please only make your voices 'heard' in the designated free speech zones.
It's wild that these actually exist in some public places.
There's one in the Mojave desert, one in northern Alaska, and one in Antartica, so that everyone is covered.
This would include 'Freedom Convoy' style trucker blockades too, right?
No, only peasants on foot trying to annoy our wheeled overlords and their owners.
Of course not. Freedom for me and not for thee.
I hope so
Honestly I still oppose it if it negatively impacts protests regardless of what is being protested.
Hell hath no fury like white people mildly inconvenienced
"Lawmakers" don't want this, "corporate interests funding lawmakers" want this
Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of people socially murdered by US/EPA negligence. Those people were interrupted from going to their jobs and making money for rich twats. Don't people know that's so much more important than *checks notes... you getting cancer in your thirties?
Probably something about either how it affects them directly so that protest is bad. Also possibly about shipping
Great example of false equivalence.
Those sit in demonstrations targeted segregated businesses and the sit in protests happened inside those segregated businesses. As a consequence, the owners of the segregated businesses lost out on revenue and their customers lost the opportunity to make use of their services during the protests, but the customers suffered no further harm, nor were passersby harmed in any way.
Now blocking traffic on the other targets everyone that is moving from one place to another, which can have such consequences as: loss of wages because the person stuck in traffic could not work their hours, people who did not make it to work in time are forced to take up their scarce vacation days, fines from the daycare because the parent was too late with pickin up the children, ... But it can also have life altering consequences, such as: a father missing the birth of his child, an ex prisoner failing his parole conditions, a surgeon not making it in time to the hospital, ...
It's really no surprise that blocking traffic is one of the most derided forms of protest, only being beat by rioting and vandalism, while sit in protests on the other hand received widescale support.
The consequences are so vastly different in the harm they cause, that I can't even begin to fathom how you can possibly believe that these 2 forms of protest are equivalent.
When Japanese railway workers strike they simply did their job, picked up the passengers, and collected no money in protest.
Yeah, those are the best kind of strikes, ones that only harm the money of the organization, without any harm to ordinary people. But it only works for strikes against a service organization that provides a service for an immediate payment, so basically only for things like public transport and toll roads. I can't think of anything else.
And they also don't work when striking against semi government organizations where the tax money will be used to make up shortfalls: sure, day passengers could ride for free, but it's their taxes that will be used to make up the shortfall anyhow.
It can really only work against very specific companies. I wish it was wider applicable, which is why I tried to think it through, but I only find more reasons as to why it would seldom work.
I'm all for people protesting wherever they need to. But roads are not safe. Period. "Drivers should just stop and turn around!" Well, yeah, they should. But if someone doesn't, a lot of people get hurt. Don't use your body in a metal cage fight. You'll lose every time. So if you chose to protest in the street, just be aware of the risks.
I've seen photos of kids at roadblock protests. That's super fucked up. Kids and dogs don't belong at any protests, let alone ones focused on civil disobedience or whatever you may choose to call it.
This comment isn't about "muh commute!" It's about irresponsible organizers putting people in harms way.
Reminder that just about every argument that amounts to "protect the children" is a bullshit argument trying to override free speech and expression with some sort of misguided paternal instinct.
Well this is literally an instance of adults bringing children inherently unsafe.
Don't bucketize things, handle them individually.
Kids don't belong at any protests? What are you talking about?
Not every protest is family friendly, but the vast majority of protests are perfectly safe for kids. And there is a long history of child involvement in protests. I take my baby with me to protests all the time, and she has never been in any danger.
And children should learn about civil disobedience, too. It's not just for adults.
As for roads not being safe, I imagine you're against bicycling on the road, too, and using crosswalks.
The little rock 9 was not a protest, in the context of the kids being there. They were there to go to school.
Protests are just waiting for violence unfortunately, be it from state actors, contesting groups, or even unintended risk from within the protest group.
Bicycles and crosswalks have patterned usage , and yes come with risk. There the most dangerous places for pedestrians.
Staging a protest in a roadway is not patterned usage and is just waiting for an accident, or the evil actions of an opposing murderer.
As opposed to climate issues, where children do not live on the Earth and are therefore unaffected.
Just because someone is involved in the system doesn't mean they should be "on the front lines".
Kids are affected by war in Ukraine. Should children be on the front lines? Of course not.
Are you actually comparing bringing children to a peaceful protest with conscripting child soldiers?
Obviously I'm drawing a hypothetical to.make a point. Only a very presupposed reader would think I'm suggesting the magnitude of danger is equal. The exercise requires critical thinking to realize what is similar and what is not between the examples.
For your assistance:
My core point is that a highway is an unsafe place to gather.
Adults have the agency to make personal risk decisions, and children do not.
As for roads not being safe, I imagine you’re against bicycling on the road, too, and using crosswalks.
There are a lot of people in this thread just beating the shit out of strawman
I was absolutely baffled by the downvote brigade in this thread, who see no qualms with blocking traffic as a form of protest, so I tried to find some numbers as to what non Lemmy users think of this kind of protest, and not surprisingly, it turns out that people are overwhelmingly against it.
So for the USA at least, 80% of polled People considered blocking traffic usually/always unacceptable, while only 11% were usually/always ok with it.
Lemmy users on average really do hold some fringe opinions, which makes me wonder about the demographics of the users on here :)
I’d bet if you reframed the question as being about people’s personal interests, more would support it. Whether that’s abortion for fundamentalists or climate for liberals and lefties
I'm in favor of much more and much more drastic climate action, I'm still against blocking traffic. It not only harms other people, it also causes antipathy to whatever cause is being championed. It's really lose lose.
Fuck cars in general.
Trains, subways & trams please.
Also, I would not be surprised if the auto industry is who's lobbying for this, people won't buy cars if they have no where to drive.
That’s not really the point.
Imagine a world where we didn’t fuck up public transit and protesters stood in subway doors to block them, preventing the trains from running.
