewhere?

 

[Generate]

I mean like, peaceful protesting doesnt mean blocking vital pathways of transportation. Go protest downtown. Thats where most people will see it. If someone gets killed blocking a freeway the organizers should be held accountable for gross negligence.

 

[Siegcram]

But you're then making your voices heard to the wrong people. If the protest is something government-related, how is making me late to work helping your cause? Make your voices heard to those people in government that can affect what you're trying to change.

Just read the thread and educate yourself. Or get a new shtick. The ignorance is tiring either way.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

You complaining is making their voice heard. Because enough people complaining makes the government react.

The problem is that then I'm pissed at the protesters for affecting me, not for the government affecting the protesters.