The Glade 4.0

Statements like this are indicative of the reason that government sanctioned protests don't/can't work. They are also, to my mind, the reason that peaceful protests, with protesters unwilling to escalate in response to violence, aren't worth holding. In order for someone like Buliwyf to amend his way of thinking, and move from his entrenched position of self-importance, you have to shake his tree; and shaking his tree won't be easy given his willingness to assault you with rubber bullets and tear gas over inconveniencing him by adding 10 minutes to his commute. People like this only respond to violence in kind, with a necessary escalation. Being willing to answer his rubber bullets with real ones. Being willing to answer his tear gas with a baseball bat. By making him afraid of you, and forcing your way to the negotiating table by letting him know that the degree to which he is going to be "inconvenienced" will continue grow exponentially until he stops marginalizing you with his own advocacy of violence.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No one is going to kick this conversation up a notch by mentioning the Westboro Baptist folk?

_________________

The right to assemble is a constitutional right.

The right to get to work is not.

It's really not that hard to understand.

If people want to protest (assemble) in a way that doesn't inconvenience me, I can respect that. If they want to disrespect me by inconveniencing me, then they can shove their protest up their a**. I bet you can understand that, too.

Look, I drive by protests on a fairly regular basis. I respect them, they respect me, I get where I'm going and they get to say their peace; everybody is happy and everybody is respected. That's as it should be.

Just point out that your statement is nearly the same as ones from 50+ years ago, essentially attempting elevate one group's rights over another, or over an individuals. I could also change the statement to any myriad of things to which you personally find objectionable.

Or, to put it another way that is in following with the counter argument being presented is that you might have a right to assemble and speech (protest), but that does not give you the right to infringe another's rights by making them a captive audience. You can talk all you want, but I don't have to listen to you.

The use of a private water fountain is not a right, but the use of a public water fountain is.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

If it was only this simple.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Not according to some these guys. Protestors can stop you and impede you all day and force you to listen to their message, because they have a Constitutional right to do so.

The use of a private way is not a right, but the use of a public way is.

No one here has said, or even implied that. What has been said, repeatedly, is that you don't have a right to not be inconvenienced. Just as they can't force you to listen to them, you can't force them away from their chosen assembly position with the threat of violence, and if you do threaten or act in violence, they have the right to do exactly the same in defense of themselves.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Exactly. Keep in mind, however, that you cannot forcibly remove me from the drinking position of a public fountain because you want it's immediate use. You may be inconvenienced by this, but thems' the breaks.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That is still the practical effect, though. If protestors block a bridge and you are stuck in traffic on that bridge, you have been detained, unless your argument is that people can abandon their private property on the roadway and walk away. So don't try sugar coating it, shrouding the practical in legalese. And yes, I am fine with them trying to defend themselves should things become violent.

Actually, that is exactly the means by which those who are charged with protecting everyone's individual rights normally use to ensure adequate access to public facilities/rights of way, and can relocate said protestors, or arrange the protestors activities to accommodate both their rights and the rights of everyone else. Sadly, in this case those authorities are neglecting their duties to the rest of the citizens.

Their "group" right of assembly does not trump my rights to use that same public area/road/right of way. In this particular case, especially with your response of "Exactly" to my comment, you seem to feel that these people's rights are paramount to everyone else. So while you are correct, I don't have a right to be inconvenience, they also don't have a right to deprive me of access to public facilities and fair use.

I do think it telling though that this organization (at least in NY) is using their own "private security" to deny access to the public facilities of those they don't feel worthy. More hypocrisy on their part of course.

You have the right to seek another route, take alternate transportation, to work from home, to leave your house earlier to account for the time, to call your office and tell them that your route is obstructed and you will not be able to make it in on time.

No they do not have the right to completely obstruct you, but they don't have to give you complete access either.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

They don't have the right to obstruct you, but they do have a right to assemble there, even if it means that you are inconvenienced, and it takes you more time than it otherwise might to get to your desired location. Also, there are no "group" rights. There are only individual rights, which aren't surrendered simply because you invoke your individual right to assemble with other like minded individuals. And no, they don't have the right to deny use of public facilities to anyone.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Or, if you're already on the bridge, and stuck, finding an alternate route is out. If you don't have a cell phone with you, calling while on the bridge is out. Still ignoring the practical. Not unexpected from an idealogue

If these protesters were religious zealots, blocking traffic and sidewalks, forcing people to listen to their 'message' before they let them pass, would we be so understanding?

What if they were pro Taliban? Advocating terrorism?

If you actually support our constitution, then yes. And we have done in the past many times. Nazi party protests, KKK protests and Westboro Baptist Church all spring to mind.

Thank you for admitting this, at least, because that's the center of my argument. It's one thing to have to take alternate routes, etc. It's something entirely different if you get blocked in and they won't let you pass. That's when I have a beef with them and they're gonna be confronted about it, violently if nothing else will serve.

Cool so I guess we are doing away with "free speech zones" on campuses? Are we going to refund the permit fees for all the previous protests who went through the proper channels? Or will we be assessing the proper fees to the OWS protesters for their use of public property?

Are we willing to accept that people can protest at any time at any public place? All honest questions that require equally honest answers.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Scroll up and read my edit. Also, I find it to be the height of irony that someone who has advocated state sanctioned violence against peaceful protesters while holding a has a noteworthy authoritarian bent, would use the word ideologue as a pejorative. You must not own any mirrors.

Also, I would like to note that you have a very closed world view, seeing as practical only the things that fit snugly into your own ideology, while ignoring the practical application of the protest to achieve the protesters goals.

Funny, that.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I thought "your rights end where mine begin"?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So if someone gets in your way you have the right to commit an act of violence?

You're a bit on the road-ragey side, aren't you?

We've never allowed it with any group. Again they are allowed to protest but they do not have the right to keep people captive until their piece has been said. Can my protest legally surround your car and not let you pass until my sermon is done? Of course not, your right to protest ends right where my freedoms begin.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Ideally, yes. But, as usual, the State has muddied up the issue by taking land for public use. If roadways and sidewalks were privatized we wouldn't be having this discussion. The protesters would either have the absolute right to them by negotiating a contract with the owners, or have no right to them at all by failing to do so.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20