Still just free speech and should be allowed to continue?
I 100% support the right to peaceful protest. I wish we had more protests. There are so many things that really need protesting, and I mean big large scale protest like back in the days of MLK with a million people marching down the National Mall.
A big part of the point of protest is to get people to join your side. Stopping traffic is like throwing spray paint in an art museum. It turns people against you. Whether it should be legal or not, it's a really dumb protest tactic.
You want to protest against cars? Fine. But if you do that by blocking the road, you just create more pollution from everybody sitting in traffic. And I promise not one of those people sitting in traffic is going to ever think that your cause is legitimate after that. They are going to hate you and everything you stand for.
"Mlk did it right!"
Mlk famously blocked roads, it's like his main thing outside of the dream speaches.
"Not like that."
If you’re gonna cite MLK…
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Good. Block ambulances -> go to jail. Plenty of legal ways to make your voice heard.
There's I believe one example of that in the us and they were charged under the relevant currently existing law that makes willfully blocking emergency vehicles a crime.
So anyone in standstill traffic when an ambulance comes will go to jail? Or does this not apply if you're in a car?
In my opinion, if you knowingly block or don't have good faith in attempting to move away, it should be illegal.
Do you understand the difference between accidentally doing something wrong and being negligent and causing harm? Like you get that if I swing a bat around in my backyard and someone sneaks up behind me that is a lot different than if I swung a bat around in a crowded room?
Would you consider it negligent to drive somewhere you know is going to be busy, and therefore have potential to block an ambulance?
No.
What's the difference between that and being at a protest that blocks a road?
Scale and intent and flexibility.
Scale: one car contributes almost nothing to a traffic jam
Intent: a person driving somewhere is trying to drive somewhere. A person abandoning their car or standing in the road is trying to, in the words of people ITT, "causing inconvenience" and getting people "angry".
Flexibility: if you are in your car and see lights flashing you can at least try to get out of the way. If you have abandoned your car to cause a jam you can't.
You really can't have it both ways. You can't claim you are trying to inconvenience people and bring attention to your pet cause while also claiming you are just doing what normal people are doing.
The right to protest is important, but there have to be limitations. If you stage a protest where you commit crimes to disproportionately harm other people, then there have to be consequences.
Proportionality is important: if there's a protest march with tens of thousands of people just walking from one place to another place, then obviously traffic will be a massive clusterfuck, with thousands of other ordinary people stuck in traffic. But if your protest can only get a few dozen people together and you set about creating the same amount of traffic gridlock, that's something that can only be achieved by doing stupid shit and then there have to be consequences.
If you can't even get enough people together for your protest to not have enough space when walking on the sidewalk, then you should not be protesting in the road and hindering thousands of other people. Apart from how disproportionate it is that a few dozen people want to hold thousands hostage for hours, a protest like that also has the reverse effect and it creates loads of antipathy.
Climate action is very important to me and I do believe that we are not doing nearly enough to address it, but I hate those ludicrous climate protests, where there's a handful of protesters blocking roads. Those pricks generate so much antipathy and they do nothing to explain to the general public of how important climate action is. Those people are classic self righteous pricks with a holier than thou attitude and they are just making things worse for everyone.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to harass others and interrupt traffic.
This is a good thing.
That's literally what it is but who would look to history when install they can rely on how they feel.
There is no effective protest without violence and property destruction, I invite you to find a single historical example otherwise.
Doesn’t that speak volumes about us? We’ve become a “two wrongs” society. And I don’t think we’ll ever change, sadly.
Moderate, considerate and thought through opinions get massively down voted in this thread. Thinking problems through will always be a less popular than taking out the pitchforks and following the herd.
I'm as disappointed in humans as you are, but I did find a few more bright spots in this thread :)
That US soldier who self immolated a few weeks ago to protest the genocide in Gaza was pretty effective. Oh wait, no it's still happening. And I guess self harm is still violence. Either way I agree with you.
Without interruption what incentive does protest have to make change?
If you can’t get your message to others without being an asshole about it- you need to maybe remove yourself from any situation that involves others.
If you were around for the civil rights era, I know exactly what side of the sit-in movement you would be on.
Excuse me? Cops? Could you please stop killing people? Please? No? Okay then.
We’re talking about protesting messages, put the goalposts back please.
"black lives matter" is a message, wtf are you talking about then?
If your protest is blocking traffic, you’re an asshole. It’s not about WHAT you’re protesting. If cops are protesting and blocking traffic, they’re also assholes also.
shit take tbh
the only way to get shit done in this fucked up society is to cause disruptions. Otherwise, people will turn a blind eye
There isn't an effective form of protest that doesn't involve inconveniencing people.
Cops block traffic for illegitimate reasons all the fucking time
But what if your message is "can we all get along together please?" the other persons message is litteraly "you don't deserve a vote, you don't deserve equal rights, you don't even deserve to drink the same water as me, you are not even legally a person, this is the law, get out of my face nigge* before the lynch mob arrives, because I won't stop them"
How are you supposed to remove yourself from that situation when that situation is brought onto you, and there's no way to simply negotiate or compromise because the two "opinions" are diametrically opposed.
If someone's boot is on another person's throat, I honestly don't care if I sound like an asshole as I tell them to move their fucking boot. I'd rather be an asshole on the right side of history than a coward who was just following orders.
The problem is, you’re not being an asshole to the people that deserve you being an asshole to. You’re being an asshole to innocent people that have nothing to do with your issue.
Don’t block traffic because you’re pissed about social issues.
I do understand your point, but as a layperson there is no real way to single out your protest impact to only effect those directly responsible, especially when, in most cases, those directly responsible are removed from the community to a degree that there is little you could do to impact them without also impacting their innocent underpaid intern who's just trying to do their job.
Yes, protesting impacts a bunch of people that can't individually do anything and are therefore being inconvenienced (mildly or substantially, depending on the individual) for something they have no control over that is someone else's fault.
