[s1artibartfast]

now we go back to step 1.

>I think the real struggle is understanding the degree to which they are peaceful or not. Obviously nothing is black or white.

I would also add, the next struggle is what it impact it should have on our reaction, if any.

Obviously violence has nothing to do if someone if right or wrong, but it does have to do with if they should be tolerated. At what point do we no longer tolerate protests based on some violent indivduals?

What if their leaders endorse violence? If 1% of protesters are violent? If 0.001% are violent?

These are the real questions, and not particularly new ones.... There was a lot of violence from US civil rights protesters, people even got violent at MLK protests.

But still, there is a limit somewhere. I think protests should be shut down if the leaders endorse violence. Beyond that, it is really hard to say. Maybe percent is a bad way to think about it, and we should look at damage, IDK.

[seemack]

Ah I see what you were meaning now. I agree, while we could say zero violence in a perfect world, we know that is it rife with conflicting interpretations in the real world.

I agree with the leaders endorsing violence being a clear market for an unacceptable protest.

Beyond that, I would probably leave it to some authority like a judge. They could make the call based on number/severity of incidents, etc.