That is a little like asking for a cite the sky is blue. Boston had a transportation workers strike and protest a few years ago that led to them blocking major traffic routes including tunnels during rush hour. I don’t believe that was an isolated event if you take the Northeast and nation as a whole. The Seattle WTO (actually anything to do with the WTO in the U.S. or Canada) brought on all kinds of destructive activity including damage to businesses. There are countless instances of egging and minor vanadlism all over the place.
We can send a team of reference librarrians to compile a series of books on the topic if you would like but I was just talking about a general idea.
Police are hesitant to arrest all criminal protesters because they fight back, they claim rights, and there are just so many of them. Their hands are somewhat tied unlike it would be if two juvenile deliquents were engaging in the same activity.
I mean exactly what I say when protesters should be subject to exactly the same laws as any other person under ordinary conditions. If teenagers randomly jump out in front of cars and hold them there, it makes the news. If a group of protesters does it, it may be ignored. Police know they have to be careful with organized protests and that is one reason I don’t like them. It is an intentional assembly of a mob and it can have unintended consequences when the lesser minded get worked into a frenzy.
You do realize that for every big newsworthy and disruptive protest, there are dozens of small peaceful protests?
Outside a base their might be a dozen (aging hippies) protesting the war and another dozen Soldier Supporters at least 100 feet away.
Small union shops will have 10 members with signs and lawn chairs.
Local Environmental groups might get 20 supporters for short rallies to demand a cleanup or prevent a new source of pollution.
Historical Societies may get 7 Seniors to try to stop the destruction of a cherished Old House / Building.
Etc.
I am not saying most of these do any good, but they also don’t do any harm.
Absolutley. I have a love/hate relationship with aging hippies as much as the next person but I never said (or implied) that all protests go bad. Some however, slip in behavior that would not be allowed outside of a protest and victimizes people that just want to go about their day.
I also understand police issues with enforicng normal laws with them. They are proven whiners and mainpulators by nature and that is a dangerous problem when you are talking about legalities and procedure.
It is more of a wishful thought to be left alone in peace by them.
Thank you for reiterating that, I just didn’t have the gumption.
I don’t know what areas Evil One and Shagnasty live in, but it seems the only protests they’re aware of are similar in kind to PETA paint-throwing, KKK cross burnings, and anti-abortion hate-fests. Nothing like the repetition of extreme examples to reinforce biases.
Oh, I should also state that I think protestors who break the law should indeed be prosecuted just like anyone else. But it’s such a small contingent (although highly visible) as to not address the rightness/wrongness of protesting in general.
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
Thank you for reiterating that, I just didn’t have the gumption.
I don’t know what areas Evil One and Shagnasty live in, but it seems the only protests they’re aware of are similar in kind to PETA paint-throwing, KKK cross burnings, and anti-abortion hate-fests. Nothing like the repetition of extreme examples to reinforce biases.QUOTE]
Again, I don’t think that most protests are violent or destructive.
I believe that some well throught out and orchestrated protests have been effective.
I think most of today’s garden variety protests are anti-intellectual circle jerks that let people feel like they are making a difference.
Some protests are an outlet to express individual deviance or mob mentality. Some police forces don’t have good procedures or leadership to draw the line. People get away with things that harm others simply because they are hidden in a group that started out having legal protections although they deviated out of bounds.
Shagnasty – OK. I don’t have a particular issue with either your (1) or (3), but I think you’re overestimating (2); I take back including you in my last post (are take-backs allowed?).
I was using a previous post of yours:
and evidently extending it further than I should have. I mean, “yahoos”? “Regressed to a state…”? I took them as more inflammatory than it appears you meant.
All that means is that much protesting is a childish, knee-jerk thing to do and is almost never the best use of resources. If you have an issue and that much man-power to throw at it, not need to think effectiveness if you actually care about the end result.
That could be mailings, setting up a website, meetings with influential people, contacting the media. The sky is the limit really. You ideas need to be well thought out and coherent however and that is often a limiting factor.