But I think part of the reason you see it this way is due to a general a lack of solidarity. If I'm inconvenienced because my bus is stuck behind a protest, that sucks, but I'm not going to blame the protesters (unless I genuinely disagree with their requests/what they're protesting) I'm going to blame the very same people the protesters are trying to reach, because they are the reason that petitions, inquires, public outcry and lobbying hasn't worked and now we're at a stage of protest.
It might push a few of us to get off the bus and join the protest because what else can we do. It might prompt someone to write into their local representatives to push them to hurry up and sign negotiations so the protest can end because they're sick of the slow bus.
There's no such thing as someone that has "nothing to do with the issue" when the issue impacts us as a society. If you feel like a social issue has nothing to do with you, but the protests around it are impacting you, you have to ask yourself what you're gaining from the current system, and what stands to be gained from the changes demanded by the protesters. If you genuinely think you have nothing to do with it, you might be a true hermit.
'Bout time. This isn't free speech. If everyone with a grievance brought a city to a standstill, we'd have anarchy.
I fully support peaceful protesters with signs on the sidewalk even if I don't with their cause. But their rights end when they infringe on others.
If people protest and it inconveniences or offends nobody, is it a protest?
While I think this style of protest is completely counterproductive and just pisses everyone off rather than bring them to your side, a felony for doing it is fucking insane. You can't lump murder and standing in the road into the same category of offense.
If everyone with a grievance brought a city to a standstill
No, one person with a weird grudge goes ranting in the middle of the road, you slow down and drive around them. When those grievances are popular enough to get so many people to bring a city to a stand still, maybe we deserve to be stopped and forced to listen to them.
Oakland and san fran combined have a total over 1.2 million people. And that's just the cities themselves. The article notes 70 people shut down the bridge between them. That's 0.006% of the population, and I'm generously assuming they all came from those two cities.
I'm not saying it should be criminalized, but in light of those numbers, your claim that if it's an insignificant amount of people you can just drive around rings ridiculously hollow.
Nope, one person is all it takes. It has happened in my city.
Disrupting the public just trying to go about their lives is a particularly ineffective way of rallying people to your cause, though, even assuming it's not outright detrimental. You end pissing off significantly more people than you persuade.
I don't think it should be illegal, mind you, but it's a pretty counter productive way to go about it imo.
That's the point. Get mad.
Miss. They aren't mad at the system, they are mad at the group that blocked them (and often vandalizes their car and threatens them while they are boxed in, safety stopped.)
Stopping ambulances, firetrucks, someone in labor, someone having a medical emergency is not cool. Getting someone fired for being late or not showing up is a dick move.
Go protest outside of a politician's or CEO's home, hurting the average person will only harm the cause.
Protests allow emergency vehicles through.
The article we are responding to notes how some of the protesters who blocked the bridge threw their keys into the water. Even if we ignore the absurdity of jamming up traffic for miles, but magically allowing emergency vehicles to get through ins timely manner, you can't let people through if you can't move your car.
Did you read the article? The amount of people in this thread who straight up want anarchy is insane. I agree it should be a felony these people do not have a legal right to block public roads. No matter what people on Lemmy think.
If the protest causes a mile long backup it can still be much harder for emergency vehicles to navigate the stopped traffic far away, out of the direct control or observation of the protesters.
Bullshit. If you had bothered to read the article you would have seen that people used their abandoned car as a blockade some of them throwing their keys away. You can't move your car for an ambulance when that happens. How can you move a car when you aren't there to move it?
And this helps the cause how, exactly?
Attention to the problem.
You can act like it doesn't work, but the Civil Rights movement had no traction until white people were inconvenienced.
There was a lot more to the success of the civil rights movement than simply blocking traffic.
There's this weird idea that the civil rights protestors were met with people clapping and cheering and waving American flags. They were not. Those protests were wildly unpopular in their time. It was only later on, after they succeeded in getting some change, that the attitudes and rhetoric around those protests changed.
Civil rights protests were effective.
People who like the status quo do not want effective protests.
I'm well aware. I was specifically talking about the modern tactic of sit-ins in the middle of busy intersections and protestors glueing themselves to the tarmac, and so forth.
I never called into question political protest in general, even though that's apparently what people are assuming I said.
Tell me, how do you feel about the protests where property was destroyed?
Violence is never appropriate unless in self defense. Bystanders don't deserve to have their lives flipped over in the name of visibility.
And tell me, how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party protest?
But the people suffering in the wake are everyday americans. Not perple in charge of implementing changes.
There are more appropriate ways to be heard. Write a letter like the rest of us.
Do the absolute least effective thing that can be ignored in private away from the eyes of the general public.
Great idea!
Yup, it sucks sometimes. And it's slow. But it's the system we have in place for exactly this.
And since it's working as designed, you want to make felons of anyone who wants to use effective means to fix it.
If they're gonna be felons anyway, may as well do real felonies while they're at it.
Yeah if you don't get your way you throw a tantrum and burn everything down. Exactly the kinda logic I expect from someone defending this criminal behavior.
Yeah if you don’t get your way you throw a tantrum and burn everything down.
Yeah you get your own way every time a cop murders a protester.
The way you murdered that strawman argument?
I thought that's what we were doing here.
The Estates General thought sending a letter to the king in France in 1789 would work too.
If you can bring the city to a standstill with your grievance then someone should probably do something about the grievance before that mob removes the mayor by force.
Closing one road is not bringing a city to a standstill. We haven't had true mass protests in the US in a long time.
You don't have a right to drive so....
Well ambulances do.
Want to make that a felony? Sure. Most will agree. Make the protest itself a felony because they might stop an authorized vehicle? That's a no from me.
Huh? I didn't discuss crimes at all.
This thread is though. Sorry, just sounded like you were in agreement by providing a counterexample. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of your comment was.
Well I have an opinion on protests in roads, but don't believe they should be criminal.
