[jariel]

"Certain rights are outside the ability of any social contract to restrict to allow minorities protection."

This is a bold oxymoron:

"The law is the law, except where it is not the law because you have other constitutionally guaranteed laws that enable you to break said laws"

This misunderstanding underlies a lot of the commentary here lamenting police breakup of ostensibly 'legal' protests which are actually, totally illegal.

If the city has a curfew for protesting, that's literally quite lawful in every sense, and you don't have a legal or constitutional right to protest at that point.

I mean, you could take up with the courts.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I will say that law is not given to us by deity, but rather by the society itself. The protests suggest that the law is no longer within acceptable range for society, but the administrators of the law, for whatever reason, chose not to address it.

Add to that the protests appear to have popular support and the issue of curfew becomes largely irrelevant. I am not arguing legality here.

edit: added not. geez that was bad

[jariel]

"I will say that law is not given to us by deity, but rather by the society itself. "

Yes, that is what a social contract means, we already have that.

"The protests suggest that the law is no longer within acceptable range for society, but the administrators of the law, for whatever reason, chose not to address it."

The 'administrators' are we the voters - not the protestors.

You're advocating anarchy: the protestors get to decide what is lawful and what is not, for whatever arbitrary reason.

It's incredibly naive for people to support extra-judicial action, a lot of which is disruptive and a total transgression of other people's rights, and is sometimes violent.

Consider the next time there is a protest you don't agree with, and they decide that 'the law is not relevant in that case because it's not what the protestors deem appropriate'.

It's the total civil breakdown.

The thread of the 'protesters are above the law logic' is totally unwound and nonsensical.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<<Yes, that is what a social contract means, we already have that.

Yes and a time seems to have come to renegotiate that contract.

<<The 'administrators' are we the voters - not the protestors

It is possible I did not communicate this clearly. By administrators I meant 'law givers'( senators, congressmen and so on ). You are right that voters ultimately decide what is the law. Note that protesters is a subset of voters. Note that I already pointed out the popular support for protesting.

<<You're advocating anarchy: the protestors get to decide what is lawful and what is not, for whatever arbitrary reason.

I am not. The system does not break, because one law is broken ( if it did the system would have collapsed already ).

<<It's incredibly naive for people to support extra-judicial action, a lot of which is disruptive and a total transgression of other people's rights, and is sometimes violent.

I do not believe in dura lex sed lex. There is a point at which governed can say: fuck it. We are not there yet, but we are slowly getting there. It is scary, but it is not unexpected. I do not want to go on a rant here, but I will start by saying that total transgression may be overstating it.

<<Consider the next time there is a protest you don't agree with, and they decide that 'the law is not relevant in that case because it's not what the protestors deem appropriate'.

Sigh, I live in Chicagoland. That is not an argument you want to present to me. I am considering it. The moment there was a whiff of protests moving to suburbs, my neighbours were considering it too. Is it scary? Yeah, but change tends to be. You do not know what may follow.

<<It's the total civil breakdown

Eh, its not total. Consider that if it was total you would not posting on social media, but rather foraging for essentials at night. You are overstating your case.

<<The thread of the 'protesters are above the law logic' is totally unwound and nonsensical

You seem to believe that law and order is the US highest value. I do not think it is. And when multiple values clash, one of them has to give way. Surprise, arbitrarily enforced rules gave way.

[viklove]

There's a bit of reading material on this I would recommend you look into. Here's a good place to start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

[gowld]

The courts are quite divided. The whole point of a Constitution is that it pre-empts other laws. Laws that contradict the Constitution are not valid.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1206/curfews