Disruptive protest, no matter how annoying, is valid and should be protected under law. When the government moves to ban protest and dissent, they’ve crossed the line into authoritarianism.
The right to protest is a fundamental of democracy, and we should not accept any erosion of the fundamentals of democracy.
“Legal” to a point, and then abruptly lethal to those who escalated it to violence and crimes against the nation. (Yes, that means that, by the book, Trump should already have swung for this alone.)
That wasn’t a protest, it was an attempt at a government takeover and overthrow. It was an attempted coup, with a whole list of people to install that were never voted into office. That’s not a protest. Maybe protesting is part of that, but that’s not a protest.
Questions of it being valid or not don’t apply to things that are not protests.
They stated disruptive. If no one elses rights are violated it is not disruptive. At minimum disruptive to me would have to include intentionally blocking roadways and holding up everyone else. (Which does violate the rights of people who live and work in the area). So your stance sounds as if to be opposite of the person you commented on.
Disruptive protest, no matter how annoying, is valid and should be protected under law. When the government moves to ban protest and dissent, they’ve crossed the line into authoritarianism.
The right to protest is a fundamental of democracy, and we should not accept any erosion of the fundamentals of democracy.
I hate, hate to ask this, but would this have made January 6th “valid”?
No. “Valid” is not the word.
“Legal” to a point, and then abruptly lethal to those who escalated it to violence and crimes against the nation. (Yes, that means that, by the book, Trump should already have swung for this alone.)
That wasn’t a protest, it was an attempt at a government takeover and overthrow. It was an attempted coup, with a whole list of people to install that were never voted into office. That’s not a protest. Maybe protesting is part of that, but that’s not a protest.
Questions of it being valid or not don’t apply to things that are not protests.
Well it was a mostly peaceful protest after all
*Peaceful protest yes. Protest that doesn’t violate the rights of the people who live and work in the area.
They stated disruptive. If no one elses rights are violated it is not disruptive. At minimum disruptive to me would have to include intentionally blocking roadways and holding up everyone else. (Which does violate the rights of people who live and work in the area). So your stance sounds as if to be opposite of the person you commented on.
Then it should be lawful to manually get the protesters off of the road.