I personally believe they are unsafe, and set protesters up for tragedy. I think it's irresponsible for organizers to put people out like that.
Next, as a former firefighter and Emt I can relate to the concerns about emergency vehicles. I have personally responded to serious calls where minutes mattered. We were sometimes delayed by normal traffic, so any non natural traffic or... Intentional traffic irks me because innocent folks could possibly die, or have much worse/riskier health outcomes as a result of what could be significant traffic delays.
Please note: I'm not devaluing the causes people are commonly protesting today. They are very serious topics that need attention. I'm just expressing my personal semi experiential opinion, based on my life circumstance.
Unfortunately, if people don't make a big enough fuss then those in power rarely listen. Seems like even protests don't do much anymore. Guess we've got to inconvenience the right people.
Yes I agree with the "fuss" part.
However, the headline practically writes itself:
" protest blocks emergency services. Xyz dies as a result". This would demonize the cause in the general public's eyes, not bring increased caring
If everyone with a grievance brought a city to a standstill, we’d have anarchy.
If everyone made visible in the streets, the injustice that exists in our governance, we'd have democracy.
If you think people's rights are secondary to your commute, fuck your commute in particular.
You don't have a right to commit crime. If they think their opinion is more important because they're being the bigger asshole, fuck them in particular.
I think that guy, recently in the news, pleading with protesters so he wasn't late to court would take issue if someone summed up the critically his life at the moment so dismissively as "a commute".
People don't stop their lives because someone throws a tantrum. You made it others problems; now the courts whom represent those affected will have a legal option.
Oh yes a tantrum. Let's see what people have been blocking streets for lately.
Genocide in Gaza
Police killing unarmed people
Chinese treatment of Uyghurs.
Gun laws after Mass Shootings
Yup, just tantrums here. Nothing of substance at alllll.
If you want protests to stop, address the issues being protested.
You cheer for dogs and firehoses and rubber bullets and tear gas instead.
So when forced-birth activists block the road to an abortion clinic, then the best way to stop that is to address their issues?
There are already laws against harassment. We don't need to make anyone who marches in the streets a felon.
I'm not talking about harassment. Simply protestors blocking all traffic on a street that has an abortion clinic.
Is it good for democracy when pregnant women can't drive to their appointment?
While we're at it, what about climate deniers blocking access to public chargers, thus stranding anyone using an EV?
Or right-wingers who block off access to bike lanes just to "pwn the libs."
All of these have already happened, by the way. Were they good for democracy?
You're making up hypotheticals that aren't happening when the law is designed to silence civil rights protests.
I think you should address their question. What happens when the other side imitates the tactic? Do you still support it or only when your side does it?
I support the right of people to vote and know that I strongly disagree with how many people vote.
Compare what happened with the BLM protests to what cops did at the insurrection.
Cops choose to treat the causes I don't support with kid gloves and causes I do support with brutality already. Making protesting in the streets a felony will only de facto criminalize the behavior for one side.
So because a law is enforced badly anarchy should rule?
I agree there is uneven enforcement and it wouldn't surprise me at all if people have produced studies showing that. The solution is not to have no laws. The solution is to fix how laws are enforced.
The solution is also not additional laws for police to abuse against those who want police accountability. Fix the police first, then we can talk about how you want to equate a lack of new laws with lawlessness.
I don't want all protests to stop. It's a way to express your view publicly.
What does need to stop is the childish selfishness of this civel disobedience to forcibly impose your will over others. The cause doesn't matter; civilized society can't exist if every activist for every cause uses this to make a point.
I don’t want all protests to stop. It’s a way to express your view publicly.
You just don't want them to be inconvenient. So you can ignore them. So nothing will change. Like you want.
What does need to stop is the childish selfishness of this civel disobedience to forcibly impose your will over others.
Yeah, who do people who want cops to stop shooting them think they are?
The cause doesn’t matter;
Certainly never to you. You love the status quo and never want it to change.
You just don't want them to be inconvenient. So you can ignore them. So nothing will change. Like you want.
In my city, there is a guy with a megaphone shouting into traffic nearly every day. Annoying, but I support his right to be there. In another nearby, there is a section known for protests and signs every weekend with dozens of participants. I support their right to assemble. There is a diehard Trumper who absolutely plastered their front yard with signs. I recognize their right as an American. And I have written 3 letters to my local government this year. I have signed ballot initiatives brought forth by organizations I support. This is how you change a democracy.
Yeah, who do people who want cops to stop shooting them think they are?
That's a great argument until you substitute in a cause you don't support. Hmm, what would people be saying if some pro-January 6th-ers took over the bridge?
Certainly never to you. You love the status quo and never want it to change.
We're always changing. It is natural. However, I refrain from emotional decisions and tend to break problems down to their cores. The "cause", whatever it may be, is an emotional trigger employed to justify a course of illegal action. I am entirely unaffected. I have, instead, viewed this event from the perspective of rational logic. This is unacceptable behavior. Period.
Also, side note, thanks for the debate. I really enjoyed it, but I got to sleep. :)
That’s a great argument until you substitute in a cause you don’t support. Hmm, what would people be saying if some pro-January 6th-ers took over the bridge?
It happened in my town. Remember the Trump Trains? Blocked traffic for miles.
I get that you don't like people wanting to do something effective that might draw attention to their cause and are trying to use trumpists as an excuse, but here's the thing: Cops won't enforce this consistently. Trumpists will still be allowed to march, but people cops disagree with won't. I have no doubt that this is the only reason you support making protesters felons, nor do I think that this will stop with protests in the street.
We’re always changing.
And you're fine with that as long as it keeps being for the worse and no one adds any minutes to your precious commute. You want to make people felons on the off chance that you might have to choose an alternate route one day. Your commute is not that important.
I am entirely unaffected.
Then act like it and stop supporting making protesting in a way that hurts your feelings a felony.
please only make your voices 'heard' in the designated free speech zones.
It's wild that these actually exist in some public places.
