[_s]

Protesting itself is meant to be disruptive though - otherwise what's the point?

You can stand around in a group in a fenced off corner and make some noise and no one will care.

You can annoy people, disrupt a small part of their lives and suddenly they will have an opinion on what you are protesting about, but also an opinion on what protesting should be.

Disruptive protests do eventually change the little part of the world around you, for better or worse.

[sirsinsalot]

Quite. A protest is supposed to be disruptive. Disruptions isn't violence.

What next, strikes that you can only do while working?

Perhaps we should only be allowed to criticise government with prior written permission where we detail the criticism and they can veto or censor it? ... oh wait, like marches and protests[1]

[1]: https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-k...

[racktash]

If a pressure group closed off the main roads into a city in protest of some government policy, is that the kind of disruption that should be tolerated? If yes, where do we draw the line in tiny groups being able to grind the operation of society to a halt?

[sirsinsalot]

We draw the line at violence, destruction, direct harm.

Look I get roads being closed is crap, and you could argue that if they don't allow emergency services through then they're doing direct harm.

A protest isn't supposed to be defined, it is outrage expressed. We're supposed to look and listen and think about how a big enough group of people to be disruptive felt the need.

It isn't tolerated, that's the point.

Note: Blocking roads is directly addressed in Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 which prevents you from ‘wilfully obstructing the free passage along a highway without lawful authority or excuse’. This police power is often used to remove demonstrators who are standing outside buildings, sitting down blockading entrances or roads and in many public order situations.