Quote from: Liquidambar on April 22, 2024, 01:11:37 PMQuote from: dismalist on April 22, 2024, 12:29:55 PMIt boils down to: Who owns the street? The street is free for the brown battalions? Surely not.
You'd be surprised how restrictively the right to assemble can legally be handled. You can't just cause inconvenience. Police permits are required for some actions. Here are some details from the ACLU
Thanks for the link. From there...QuoteYour rights are strongest in what are known as "traditional public forums," such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for.
From this, I infer that protestors wouldn't have the right to block access to the state-owned building where I teach, nor to be so loud that teaching was impossible in my classroom. However,
QuoteCounterprotesters also have free speech rights. Police must treat protesters and counterprotesters equally. Police are permitted to keep antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within sight and sound of one another.
Quote from: spork on April 22, 2024, 10:42:04 AMDidn't hear anything about police arresting the Ivy League students who were protesting against the Tigray war in 2020-2022, which killed a half million. Or the students who have been protesting against the civil war in Sudan, which has killed ~ 20,000 and displaced ~ 8 million. Or the students who have been protesting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has killed about a half million so far, and has involved the rape and torture of civilians, as well as the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russian hinterlands.
Why are the students protesting against the war in Gaza so special?
Quote from: dismalist on April 22, 2024, 12:29:55 PMIt boils down to: Who owns the street? The street is free for the brown battalions? Surely not.
You'd be surprised how restrictively the right to assemble can legally be handled. You can't just cause inconvenience. Police permits are required for some actions. Here are some details from the ACLU
QuoteYour rights are strongest in what are known as "traditional public forums," such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for.
QuoteShutting down a protest through a dispersal order must be law enforcement's last resort. Police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 22, 2024, 11:24:04 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on April 22, 2024, 09:03:56 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on April 22, 2024, 07:57:41 AMAny action that prevents normal, necessary activity from continuing until the protesters leave is extortion, and needs to be treated as such.
This basically amounts to not supporting protest (or strike) at all. If the only acceptable protest (or strike) is an invisible one that causes no disruption whatsoever, then it's not much of a protest (or strike) at all.
So if I'm upset that my boss didn't give me a raise, can I blockade the doors to her kids' daycare (with her kids inside) until she changes her mind?
If voters are upset at an election results, can they blockade a railway, port, or major highway until it gets overturned?QuoteThat's okay--it's a position that's available in ideological space. But we shouldn't pretend that that's not what it is, or that it's somehow a 'moderate' position. It involves significant curtailment of the rights to free speech and assembly, and in ways clearly unsupported by the judicial record in most democracies.
Speech and assembly aren't the issue; but behaviour that would be illegal for purely monetary gain shouldn't become legal just because it's for moral or ideological reasons.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 22, 2024, 09:03:56 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on April 22, 2024, 07:57:41 AMAny action that prevents normal, necessary activity from continuing until the protesters leave is extortion, and needs to be treated as such.
This basically amounts to not supporting protest (or strike) at all. If the only acceptable protest (or strike) is an invisible one that causes no disruption whatsoever, then it's not much of a protest (or strike) at all.
QuoteThat's okay--it's a position that's available in ideological space. But we shouldn't pretend that that's not what it is, or that it's somehow a 'moderate' position. It involves significant curtailment of the rights to free speech and assembly, and in ways clearly unsupported by the judicial record in most democracies.
Quote from: spork on April 22, 2024, 10:42:04 AMWhy are the students protesting against the war in Gaza so special?