There's one in the Mojave desert, one in northern Alaska, and one in Antartica, so that everyone is covered.
This would include 'Freedom Convoy' style trucker blockades too, right?
No, only peasants on foot trying to annoy our wheeled overlords and their owners.
Of course not. Freedom for me and not for thee.
I hope so
Honestly I still oppose it if it negatively impacts protests regardless of what is being protested.
Hell hath no fury like white people mildly inconvenienced
"Lawmakers" don't want this, "corporate interests funding lawmakers" want this
Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of people socially murdered by US/EPA negligence. Those people were interrupted from going to their jobs and making money for rich twats. Don't people know that's so much more important than *checks notes... you getting cancer in your thirties?
No one stands in the way of the almighty car
To everyone saying that this shouldn't be a protected form of protest, explain why blocking traffic is bad, but this wasn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in_movement
Probably something about either how it affects them directly so that protest is bad. Also possibly about shipping
Great example of false equivalence.
Those sit in demonstrations targeted segregated businesses and the sit in protests happened inside those segregated businesses. As a consequence, the owners of the segregated businesses lost out on revenue and their customers lost the opportunity to make use of their services during the protests, but the customers suffered no further harm, nor were passersby harmed in any way.
Now blocking traffic on the other targets everyone that is moving from one place to another, which can have such consequences as: loss of wages because the person stuck in traffic could not work their hours, people who did not make it to work in time are forced to take up their scarce vacation days, fines from the daycare because the parent was too late with pickin up the children, ... But it can also have life altering consequences, such as: a father missing the birth of his child, an ex prisoner failing his parole conditions, a surgeon not making it in time to the hospital, ...
It's really no surprise that blocking traffic is one of the most derided forms of protest, only being beat by rioting and vandalism, while sit in protests on the other hand received widescale support.
The consequences are so vastly different in the harm they cause, that I can't even begin to fathom how you can possibly believe that these 2 forms of protest are equivalent.
@RunawayFixer @BreakDecks
When Japanese railway workers strike they simply did their job, picked up the passengers, and collected no money in protest.
Yeah, those are the best kind of strikes, ones that only harm the money of the organization, without any harm to ordinary people. But it only works for strikes against a service organization that provides a service for an immediate payment, so basically only for things like public transport and toll roads. I can't think of anything else.
And they also don't work when striking against semi government organizations where the tax money will be used to make up shortfalls: sure, day passengers could ride for free, but it's their taxes that will be used to make up the shortfall anyhow.
It can really only work against very specific companies. I wish it was wider applicable, which is why I tried to think it through, but I only find more reasons as to why it would seldom work.
I'm all for people protesting wherever they need to. But roads are not safe. Period. "Drivers should just stop and turn around!" Well, yeah, they should. But if someone doesn't, a lot of people get hurt. Don't use your body in a metal cage fight. You'll lose every time. So if you chose to protest in the street, just be aware of the risks.
I've seen photos of kids at roadblock protests. That's super fucked up. Kids and dogs don't belong at any protests, let alone ones focused on civil disobedience or whatever you may choose to call it.
This comment isn't about "muh commute!" It's about irresponsible organizers putting people in harms way.
Reminder that just about every argument that amounts to "protect the children" is a bullshit argument trying to override free speech and expression with some sort of misguided paternal instinct.
Well this is literally an instance of adults bringing children inherently unsafe.
Don't bucketize things, handle them individually.
Kids don't belong at any protests? What are you talking about?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade_(1963)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/birmingham-civil-rights-march-history-dog-photo.html
Not every protest is family friendly, but the vast majority of protests are perfectly safe for kids. And there is a long history of child involvement in protests. I take my baby with me to protests all the time, and she has never been in any danger.
And children should learn about civil disobedience, too. It's not just for adults.
As for roads not being safe, I imagine you're against bicycling on the road, too, and using crosswalks.
The little rock 9 was not a protest, in the context of the kids being there. They were there to go to school.
Protests are just waiting for violence unfortunately, be it from state actors, contesting groups, or even unintended risk from within the protest group.
Bicycles and crosswalks have patterned usage , and yes come with risk. There the most dangerous places for pedestrians.
Staging a protest in a roadway is not patterned usage and is just waiting for an accident, or the evil actions of an opposing murderer.
As opposed to climate issues, where children do not live on the Earth and are therefore unaffected.
Just because someone is involved in the system doesn't mean they should be "on the front lines".
Kids are affected by war in Ukraine. Should children be on the front lines? Of course not.
Are you actually comparing bringing children to a peaceful protest with conscripting child soldiers?
Obviously I'm drawing a hypothetical to.make a point. Only a very presupposed reader would think I'm suggesting the magnitude of danger is equal. The exercise requires critical thinking to realize what is similar and what is not between the examples.
For your assistance:
My core point is that a highway is an unsafe place to gather.
Adults have the agency to make personal risk decisions, and children do not.
There are a lot of people in this thread just beating the shit out of strawman
I was absolutely baffled by the downvote brigade in this thread, who see no qualms with blocking traffic as a form of protest, so I tried to find some numbers as to what non Lemmy users think of this kind of protest, and not surprisingly, it turns out that people are overwhelmingly against it.
The best statistics article I could find in my short search: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/47565-american-opinion-portest-tactics-acceptability
So for the USA at least, 80% of polled People considered blocking traffic usually/always unacceptable, while only 11% were usually/always ok with it.
Lemmy users on average really do hold some fringe opinions, which makes me wonder about the demographics of the users on here :)
I’d bet if you reframed the question as being about people’s personal interests, more would support it. Whether that’s abortion for fundamentalists or climate for liberals and lefties
I'm in favor of much more and much more drastic climate action, I'm still against blocking traffic. It not only harms other people, it also causes antipathy to whatever cause is being championed. It's really lose lose.
Fuck cars in general.
Trains, subways & trams please.
Also, I would not be surprised if the auto industry is who's lobbying for this, people won't buy cars if they have no where to drive.
