What types of externalities invalidate the claim of "peaceful" in the context of method of protest?

[durangodawood]

And I've pointed out in this thread or some other current thread that the core principle of Civil Rights Era civil disobedience was to break--very narrowly and very specifically--the particular law at issue, be charged for it, and force that law to be proven in court.

That makes total sense when the disposition of the court would favor your side.

 

[RDKirk]

That makes total sense when the disposition of the court would favor your side.

Blacks lost in court many times for a long time, ever since the Dred Scott decision, before we started winning.

I was just discussing this with my wife during lunch. By the 1960s, most whites in the country would probably poll in favor of general desegregation. Not necessarily a house in their neighborhood, but desegregated public facilities, yeah, probably. For sure, most whites by then were horrified by the images on the news of the ferocity southerners fought against integration of public facilities.

Do the majority of Americans actually disagree with deporting illegal immigrants...or is the problem with ICE for most Americans really just the optics

I remember when my family took a road trip from Oklahoma to Florida in 1963. The trip took us through Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. There is a big difference between dealing with "sundown towns" today versus back then. Today, a sundown town is just an exit on the Interstate that you zoom past at 70 miles per hour. This was before an Interstate route existed through those states, so we were on state highways that took us directly through the middle of every po-dunk town on the route. And every town was a sun-down town on main street.

When we had to stop for gas or a biological break, my father would get out of the car first to enter the premises and determine whether or not we'd be served. Often he came back out, shook his head, and we drove on. Sometimes he said we could enter the back, but he was a military serviceman and had too much pride for do that.

I remember him saying he was looking for a Howard Johnson restaurant. I thought at the time and for many years that Howard Johnson must be a good place that allowed black people. It was really only a few years ago that I learned Howard Johnson had just lost a 1962 illegal segregation case with the Federal Trade Commission that proved federal desegregation rules applied to multi-state commercial businesses like bus companies and restaurant chains.

 

[durangodawood]

Blacks lost in court many times for a long time, ever since the Dred Scott decision, before we started winning.

For sure. But what does that say about the civil disobedience prescription you offered: narrowly tailoring the disobedience to the particular unjust law? Whats the point during a time when theres no hope of prevailing in court?

 

[RDKirk]

For sure. But what does that say about the civil disobedience prescription you offered: narrowly tailoring the disobedience to the particular unjust law? Whats the point during a time when theres no hope of prevailing in court?

See my edit.

Here is the thing: Do the majority of Americans actually disagree with deporting illegal immigrants...or is the problem with ICE for most Americans really just the optics?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You missed the point. I'm simply asserting that any right that you claim to have, I must also have.

So if you're going to claim for yourself the right to protest in one instance, then you tacitly approve of my right to do so in another.

That's not how it works...

For one thing, methods of protest (and their impacts) are vastly different.

If "Joe" wants to protest by climate injustice by holding up a sign on sidewalk, that's very different than if Joe wants to protest climate injustice by spray-painting "Just Stop Oil" the side of your store.


Secondly,
A person's previous actions impact the degree to which those "rights to do the things I want to do" can be done "inconvenience-free".

For example, that random person sitting 18 cars back did nothing to impact the thing the protestors are blocking their road access for, therefore, their expectation of "I should be able to drive to work without getting hassled by a bunch of random people" is quite reasonable.

A person who chose to sneak into another country illegally (knowing what the potential consequences are) shouldn't have the expectation that they'll just be able to go on about life in that country without the potential for getting scooped up by the authorities.

 

[durangodawood]

See my edit.

Just did. Theres something touching and kind of shocking about hearing of how America, the different parts of it, was from someone I'm actually interacting with who experienced it.

Here is the thing: Do the majority of Americans actually disagree with deporting illegal immigrants...or is the problem with ICE for most Americans really just the optics?

I get the sense theres too many dimensions to the issue to answer your question with a simple one or the other.

 

[partinobodycular]

What an odd statement. That's not a simple proclamation, that's law.

That's not persecution, that's prosecution.

Sure, simply make it legal to send Jews to Auschwitz and voila, nothing to protest here, because everything that we're doing is perfectly legal. You don't seem to get the point... what's legal doesn't matter... it's what's just that matters. It may be perfectly legal to revoke someone's legally obtained visa... and then deport them from the only life that they've ever known, but that's fine because it's legal.

