[thaumaturgy]

Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society.

I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that.

I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways.

The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.

[cubano]

Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble

Well hold on there...the "right to assemble" is granted as long as the overall public well-being isn't put in jeopardy

ie the cant-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater chestnut.

Isn't it possible that by blocking the "major highways", that perhaps emergency vehicles could be prevented from doing their life-saving deeds?

[jleader]

The "major highways" in my city are routinely shut down for half a day or more for any and all of the following:

- the President is in town, and he and the 200+ vehicles in his entourage want to go from point A to point B

- a funeral for any firefighter or policeman is being held, and the funeral party wants to travel from the cathedral to the cemetery

- a museum wants to move an artwork (a big hunk of stone) from a quarry to their facility, or a space shuttle orbiter from the airport to their facility (I think the orbiter only shut down city streets, not freeways)

- a hockey team won their league championship, and the company that owns the team wants to hold a celebratory parade (one of our basketball teams used to do the same, back when they used to win championships)

- the police department want to hold a staged "counter terrorism" exercise (complete with stunt coordinator, director, and a giant video screen scrolling the credits for the audience of VIPs) in the center of downtown mid-day on a weekday.

Not to mention that emergency vehicles generally only travel a short distance, and so don't bother with the freeways unless the emergency is actually on the freeway.

[kbenson]

These all sound like things a permit was applied for, or at least the action was worked out in advance. Similarly, a protest should be able to do the same. But any of these listed actions, if attempting without clearing it with the controlling interests, would be cause for concern in my opinion.

The difference is that if a resource is known to be unavailable for a time, people can plan accordingly.

[ceejayoz]

How likely do you think it is that the city would issue a permit for a protest on a highway?

[roywiggins]

I believe the I-35 shutdown in Minneapolis a few weeks back was worked out with the police ahead of time. There were state patrol cars behind them as they marched, filling the lanes but basically just keeping them & traffic apart. All very organized.

[kbenson]

It should be just as likely as for a parade. If not, that seems like something that should be taken to the courts. Everyone could benefit from some clarity in the law.

[wpietri]

This is fine in theory, but it doesn't demonstrate much understanding of the reality.

Protests are time-critical and often ad hoc. Bureaucracies that don't like something have endless opportunities to raise barriers, delay, and deny for trivial reasons. Lawsuits are expensive and slow, especially when opponents, like governments, already have lawyers on salary.

It's implausible to expect a loose group of protesters to file for permits, fail repeatedly at dealing with bureaucracy, fund a lawsuit, spend months or years pushing for it, win, and then keep going back to the judge until meaningful reform is accomplished. Especially when those protesters are upset because they think the government is fundamentally biased against them.

Your offered approach is entirely reasonable, but entirely likely to bias things strongly in favor of the the status quo.

[themartorana]

There's the rub, though, isn't it? If the protest is against something that isn't in the public interest (cops killing black people indiscriminately without indictment, let's say) when is the public better served? By powers held over them by an authoritarian state, or by the protest against that state?

Everything in the above paragraph is a slight overstatement. But while there's arguably between 0-1 good times to yell "fire" in a theater (it could be argued that panicking doesn't help the situation), protesting actions by authority isn't quite so black and white.

Just as the exercise of free speech can prove annoying or vexing to a bystander that doesn't agree with that speech, so too can other exercises of more controversial rights, without those rights necessarily being a violation of the Constitution - at least the spirit of it.

[thaumaturgy]

Yeah, and that's the main reason I'd support making the obstruction of major roads into a very mild ticketable offense -- the slightly lesser other reasons being that some unfortunate people might lose their job as a result of the traffic jam or that the jam increases the chances of a serious accident.

Weighing the needs of the protesters to be heard vs. the financial needs of lower income workers is a big grey area that I'm totally unresolved on, but obstructing emergency vehicles is pretty cut-and-dried (for me).

[SwellJoe]

"Yeah, and that's the main reason I'd support making the obstruction of major roads into a very mild ticketable offense"

In most (maybe all) major cities in the US (and probably most small cities, too), it is in fact a minor ticketable (and thus arrestable) offense. It is so in Nashville, and this police chief opted to not enforce the law in this case to help insure safety and to respect the right of assembly of the protestors. There are court cases that indicate that even gatherings that disrupt things (whether that's traffic or whatever), even without a permit, may still be protected free speech and assembly. It is a delicate balance that our courts are tasked with upholding.