Ill thought out protesting can and does have a real backlash. Even though the protestors themselves can’t see it, the types of people that can influence change see the fuzzy-headedness for what it is. Combine that with a perception or thugery, immaturity, and cluelessness and you have created a real PR problem (see PETA).
I am not saying you do this, but sometimes I think PETA is the best thing that ever happened for the Right Wing.
Arguments get made bashing environmental groups by including PETA as one (they are not!!!). Or bashing all liberals because they are represented by PETA.
If you favor any limits on lab testing, PETA gets thrown in your face.
You want a rational policy that stops trapping but allows farming Fur animals, again PETA gets used against you.
PETA even promoted a campaign to drink Beer not Milk because somehow milking cows was cruelty. WTF??? I hate PETA as much as I hate Pro-Lifers that blow people up. These are the fringe crazies. The Whack jobs, the unibombers of the world.
And again, I think you wrongly characterize protests in general. I absolutely agree with you that some (or perhaps many) protests fit that mold – I just disagree that no qualifier (or “most” as the qualifier) is right. As I (and What Exit?) have said, I think there are far more not childish, not knee-jerk protests than you are allowing. That’s all.
In other words, I don’t think that PETA represents the majority or usual tenor of protests, and using them as the operative group to define “protestors” is neither accurate, nor useful, in gauging the effectiveness or utility of protesting. They’re often nutters whom, I agree, do more harm than good.
I agree with everything you say until the last sentence; that is effectively just taking a personal jab at Shagnasty.
You are effectively calling him a habitual liar in slightly politer words. Amazingly everyone has been very civil in this debate. I just feel you should apologize for the low blow.
Again I agree with everything else you said and I wouldn’t mind seeing some cites from Shagnasty.
I am not calling him a liar (though to do so is curiously not against GD policy); I am accusing him of posting unsupported positions and employing lazy debating techniques. I expressed no personal animus towards Shagnasty.
It is Ok. I think we are actually talking about the same things although the expectation may have been different. The examples given with the Janitor’s Strike and others are more or less what I am talking about. It isn’t that existing laws don’t or can’t cover what happens when things get rowdy, it is that the mob mentality and the legal protections of general assembly mean that limits gets pushed until innocent people are harmed.
It is really a law enforcement issue and I can see why these situations can be touchy. Traffic blocking is common. The consequences of that can be anything up the the very serious. There are countless examples of pelting and vandalism all over the place. Some examples of that have already been given.
Threatening and harrassing scabs trying to cross a picket line is a common union tactic and one I find reprehensible.
Of course things can go the other way. The Kent State shootings are what can happen when the police and military take a hardline stance against such behavior.
I am just pointing those types of consequences a natural result of some types of protests and I believe it is a strike against their creation because risks to innocents are there.
I don’t see where the liar part ever applied though. My only point was that one downside to protesting is that they sometimes turn ugly and harm others. That should be self-evident to anyone and you went back and found the references that I was talking about. I never said that the law protected protesters from criminal acts in theory. It is just that mobs can get out of hand and it is difficult for law enforcement to draw the line when they start with some degree of protection.
There are examples of this every year. I just didn’t feel like documenting the history of protests gone bad because it would take volumes to do so. I have run into them as have family and friends so they can’t be that rare.
I was blocked from leaving work one day. My wife was effectively held hostage for 6 hours in the French countryside when the tour bus she was leading was blockaded. She also couldn’t get home one night because of the Janitor’s strike. I got blocked by a small Teamsters strike in a parking lot 3 years ago.
I never said that all or most turned that way. Where did the lies come in and what was the initial source of confusion?
Well, that and you implied that protesters get preferential treatment from police:
That is what I was responding to. I was not contesting the assertion that protesters sometimes break the law or cause disruptions. They do, and they are arrested for it, like ordinary people, if not moreso. Only protesters get segregated into Free Speech Zones and arrested if they do not comply. Those who wave flags and blow kisses to the Establishment are not harassed.