Throughout U.S. history Americans have protested against things like slavery, not because they were illegal, but because they were unjust. And the last thing that any American should want is for that right to protest to be taken away. Now you might argue that protesting is fine, but only within certain limits, but that's not the point of a protest, the point of a protest is to make it uncomfortable for those who refuse to listen. So unfortunately that means that some people are going to be inconvenienced. I agree that that's regrettable, but in the pursuit of justice sometimes regrettable is necessary.

As an American I would think that you would understand the significance of your right to protest.

 

[Landon Caeli]

As an American I would think that you would understand the significance of your right to prprotest.

There is nothing "American" about protesting. Protesting long predates the United States, and every country across the world experiences protest, generation after generation. On and on.

To protest is "human" rather. And while it will occur naturally, there are a aspects to it that need to be better understood. Such as the funding and organizing of it, and the legality of what is or is not getting out-of-hand.

 

[durangodawood]

There is nothing "American" about protesting. Protesting long predates the United States, and every country across the world experiences protest, generation after generation. On and on.

Not all countries are born of rebellion..... but that was a long time ago.

 

[rebornfree]

This would be a big problem if there was only one single road in a city. Go a different route. That’s what I do when the streets backed up with traffic. Why would it be any different if the streets are backed up by protesters?

Probably they'd be backed up with the traffic of others taking the same alternative route.

Yeah - I came here to say similar.

The blocking of traffic. It's an act to aggravate people. Random people. People who may not agree with your cause. Or, maybe they do agree with your cause. You aggravate several 100 to several 1000 people and there are bound to be people in that group that actually agree that whatever you are protesting about is wrong. Your actions may cause them to re-think their views.

Speaking only for myself. Let's say I agree with you 100% that whatever you are protesting about is wrong. But, you make me miss work and get fired (or cause someone else to get fired) or cause someone to die because ambulance / fire / police can't get through because you are blocking traffic and sitting in the middle of the road, then I'm going want the police would come and drag you out of the road. Because it isn't effective protest, it is just aggravating random people. Its like kids going around egging houses and knocking over mailboxes of random houses on halloween.

Its kind of like climate protestors damaging art work. Full disclosure. I think there does need to be more action on climate. I also love art. I also think protestors who throw glue, soup, paint, or otherwise damage art work should be locked up and are doing nothing to further their cause. Many museums are as "green" as possible, many art lovers lean left, and the artists themselves are usually long dead. It does nothing to further their cause and just makes the protestors look bad.

I agree with so much of what you say, only I think I'd send them home, instead of locking them up, with a warning that re-offending would lead to arrest.

We had climate and environmental protestors blocking city centres and motorways here, in the UK. As a result they lost some sympathy for their cause. Why couldn't they do something useful like clean up a polluted river or pick litter off a beach? They could still have placards saying what they are protesting about, but they would be helping to solve the problem and would get a lot of respect from the public and probably more support for their cause.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

... what's legal doesn't matter... it's what's just that matters.

Clearly it's not, because there's nothing just about punishing a random person and making them miss a day's pay because someone wants to express their displeasure against a totally different entity.

Even if we give benefit of the doubt to some of these protest folks and assume they're actually passionate about that issue (and aren't just looking for an excuse to get rowdy)

How does punishing a completely random person in LA who most likely didn't even vote for Trump (statistically speaking) get back at Trump?



FYI, the "what's legal doesn't matter, I need to do the thing that makes me feel good and vindicated" mentality is how you end up with new policies like the ones in Florida, that just officially made it legal to run over protestors as long as you claim to "have felt threatened"


I suspect the people who advocate for leftist anarchism would be the first ones crying if they were ever on the receiving end of anarchism.

Believe me, if they're crying about Joe Rogan podcasts and microaggressions, they're not ready for a "the law doesn't matter" environment.

 

[partinobodycular]

If "Joe" wants to protest by climate injustice by holding up a sign on sidewalk, that's very different than if Joe wants to protest climate injustice by spray-painting "Just Stop Oil" the side of your store.


Secondly,
A person's previous actions impact the degree to which those "rights to do the things I want to do" can be done "inconvenience-free".

For example, that random person sitting 18 cars back did nothing to impact the thing the protestors are blocking their road access for, therefore, their expectation of "I should be able to drive to work without getting hassled by a bunch of random people" is quite reasonable.