It's worth noting that the people protesting often spend quite a lot of time discussing who will be affected by the protest and whether there will be undue hardships on people least able to cope with those hardships. It is rare that a social justice oriented protest does not consider, and have plans in place, to try to minimize the negative impact on those populations most at risk.

I've been pretty involved in protests and organizing in my city for the past several years, on the issue of police accountability and many others, and an emergency vehicle (fire truck, ambulance) would simply never have trouble getting through a protest, in my experience (and I've seen marches or rallies clear the way for EMTs).

Inconvenience is a thing that happens sometimes. My city shuts down downtown for a month for SXSW. That inconveniences everyone who doesn't want to participate in SXSW, and does so for literally weeks (not minutes like most protests do), so much so that it can take an extra hour to get some places during SXSW, and yet it doesn't raise the ire of people who get angry at the first sign of delay due to a protest.

In short, the needs of lower income workers on buses, trains, etc. is often discussed and factored into protest action plans.

[smtddr]

I would assume the police would move aside cars & people to let the siren screaming vehicles get by. And at least in the USA, there's the "breakdown" lane to drive on the side of any major highway afaik. Now, if you want to debate about citizen's right to assemble vs citizen's right to drive in peace, that's another discussion. And in that discussion do note that in USA "Driving is a privilege, not a right".

[dubfan]

The protests went further than just shutting down the freeways, at least in my city. Here they blocked a transit tunnel that moves commuters through downtown, forcing the buses to use crowded surface streets and completely disabling the light rail.

[smtddr]

I understand your frustration, but is the light rail & public transportation a right or a privilege? We're getting pedantic here though, so I'm not extending this conversation. I'm just glad the police didn't show up with a tank and throw teargas and rubber bullets at them. That's all. Some compassion & respect was shown towards protestors and the only downside the police had to face was a few frustrated commuters, I'm okay with that. Since it's basically impossible to make everyone happy in this kind of situation, I think annoyed commuters is the lesser evil here.

[dubfan]

That's fair. It seems police forces across the US have learned to be less confrontational against protestors, and in general this has been a good thing.

I've expressed this in a sub-optimal manner, but I'm concerned about what I see as an erosion in the degree to which we give police officers discretion about how to do their jobs in the name of what amounts to a political ideology. I'm also concerned about what I see as a mentality of fear and distrust against authority (of all types, not just law enforcement), and the tendency to act on this fear rather than trying to ensure that those who have authority have it for the right reasons.

[mattraibert]

> the cant-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater chestnut.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech since 1969:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time....

> In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

[andrewfong]

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn't "inflammatory speech" as it's used in Brandenburg (although it may be inflammatory in another sense). So while the case referencing "fire in a crowded theatre" has itself been overturned, that's not the same as saying you can now literally shout fire in a crowded theatre. At the very least, you'd be liable for negligence.

[vacri]

Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.

[click170]

To clarify further, I could call my landlord a terrorist because he'll come banging on my door if I don't pay him on time. That induces fear, yet I think we can all agree my landlord is not a terrorist for wanting to collect his rent.

"Terrorism" is a laughably flexible term that could be used to fit just about anything given the right wording.

If you have to resort to calling someone a terrorist in order to get me on your side, you've failed to state why I should agree with you without resorting to FUD.

[vacri]

You've really got to stretch the definition of 'political goal' to include 'collecting rent from a contract that you both agreed to'. :)

[click170]

Hm, that's a fair point.

Taxes are something that is, shall we say, less optional. I probably should have went with that analogy instead in hindsight. :)

[rev_null]

That bigot who sent the letter to the chief of police seemed pretty terrified.

[dubfan]

The protestors are using fear (the fear of being attacked by police) to achieve a political goal (somewhat murky but the general gist seems to be to accelerate the depolicing of cities).

[vacri]

The protestors aren't controlling the source of the fear, though.

[dubfan]

> The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state.

My view is it's gone the opposite direction. We've neutered our police forces such that they can't even protect the rights of citizens to go about their business without being impeded by anti-authoritarian protestors, and we've accepted that as a fact of life. If this country didn't have the inertia of having the world's reserve currency and the largest industrial capacity for a crucial ~50-60 year period, nobody would invest in us given our social unrest.

[beedogs]

Maybe pick up a history book.

The protests of today are nothing at all compared to those of even 40 years ago.

[thaumaturgy]

I'm not sure which item in the Bill of Rights is the "right to go about our business" -- can you explain further?

[greensoap]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.