[crazypyro]

There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society.

How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?

[mason240]

> Its used as a tactic because its effective.

So are armed mobs that murder political opponents. Might does not equal right.

People have a right to protest.

They don't have a right to destroy property that doesn't belong them.

They don't have the right to circumvent democracy and infringing upon the rights of everyone else by shutting down infrastructure that belongs to the all people.

[vkou]

De-facto, might almost certainly means right.

Most protests happen because the government uses physical force, or the threat of physical force to infringe upon the rights of its constituents.

[CoryG89]

I agree that protestors have no right to destroy property that doesn't belong to them.

I don't agree that the police should be expected to confront protestors just because they shut down an interstate. You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors. Non-violent protests that happen to shut down an interstate at some point should not be met with riot shields and swat teams.

[Karunamon]

We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate.

You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.

[vkou]

The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.)

Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for civil rights, universal suffrage, etc...

When you put convenience and order over basic human and constitutional rights, yes, you bloody well should be inconvenienced. The status quo 'inconveniences' these people every day - far worse then a blocked freeway. Perhaps you should channel your inconvenience at the oppressor, rather then the victim.

[Karunamon]

So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that?

What if I disagree? What if you disagree? What if a whole lot of people disagree? You're not going to like the result, because you've already excluded the rule of law from this equation.

[vkou]

> So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that?

Historians do.

The rule of law made slavery legal. The rule of law made apartheid legal. The rule of law made sending black people to the back of the bus legal. The rule of law made killing millions of Jews legal. The rule of law sent 15 million people to the Gulags. The rule of law made the Divine Right of Kings part of the equation. The rule of law made human sacrifice in Central America part of society.

The rule of law is ephemeral, and has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. The rule of law is so often a fig leaf for barbarism.

160 years ago, an abolitionist stealing a slave away from a slaveowner was violating the rule of law. They were also damaging the property, finances, and livelyhood of an innocent person - all because their pet cause wasn't getting as much attention as they liked.

Read A Letter from a Birmingham Jail. [1] Martin Luther King puts this across far better than I can. (And he is only half of the story - the work of Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP, which could not be described as non-violent protest was a vital catalyst for civil rights.)

> You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

[1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

[weberc2]

The U.S. was founded on the principle that people have the right to a voice in government, and if that voice is denied people can rise up and overthrow the government. This isn't to say that the expression of this right was entirely just, moral, or ethical. In other words, the ends don't necessarily justify the means.

> When you put convenience and order over basic human and constitutional rights, yes, you bloody well should be inconvenienced. The status quo 'inconveniences' these people every day - far worse then a blocked freeway. Perhaps you should channel your inconvenience at the oppressor, rather then the victim.

You're begging the question. There's no direct evidence for systemic racial bias in policing, there are only disparities, some of which haven't been accounted for because the U.S. does a shitty job of collecting this data (and sometimes left-leaning politicians even censor certain data that don't support their narrative, like offender race statistics in the NCVS or various city-specific data sets). Insufficient data isn't proof or even strong evidence of anything. That said, there are actual victims--those who have had their property stolen or destroyed or who have been harassed, assaulted, murdered by BLM activists.

[weberc2]

1. This is a false dichotomy. Protesters can protest without shutting down infrastructure.

2. There is no conclusive evidence that anyone's "basic human and constitutional rights" are infringed upon.

[venomsnake]

Protests that do not inconvenience anyone could be ignored indefinitely.

[mason240]

I can only assume that supported the right-wing protesters who took up occupying that piece of Federal land in Oregon.

[weberc2]

> You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors.

I absolutely have a right not to be held hostage. I also have a right to use public infrastructure, especially when that infrastructure is used by emergency vehicles. Such protests should be met with the minimal necessary force to quickly restore order. Most importantly, these protests are often turn violent, so I'm thankful the police take (non-infringing) precautions to protect themselves and the safety and property of law-abiding citizens.

[weberc2]

> There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society.

What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?

> How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?

Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?

[crazypyro]

>What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?

Original commenter specifically mentioned "at time..." which I took as an implication that there was something special about today's society.

>Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?

Because you don't lose your rights when you protest, even if you break the law? The police don't have ultimate power to enforce the law. There are purposeful limits to the power of the police. That's the point of having certain rights enshrined into the legal system. Do you disagree?

[weberc2]

You misread my statement. To be clear, the police don't need extra justification to enforce the law so long as they are respecting the rights of the protesters.