That’s not really the point.
Imagine a world where we didn’t fuck up public transit and protesters stood in subway doors to block them, preventing the trains from running.
Still just free speech and should be allowed to continue?
I 100% support the right to peaceful protest. I wish we had more protests. There are so many things that really need protesting, and I mean big large scale protest like back in the days of MLK with a million people marching down the National Mall. A big part of the point of protest is to get people to join your side. Stopping traffic is like throwing spray paint in an art museum. It turns people against you. Whether it should be legal or not, it's a really dumb protest tactic.
You want to protest against cars? Fine. But if you do that by blocking the road, you just create more pollution from everybody sitting in traffic. And I promise not one of those people sitting in traffic is going to ever think that your cause is legitimate after that. They are going to hate you and everything you stand for.
"Mlk did it right!"
Mlk famously blocked roads, it's like his main thing outside of the dream speaches.
"Not like that."
If you’re gonna cite MLK…
Good. Block ambulances -> go to jail. Plenty of legal ways to make your voice heard.
There's I believe one example of that in the us and they were charged under the relevant currently existing law that makes willfully blocking emergency vehicles a crime.
So anyone in standstill traffic when an ambulance comes will go to jail? Or does this not apply if you're in a car?
In my opinion, if you knowingly block or don't have good faith in attempting to move away, it should be illegal.
Do you understand the difference between accidentally doing something wrong and being negligent and causing harm? Like you get that if I swing a bat around in my backyard and someone sneaks up behind me that is a lot different than if I swung a bat around in a crowded room?
Would you consider it negligent to drive somewhere you know is going to be busy, and therefore have potential to block an ambulance?
No.
What's the difference between that and being at a protest that blocks a road?
Scale and intent and flexibility.
Scale: one car contributes almost nothing to a traffic jam
Intent: a person driving somewhere is trying to drive somewhere. A person abandoning their car or standing in the road is trying to, in the words of people ITT, "causing inconvenience" and getting people "angry".
Flexibility: if you are in your car and see lights flashing you can at least try to get out of the way. If you have abandoned your car to cause a jam you can't.
You really can't have it both ways. You can't claim you are trying to inconvenience people and bring attention to your pet cause while also claiming you are just doing what normal people are doing.
The right to protest is important, but there have to be limitations. If you stage a protest where you commit crimes to disproportionately harm other people, then there have to be consequences.
Proportionality is important: if there's a protest march with tens of thousands of people just walking from one place to another place, then obviously traffic will be a massive clusterfuck, with thousands of other ordinary people stuck in traffic. But if your protest can only get a few dozen people together and you set about creating the same amount of traffic gridlock, that's something that can only be achieved by doing stupid shit and then there have to be consequences.
If you can't even get enough people together for your protest to not have enough space when walking on the sidewalk, then you should not be protesting in the road and hindering thousands of other people. Apart from how disproportionate it is that a few dozen people want to hold thousands hostage for hours, a protest like that also has the reverse effect and it creates loads of antipathy.
Climate action is very important to me and I do believe that we are not doing nearly enough to address it, but I hate those ludicrous climate protests, where there's a handful of protesters blocking roads. Those pricks generate so much antipathy and they do nothing to explain to the general public of how important climate action is. Those people are classic self righteous pricks with a holier than thou attitude and they are just making things worse for everyone.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to harass others and interrupt traffic.
This is a good thing.
That's literally what it is but who would look to history when install they can rely on how they feel.
There is no effective protest without violence and property destruction, I invite you to find a single historical example otherwise.
Doesn’t that speak volumes about us? We’ve become a “two wrongs” society. And I don’t think we’ll ever change, sadly.
Moderate, considerate and thought through opinions get massively down voted in this thread. Thinking problems through will always be a less popular than taking out the pitchforks and following the herd.
I'm as disappointed in humans as you are, but I did find a few more bright spots in this thread :)
About you.
montgomery bus boycott
That US soldier who self immolated a few weeks ago to protest the genocide in Gaza was pretty effective. Oh wait, no it's still happening. And I guess self harm is still violence. Either way I agree with you.
Without interruption what incentive does protest have to make change?
If you can’t get your message to others without being an asshole about it- you need to maybe remove yourself from any situation that involves others.
If you were around for the civil rights era, I know exactly what side of the sit-in movement you would be on.
Excuse me? Cops? Could you please stop killing people? Please? No? Okay then.
We’re talking about protesting messages, put the goalposts back please.
"black lives matter" is a message, wtf are you talking about then?
If your protest is blocking traffic, you’re an asshole. It’s not about WHAT you’re protesting. If cops are protesting and blocking traffic, they’re also assholes also.
shit take tbh
the only way to get shit done in this fucked up society is to cause disruptions. Otherwise, people will turn a blind eye
There isn't an effective form of protest that doesn't involve inconveniencing people.
Cops block traffic for illegitimate reasons all the fucking time
But what if your message is "can we all get along together please?" the other persons message is litteraly "you don't deserve a vote, you don't deserve equal rights, you don't even deserve to drink the same water as me, you are not even legally a person, this is the law, get out of my face nigge* before the lynch mob arrives, because I won't stop them"
How are you supposed to remove yourself from that situation when that situation is brought onto you, and there's no way to simply negotiate or compromise because the two "opinions" are diametrically opposed.
If someone's boot is on another person's throat, I honestly don't care if I sound like an asshole as I tell them to move their fucking boot. I'd rather be an asshole on the right side of history than a coward who was just following orders.
The problem is, you’re not being an asshole to the people that deserve you being an asshole to. You’re being an asshole to innocent people that have nothing to do with your issue.
Don’t block traffic because you’re pissed about social issues.
I do understand your point, but as a layperson there is no real way to single out your protest impact to only effect those directly responsible, especially when, in most cases, those directly responsible are removed from the community to a degree that there is little you could do to impact them without also impacting their innocent underpaid intern who's just trying to do their job.