I'm not going to deny the fact that you have a point, the person sitting 18 cars back did nothing to deserve being inconvenienced, and their right to "drive to work without getting hassled by a bunch of random people" is indeed quite reasonable. But the point of a protest is to raise the level of public discourse to a level where it can't simply be driven by and ignored, as much as you or I may want to.

As I alluded to previously, I acknowledge your right to protest only in-so-far as you'll acknowledge mine. If you can engage in what some might consider to be unjust behavior... legal or not, then you tacitly approve of my right to do the same.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Not all countries are born of rebellion..... but that was a long time ago.

In ancient times, their version of protest was pelting rocks at one another. My how advanced we've gotten to transform our rocks into written slogans.

...All still cave-man stuff none the less. Heck, even monkeys do it.

 

[RDKirk]

As an American I would think that you would understand the significance of your right to protest.

The right to protest is not being obviated.

The E Pettus Bridge march was mentioned earlier. Go study that. Even just Google the images. The protestors were walking along the side of the road, not impeding traffic. They would have accepted arrest peacefully, because that's how things were being handled.

But the police attacked them brutally despite the fact that they were peaceful and not blocking social activity, only being visible...that's what persecution is.

 

[RDKirk]

This would be a big problem if there was only one single road in a city. Go a different route. That’s what I do when the streets backed up with traffic. Why would it be any different if the streets are backed up by protesters?

This is LA. If you've driven LA, you'd know better than to say that.

 

[partinobodycular]

The right to protest is not being obviated.

The E Pettus Bridge march was mentioned earlier. Go study that. Even just Google the images. The protestors were walking along the side of the road, not impeding traffic. They would have accepted arrest peacefully, because that's how things were being handled.

But the police attacked them brutally despite the fact that they were peaceful and not blocking social activity, only being visible...that's what persecution is.

Would you agree that the significance of the E Pettus Bridge March is forever etched into the history of the Civil Rights Movement precisely because of the violence that occurred there?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not going to deny the fact that you have a point, the person sitting 18 cars back did nothing to deserve being inconvenienced, and their right to "drive to work without getting hassled by a bunch of random people" is indeed quite reasonable. But the point of a protest is to raise the level of public discourse to a level where it can't simply be driven by and ignored, as much as you or I may want to.

As I alluded to previously, I acknowledge your right to protest only in-so-far as you'll acknowledge mine. If you can engage in what some might consider to be unjust behavior... legal or not, then you tacitly approve of my right to do the same.

But then what you're describing isn't protesting, it's strongarming attempts.

A) everyone with a phone and/or internet access or a TV is well aware of the issue, it's already well-injected into the public discourse

B) it's not an attempt to "raise awareness", it's an attempt to say "here's this issue that everyone is already well-aware of, and there will be extraneous consequences for everyone if we don't start get our way". Nobody's "ignoring" this particular issue, it's simply that a substantial proportion of the population has a different opinion on the issue than that of the protestors.


If this was going in the other direction, it would be a lot more evident to people.

If conservatives went out there and blocked traffic for days on end trying to get abortions outlawed while in a period with a Democratic administration, nobody would claim it was because "they're raising awareness and bringing the issue to the forefront of public discourse", the issue is already at the forefront, people would see it for what it was, sour grapes over not getting their way.

 

[public hermit]

There is nothing "American" about protesting.

It's peculiarly American. We have a constitutional right for peaceable assembly to voice grievances concerning our governance, which is a another way to say, "Protest." I mean, anything short of that is not-American.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's peculiarly American. We have a constitutional right for peaceable assembly to voice grievances concerning our governance, which is a another way to say, "Protest." I mean, anything short of that is not-American.

But when voicing grievances morphs into "here's this issue that we're upset about, and there will be consequences if you don't join our side", is it still purely just protesting?

 

[durangodawood]

Here is the thing: Do the majority of Americans actually disagree with deporting illegal immigrants...or is the problem with ICE for most Americans really just the optics?

Still thinking about this specific of this issue, and I dont think I really know where the American people come down on the various aspects of this question..

But in the mean time, whats your sense of my question generally, which was:
What does the longstanding lack of sympathy in the courts say about the civil disobedience prescription you offered: narrowly tailoring the disobedience to the particular unjust law? Whats the point during the long times when theres no hope of prevailing in court? And what sort of protest is justifiable then?