Apparently some public events such as speeches or rallies recently have been cancelled by the mayor of whatever city citing the potential for violence. Since every planned protest spawns a counter protest these days, then by this reasoning shouldn't ALL protests be banned? what then of our right to free speech and public assembly? is the fact that someone may disagree with you now the same thing as shouting fire in a theatre?
I believe that more recently, protests have been done by people preparing for a confrontation. In Charlottesville there were protesters that had no weapons while others had bats, shields, semiautomatic guns, and other weapons. I'm in favor of protests continuing to be allowed provided the protesters are not armed. As for counter protests, I see no problem with those, but the police should do a better job of keeping the protests separate.
so the next time women want to march, youre going to tell them they have to leave their anti r@pe pepper spray at home? what counts as a weapon? should groups that are made up of muscular men be given a default advantage in these situations because no one is allowed to arm themselves? note that in the situation youre referring too, no one was shot. a car was used as the weapon. you gonna ban cars?
Pepper spray has a lot more uses than preventing ****, so yes, I would say it is unnecessary. I'm not aware of **** being an occurrence in peaceful protests.
a protest is a good idea for many reason. It's different when a 'peaceful protest' is turned violent when filled with angry people towards a certain thing. I mostly dislike when a protest crowd turns into a mob running around on the roads or interrupting things that are in no way affiliated with what's being protested. You mentioned a women's march, is that the same thing as a protest? or more of a public gathering more along the lines of a 'parade'?
I guess there is some truth in there being good and bad on both sides, but... Can you really say that violent people who are self labelled fascists, are the same as violent people that define themselves as being anti-fascists? That isn't an entirely rhetorical question as i think that there are naturally aggressive people who gravitate to both sides because they like conflict. And I do think it is an ignored problem within the left.. But, still the ideologies matter. There is a difference between a march of islamists or KKK or Stalinists (if such marches existed), and a march of people who have an issue that doesn't involve the death or deportation or forced conversion of others. Which on paper looks pretty clear cut, a protest against university fees or a new oil pipeline or even the removal of confederate statues is completely valid... whether you agree or not you shouldn't have a problem with them walking down the street carrying signs. The problem is that it is not necessarily that easy. If a protest against a statue is also attended by a terrorist group like the KKK, or a protest against a foreign war is attended by people calling for the death of those who insult their religion... what then? The majority of those attending may well have a desire to legitimately protest against what they see as an injustice, but the minority will set the tone, and the rest will be seen as guilty by association.
so illegal violent acts are ok if you agree with the ideology of the group doing it? you cant be serious. that's like a Christian saying the inquisition was ok. is your point that racists are MORE bad? ok, theyre more bad. and?
No, it's not about whether I agree with them or not. It's about whether their aims are likely to involve killing/exiling/forcibly converting people. A group who says infidals/Jews/capitalists should die is very different to one that is protesting the route of a new road. I'm not even saying whether I think they should be banned or not, I'm just saying that saying all protests are the same just because they are all walking down a street and shouting slogans is disingenuous. My only point is that it is a complicated issue.
hence the thread. and people don't protest march because of potholes. the issues usually are ones that divide the population. and these days there seems to not be much middle ground. so pretty much anything worth protesting is going to get media attention, which is going to draw the fringe groups, which are going to be violent (apparently). so I ask again, should all protests be banned? or what about this, should all 'counter protests' be banned? is there really any constructive purpose to having two ideologically opposed groups getting in each others faces other than ratings fodder for the news networks?
You would be surprised. There was a protest near where I live when funding was reduced to a local school and the money came out of the girls sports program. Was like 40-60 people outside city hall. Didnt get media coverage outside of our area. Protests happen all the time and you dont hear about them.
Exactly, protests and marches happen all the time, and mostly they only divide people into those that care and those that don't give a Bane Shift.
I mean, yes, but there is also a difference in that most protests don't attack a group of people's right to exist.
racism is bad. racists are bad. but they have a right to free speech and public assembly. you might think its a good idea to ban those groups from having public events. but you really cant. if they don't have the right to speak, then YOU don't have the right to speak. you only have permission to speak. and look at how its made some of you feel when that permission was revoked by an authority you don't agree with here on the forums. now imagine that happens in real life. when your right to speak is infringed upon, you tend to lash out. some will do it violently. imo this discussion keeps getting sidetracked by 'racists are bad'. yes they are bad. sigh. but they aren't going away. and you cant silence them. and you shouldn't be trying to. because someday it may be YOU that people want to silence. if their message is a problem, then you have to defeat it with a better message. but is staging a counter protest which is just going to lead to a public melee the best way to do that? so ok, there are all types of protests. from potholes to apartheid. you cant ban all protests, that violates peoples rights. and you cant ban only the protests of groups you don't like, because that weakens everyones rights as well. yet as I mentioned in the OP, some rallies, speeches etc HAVE been banned. and the excuse given was that they would lead to violence. is that a valid excuse? if so, then shutting up a group you don't like has just become very easy. I don't think youre going to like that rule much when its used against you. all it will take is some rich guy paying a group of losers and giving them bats a shields to shut you down. its not the solution and will only lead to real violence.
In America it always comes back to "but everyone must be left alone, even the most vile people because equality", disregarding the fact that the vile are actively promoting and striving for inequality The uninhibited strive for the ultimate freedom is proving to be the US's downfall
And now you know. All your "liberties" are just things the government hasn't taken away from you yet. If they can be tampered with, you never had them to begin with. It's all made up.