Yes, protesting impacts a bunch of people that can't individually do anything and are therefore being inconvenienced (mildly or substantially, depending on the individual) for something they have no control over that is someone else's fault.
But I think part of the reason you see it this way is due to a general a lack of solidarity. If I'm inconvenienced because my bus is stuck behind a protest, that sucks, but I'm not going to blame the protesters (unless I genuinely disagree with their requests/what they're protesting) I'm going to blame the very same people the protesters are trying to reach, because they are the reason that petitions, inquires, public outcry and lobbying hasn't worked and now we're at a stage of protest.
It might push a few of us to get off the bus and join the protest because what else can we do. It might prompt someone to write into their local representatives to push them to hurry up and sign negotiations so the protest can end because they're sick of the slow bus.
There's no such thing as someone that has "nothing to do with the issue" when the issue impacts us as a society. If you feel like a social issue has nothing to do with you, but the protests around it are impacting you, you have to ask yourself what you're gaining from the current system, and what stands to be gained from the changes demanded by the protesters. If you genuinely think you have nothing to do with it, you might be a true hermit.
Found the fascist.
'Bout time. This isn't free speech. If everyone with a grievance brought a city to a standstill, we'd have anarchy.
I fully support peaceful protesters with signs on the sidewalk even if I don't with their cause. But their rights end when they infringe on others.
If people protest and it inconveniences or offends nobody, is it a protest?
While I think this style of protest is completely counterproductive and just pisses everyone off rather than bring them to your side, a felony for doing it is fucking insane. You can't lump murder and standing in the road into the same category of offense.
No, one person with a weird grudge goes ranting in the middle of the road, you slow down and drive around them. When those grievances are popular enough to get so many people to bring a city to a stand still, maybe we deserve to be stopped and forced to listen to them.
Oakland and san fran combined have a total over 1.2 million people. And that's just the cities themselves. The article notes 70 people shut down the bridge between them. That's 0.006% of the population, and I'm generously assuming they all came from those two cities.
I'm not saying it should be criminalized, but in light of those numbers, your claim that if it's an insignificant amount of people you can just drive around rings ridiculously hollow.
Nope, one person is all it takes. It has happened in my city.
Disrupting the public just trying to go about their lives is a particularly ineffective way of rallying people to your cause, though, even assuming it's not outright detrimental. You end pissing off significantly more people than you persuade.
I don't think it should be illegal, mind you, but it's a pretty counter productive way to go about it imo.
That's the point. Get mad.
Miss. They aren't mad at the system, they are mad at the group that blocked them (and often vandalizes their car and threatens them while they are boxed in, safety stopped.)
Stopping ambulances, firetrucks, someone in labor, someone having a medical emergency is not cool. Getting someone fired for being late or not showing up is a dick move.
Go protest outside of a politician's or CEO's home, hurting the average person will only harm the cause.
Protests allow emergency vehicles through.
The article we are responding to notes how some of the protesters who blocked the bridge threw their keys into the water. Even if we ignore the absurdity of jamming up traffic for miles, but magically allowing emergency vehicles to get through ins timely manner, you can't let people through if you can't move your car.
Did you read the article? The amount of people in this thread who straight up want anarchy is insane. I agree it should be a felony these people do not have a legal right to block public roads. No matter what people on Lemmy think.
If the protest causes a mile long backup it can still be much harder for emergency vehicles to navigate the stopped traffic far away, out of the direct control or observation of the protesters.
Bullshit. If you had bothered to read the article you would have seen that people used their abandoned car as a blockade some of them throwing their keys away. You can't move your car for an ambulance when that happens. How can you move a car when you aren't there to move it?
And this helps the cause how, exactly?
Attention to the problem.
You can act like it doesn't work, but the Civil Rights movement had no traction until white people were inconvenienced.
There was a lot more to the success of the civil rights movement than simply blocking traffic.
There's this weird idea that the civil rights protestors were met with people clapping and cheering and waving American flags. They were not. Those protests were wildly unpopular in their time. It was only later on, after they succeeded in getting some change, that the attitudes and rhetoric around those protests changed.
Civil rights protests were effective.
People who like the status quo do not want effective protests.
I'm well aware. I was specifically talking about the modern tactic of sit-ins in the middle of busy intersections and protestors glueing themselves to the tarmac, and so forth.
I never called into question political protest in general, even though that's apparently what people are assuming I said.
Tell me, how do you feel about the protests where property was destroyed?
Violence is never appropriate unless in self defense. Bystanders don't deserve to have their lives flipped over in the name of visibility.
And tell me, how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party protest?
Sit ins, marching in the streets, and other disruptive actions that are comparable were a significant part of it.
Not being the whole thing doesn't mean it wasn't important.
The cause is second to the desire for attention.
But the people suffering in the wake are everyday americans. Not perple in charge of implementing changes.
There are more appropriate ways to be heard. Write a letter like the rest of us.
Do the absolute least effective thing that can be ignored in private away from the eyes of the general public.
Great idea!
Yup, it sucks sometimes. And it's slow. But it's the system we have in place for exactly this.
And since it's working as designed, you want to make felons of anyone who wants to use effective means to fix it.
If they're gonna be felons anyway, may as well do real felonies while they're at it.
Yeah if you don't get your way you throw a tantrum and burn everything down. Exactly the kinda logic I expect from someone defending this criminal behavior.
Yeah you get your own way every time a cop murders a protester.
The way you murdered that strawman argument?
I thought that's what we were doing here.
The Estates General thought sending a letter to the king in France in 1789 would work too.
Spoiler: It did not.
If you can bring the city to a standstill with your grievance then someone should probably do something about the grievance before that mob removes the mayor by force.
Closing one road is not bringing a city to a standstill. We haven't had true mass protests in the US in a long time.
You don't have a right to drive so....
Well ambulances do.
Want to make that a felony? Sure. Most will agree. Make the protest itself a felony because they might stop an authorized vehicle? That's a no from me.
