Do you believe protesters should have the right to block traffic?
Sure,it gets their view across
Side Score: 8
|
 |
Heck no, mow 'em down
Side Score: 34
|
|
|
|
|
In the late 1970's, a group of disabled people in Denver (and then subsequently in other major cities around the country) protested the lack of wheelchair and disabled accessible buses, by blocking traffic, and immobilizing the public transport they were protesting. Just over a decade later, not only do almost all forms of public transport in all cities now accessible, but the ADA (as a direct consequence of this and other protests) was enacted allowing a large number of Americans to access American society when they may not have been able to before. I see no real difference in this type of protest, sit-ins, disruption of public events, and a variety of other forms of protest. It's not about having the "right" to do it; protesters no more have the right to disrupt traffic than they do to jump up on stage in the middle of a play to disrupt that. They do have the right to fair and reasonable treatment, that takes into account what they are doing and how they are doing it. I've seen many people argue that they dislike protesters blocking traffic so much; they should have the right to commit, say, assault with a deadly weapon. It seems to me that this is merely a canard; what most people here seem to truly object to is what is being protested rather how it is being protested. That is disingenuous, as it's trying to undermine a groups point, by undermining how they try and make it. Side: Sure,it gets their view across
what most people here seem to truly object to is what is being protested rather how it is being protested. I would disagree. My objection is absolutely how it's being protested. It doesn't matter the protest, it could be something I support 100% such as a protest against child abuse, if they put lives in danger and deny access to emergency services, I will absolutely be against the form of protest. When they do something like that, to me, they undermine their point themselves. Side: Sure,it gets their view across
"if they put lives in danger and deny access to emergency services" That is mostly a reasonable objection. If protesters do that, that is most assuredly crossing a line. I share that view; it may not be the same as, say, blockading the entrance to an emergency room, but the difference is merely in degree's. How often does that happen? In what scenarios does this happen. I've seen examples of freeways, main streets, and many other street protests (what about the disability protestors, did they block ambulances and the like), was such an example forseeable, or was it a crazy set of events that were out of the ordinary? I would agree that if that was common, it maybe an issue; but I think this is often clearly misrepresented by certain people as the result of protests. When in reality, the result is merely inconvenience and roadrage, which in itself is not grounds for it's own set of outrage. Side: Sure,it gets their view across
1
point
I cannot quite tell whether you are on the edge of saying the ends justify the means. Please forgive me if I misunderstood. If the end (accessible and functioning public transport and the ability to get where you want to go) justified citizens blocking traffic in the 1970's, then arguably, the end (accessible and functioning public thoroughfares and the ability to get where you want to go) would have justified citizens forcibly, possibly violently, removing the people who were blocking traffic. Logically consistent application of that ends-means belief leads to violence at protests, which immediately breaks down the dialog required for a functioning republic. I would hesitate to ever even imply that the ends justify the means in the political activities of civil society. The justification behind your example (doubtless used by the 1970's bus blockers) implies that it is okay for the few to hold the many hostage by inconvenience in order to extort a concession from the majority. Otherwise they would be handicapped (pardon the pun) by having a numerical or financial disadvantage. That rationale is not always used for just purposes, and should be discouraged at all times. The First Amendment is meant to provide for rational discussion to craft solutions in a way that forestalls people from employing violence and extortion to hijack representative government. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
I apologize if I gave that impression that was my argument, that wasn't my intent, or my position. The specific example was in part to the argument "what has it ever achieved". The problem is, that ALL protests are effectively a means for employing some form of extortion to hijack representative government to various degrees. Large marches are trying to send a message to law makers that they should do what the crowd want, lest there be some electoral push back at the next democratic vote. It's the same type of extortion, but less extreme. It's largely down to matter of degree's. The problem is simply down to representative democracies merely being an approximation. Minority views are often excluded and mostly ignored; even where a majority of people to some degree hold one such minority view. People think they're right, and people often want to change behavior based on that. They march. If that doesn't work, they perform sit-ins. If that doesn't work, they find different or extreme ways of protesting. They do it until something changes, or not enough of them care enough to escalate it to such a degree they are, say, doing the equivalent of dumping tea in Boston Harbour. In the mean time, the level and extent of the protests are often coincided with media coverage, exposes, explanations of what the problems are, interviews that either wins over or undermines public opinion. If they blockade Mitch McConnels office in anger at the proposed new healthcare bill, they get viewed, they get a reaction from the police, they get arrested, etc. If they blockade an intersection, much the same. And that's okay, that's the way things are supposed to work. Sometimes these tactics will payoff, and the thing being protested for, ends up being a popular opinion among the entire country and the tactics used were understood to be "the only way a popular and valid opinion could get through to the establishment". Sometimes, not. We can't presuppose protests we don't like, are one or the other; we can only let them play out, and have law enforcement deal with them accordingly. In that respect, they have the same right to blocking traffic as any other in-your-face method of protest. You may not like it, but few people just sit in front of traffic for sh*ts and giggles, it's mostly because they feel so strongly, that they want to make people stop and listen. If you try and silence that or just make them march like they have done a million times, I can't see any good coming from it. Annoying as it may be, people need to let it play out; and deal with it accordingly, and in a balanced way. Obviously, if lives are threatened, that needs to be dealt with more harshly. Side: Sure,it gets their view across
1
point
1
point
|
Absolutely not. Notwithstanding that the motorists involved in the unnecessary traffic snarl up may not agree with the issue in dispute, no one, including the protesters know the circumstances nor physical condition of the travelers whose journey is being delayed. Everyone has the right to peaceful demonstration but no one should be allowed to maliciously disrupt the flow of everyday traffic in an attempt to draw attention to their ''gripe''. If this type of disruptive PROTEST was allowed to continue unchallenged by the authorities they would grow in frequency and intensity to a point where traveling to work and making vital journeys such as medical and food deliveries would grind to a halt. THIS FORM OF PROTEST IS NO MORE THAN ANARCHY. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