Huh? I didn't discuss crimes at all.
This thread is though. Sorry, just sounded like you were in agreement by providing a counterexample. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of your comment was.
Well I have an opinion on protests in roads, but don't believe they should be criminal.
I personally believe they are unsafe, and set protesters up for tragedy. I think it's irresponsible for organizers to put people out like that.
Next, as a former firefighter and Emt I can relate to the concerns about emergency vehicles. I have personally responded to serious calls where minutes mattered. We were sometimes delayed by normal traffic, so any non natural traffic or... Intentional traffic irks me because innocent folks could possibly die, or have much worse/riskier health outcomes as a result of what could be significant traffic delays.
Please note: I'm not devaluing the causes people are commonly protesting today. They are very serious topics that need attention. I'm just expressing my personal semi experiential opinion, based on my life circumstance.
Unfortunately, if people don't make a big enough fuss then those in power rarely listen. Seems like even protests don't do much anymore. Guess we've got to inconvenience the right people.
Yes I agree with the "fuss" part.
However, the headline practically writes itself:
" protest blocks emergency services. Xyz dies as a result". This would demonize the cause in the general public's eyes, not bring increased caring
If everyone made visible in the streets, the injustice that exists in our governance, we'd have democracy.
If you think people's rights are secondary to your commute, fuck your commute in particular.
You don't have a right to commit crime. If they think their opinion is more important because they're being the bigger asshole, fuck them in particular.
I think that guy, recently in the news, pleading with protesters so he wasn't late to court would take issue if someone summed up the critically his life at the moment so dismissively as "a commute".
People don't stop their lives because someone throws a tantrum. You made it others problems; now the courts whom represent those affected will have a legal option.
Oh yes a tantrum. Let's see what people have been blocking streets for lately.
Yup, just tantrums here. Nothing of substance at alllll.
If you want protests to stop, address the issues being protested.
You cheer for dogs and firehoses and rubber bullets and tear gas instead.
So when forced-birth activists block the road to an abortion clinic, then the best way to stop that is to address their issues?
There are already laws against harassment. We don't need to make anyone who marches in the streets a felon.
I'm not talking about harassment. Simply protestors blocking all traffic on a street that has an abortion clinic.
Is it good for democracy when pregnant women can't drive to their appointment?
While we're at it, what about climate deniers blocking access to public chargers, thus stranding anyone using an EV?
Or right-wingers who block off access to bike lanes just to "pwn the libs."
All of these have already happened, by the way. Were they good for democracy?
You're making up hypotheticals that aren't happening when the law is designed to silence civil rights protests.
I think you should address their question. What happens when the other side imitates the tactic? Do you still support it or only when your side does it?
I support the right of people to vote and know that I strongly disagree with how many people vote.
Compare what happened with the BLM protests to what cops did at the insurrection.
Cops choose to treat the causes I don't support with kid gloves and causes I do support with brutality already. Making protesting in the streets a felony will only de facto criminalize the behavior for one side.
So because a law is enforced badly anarchy should rule?
I agree there is uneven enforcement and it wouldn't surprise me at all if people have produced studies showing that. The solution is not to have no laws. The solution is to fix how laws are enforced.
The solution is also not additional laws for police to abuse against those who want police accountability. Fix the police first, then we can talk about how you want to equate a lack of new laws with lawlessness.
All of them have already happened.
Abortion opponents block access to clinics. Right-wingers block access to charging stations and bike lanes.
Harassment, trespassing, and illegal parking, in that order.
Police will abuse their discretion if it's made a felony, effectively outlawing only street protests that police don't approve of.
And standing in the middle of traffic is jaywalking.
But I thought shutting down traffic was good for democracy. Should people who block access to abortion clinics be punished or not?
Then cops can issue tickets. There's no reason to make it a felony except wanting to silence people cops don't like.
I don't want all protests to stop. It's a way to express your view publicly.
What does need to stop is the childish selfishness of this civel disobedience to forcibly impose your will over others. The cause doesn't matter; civilized society can't exist if every activist for every cause uses this to make a point.
You just don't want them to be inconvenient. So you can ignore them. So nothing will change. Like you want.
Yeah, who do people who want cops to stop shooting them think they are?
Certainly never to you. You love the status quo and never want it to change.
In my city, there is a guy with a megaphone shouting into traffic nearly every day. Annoying, but I support his right to be there. In another nearby, there is a section known for protests and signs every weekend with dozens of participants. I support their right to assemble. There is a diehard Trumper who absolutely plastered their front yard with signs. I recognize their right as an American. And I have written 3 letters to my local government this year. I have signed ballot initiatives brought forth by organizations I support. This is how you change a democracy.
That's a great argument until you substitute in a cause you don't support. Hmm, what would people be saying if some pro-January 6th-ers took over the bridge?
We're always changing. It is natural. However, I refrain from emotional decisions and tend to break problems down to their cores. The "cause", whatever it may be, is an emotional trigger employed to justify a course of illegal action. I am entirely unaffected. I have, instead, viewed this event from the perspective of rational logic. This is unacceptable behavior. Period.
Also, side note, thanks for the debate. I really enjoyed it, but I got to sleep. :)
It happened in my town. Remember the Trump Trains? Blocked traffic for miles.
I get that you don't like people wanting to do something effective that might draw attention to their cause and are trying to use trumpists as an excuse, but here's the thing: Cops won't enforce this consistently. Trumpists will still be allowed to march, but people cops disagree with won't. I have no doubt that this is the only reason you support making protesters felons, nor do I think that this will stop with protests in the street.
And you're fine with that as long as it keeps being for the worse and no one adds any minutes to your precious commute. You want to make people felons on the off chance that you might have to choose an alternate route one day. Your commute is not that important.
Then act like it and stop supporting making protesting in a way that hurts your feelings a felony.
Yes!! I hope so!
So you support people blocking pedestrians but you draw the line at cars?? Okay