Someone one else had made a point that....let me see if I can find it: "I get that you want to protest but protest does not mean shut down the damn Roadway system that is literally the lifeblood of our country... if you want to protest your fingers you don't block an artery." I thought that was an interesting take. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
3
points
2
points
Mowing them down would leave dead & injured people in the road, which would probably block traffic for longer than were the protesters summarily arrested and taken (out of the way) to jail. Henry Rollins once talked about murder being theft of life; killing people is stealing ALL of the life they have left. He went on to say that people who needlessly delay other people, making them wait to get to where they are going so they can do what they want/need to do are stealing SOME of the rest of the lives of the people they delay. Rollins said that it is basically "millionth degree murder" (as opposed to 1st, 2nd, & 3rd degree murder). That way of looking at this defines traffic blockers as low grade murderers. It makes sense in a way. I could even see the recommended penalty being tied to the total time stolen multiplied by some factor (6 for instance). If 100 cars, with an average of 1 occupant, are delayed for 2 hours, the sentence recommendation would be 25 days (6x1x100 = 600 hours = 25 days). I would discount business vehicles/occupants (working truckers, for example) from the jail time calculation. Instead, I would fine each traffic blocker the wage & fuel cost (and any other verifiable cost) to the business, and award half the total to the business, and half to the jurisdiction where the millionth degree murder was committed. I would make blocking any emergency vehicle qualify as plain old attempted murder. To be clear, I am in favor of protests, and marches in viable venues (with required permits), but they should not shut down other people's abilities to engage in the lawful activities that comprise our daily lives. Freedom of speech is critical to a healthy, functioning republic, as is freedom of assembly. It is important to note that in order for them to work, these rights/responsibilities must not be exercised in ways that shut down dialog. That just prevents the republic from benefitting from the necessary exchange of viewpoints. Blocking traffic is basically a public tantrum, or a vindictive fit, and nobody listens to the ideas of screaming children; we just write them off as brats. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
That's actually a very interesting theory. And yes, to be clear I think protests are fine so long as they don't have the potential to cost lives and lively hood of others. There are a few situations where it could be disasterous if there are some people blocking the roads.... 1. A woman in labor who now has to deliver on the side of the road, what if there are complications? It's not sanitary to say the least but what if the infant requires immediate medical attention? 2. An ambulance on the way to respond to someone that was caught in it before they realized there was a protest. Sending another ambulance would take precious time. 3. SHE says that emergency services would know about it and can take alt routes. I say, sure they can but some of those alt routes would add more time then less and in the instance of a heart attack, they need all the time they can with the person. There are so many more instances where a life could be in jeopardy and if something happens to that victim (and yes at this point who they hold back from help is a victim) then they should be charged with murder. I wonder if the case could be premeditated murder...hm.... But yes, I agree with you, very much so. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
2
points
Believe? What is the basic difference in principle between immunity and right? Having the right to block traffic is a liberty. Having authority to block traffic is an immunity. Yes, protesters do have the choice to commit a crime. It is there obligation to contribute to an impartial separation of their own test. The test is made between liberty and authority the judicial Court has a right to request a common defense to share publicly with all people. Provided one can be given. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
A bunch of protesters blocking traffic accomplishes what ? Nothing. Shall we refer to the 1st Amendment i think we will. The right of the people peaceably to assemble. What more is there to say. Please note Mint i did keep the Right vs Left thang out of my answer. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
No and to block traffic to make your point is unfair on Joe public ; I know a man who's son was in a tragic accident and protesters made his life hell as he tried to get help for his son , organisers should be made feel the weight of the law for bending the rules to get their point across I bet your debater opponent would whistle a different tune if a couple of protesters got in her way if she had to be somewhere quick . Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
See, the thing that utterly astounded me about her was she said that she has a child that has medical needs, now that "could" have been a lie but if it's not.....I remember having to race my son to the hospital when he was a year old with a high fever and difficulty breathing. One of the worst 15 minutes of my life was in that car listening to him gasp for air. I don't watch the news 24/7 so I wouldn't have known if there was a protest on the highway but you could bet if I have to choose between him and them, he is going to win hands down and they'll be washing smeared protester off my car. Side: Sure,it gets their view across
1
point
First of all, many protesters have no probem breaking the law. Many times they end up in jail. So for the laws stopping them from blocking traffic, that is a green light for them to block traffic. The entire point of their protest is to bring attention to their cause. As far as mowing them down, it all dpends on their political affiliation :) Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
1
point
It all depends on if they have the bully pulpit of the media painting them in a good light, or making them look like extremists. We heard people at Black Lives Matter protests, chanting dead cops, when do we want them, NOW! This same group was invited to the White House by Obama. This is where they get legitimacy for their causes. The media and Government controls the minds of the masses. They can instantly give a protest merit, or condemnation. Side: Sure,it gets their view across
The people blocking traffic don't have a job (liberals on welfare) and thus have time to block traffic. People that do have a job (conservatives who pay for welfare) need to get to/from work. I've said this before, I am against anything that makes my commute harder. As soon as the government says that it is OK to plow them down, I am installing lawn mower blades on my car ;) Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
Side: Sure,it gets their view across
No, of course not. Emergency vehicles as well as common citizens who might already be sympathetic to their cause also use those roads and highways and blocking them can literally cause death and ruin lives. In a sense, blocking the highway is kind of like stealing the fire suppression system out of a building and/or barricading the entry/exit closed while people are still inside. Hey, it doesn't matter how mad you are, you don't get to put public safety in jeopardy just to make your point. Side: Heck no, mow 'em down
1
point
|
