With the BLM demonstrations still fresh in people's minds, a situation has arisen in the UK which might interest you. Last year some citizens protested in order to encourage the government making insulation a bigger, better subsidised issue (allied to climate change and the rising price of energy). However this isn't about whether you think the cause is just...what they did was block entire main highways for hours, glued themselves to trains, roads and railings, and required a lot of police time to unglue them. They blocked access to hospitals, people's workplaces and schools. In light of this, the UK government has tried to pass a bill making such demonstrations illegal, subject to trial and jail time. In addition they have suggested that "noisy" demonstrations are also banned. With reference to demonstrations becoming more seriously obstructive in both the UK and the US, should the freedom to demonstrate (speak) be narrowed and penalties become more severe when you take into account the freedoms of others to go about their lawful business?
You shouldn't be able to deliberately block roads as a tactic, but if the crowd is large enough and flows into the streets so be it. Arrest the violent, leave everyone else alone.
The right to speak =/= the right to force others to listen. Attempting to create a captive audience should be a crime.
It would seem that the difference between a demonstration for a cause and one of obstruction, damage or interference with the lives of others would be obvious. T these are separate actions, though the latter may take place at the same time as the former. Writing law as you are describing always has risks- because those constructing those laws are likely to lose sight of the obvious and be determined to achieve a single goal. It would seem that laws against these deleterious actions already exist, and the solution would be to enforce them, rather than write new laws and complicate the situation further. Separate the act of demonstration from the acts of obstruction and damage- because they are separate things.
I have been caught, more than once, in similar situations where I was unable to go about my business because of striking workers. And nothing wears support thinner for those trying to make their point than standing in the way of other individuals to get to where they want/need to be.
That is certainly one result. But how would you get your point across if you didn't cause inconvenience?
You can inconvenience others to get your point across, but likely, the point taken will not be the one intended.
step 1 Find out how many of these losers with nothing better to do then run around with signs and blocking peoples traffic are on disability If they are too "sick" to work then they are too "sick" to attend a protest and their disability status gets REVOKED Imagine, this lazy scum blocking traffic of hard workers that go to work to support these losers with their tax dollars step 2 MUCH HARSHER MEASURES. The left has shown with Ashli Babbit that new measures now apply when dealing with protestors. I personally wouldn't recommend murder like the scum that killed ashli, but I would recommend very harsh measures. Sand bag bullets, fire hoses, gas, cattle prods, and any other methods of harsh but non- lethal force
Indeed but how do you ensure your point is received if you don't come up against the general public? TV, media and hearsay doesn't carry the same weight.
I'm not saying that the point won't be received. I am saying that you will likely not get the support of the public if your actions curtail the day to day business of the public. For example, I missed out on submitting a quotation for business because I could not get in the building of the business requesting the quotation. Because of that, I missed out on potential business and earnings. I certainly don't support the efforts of the striking individuals who could not respect my need to run my business.
I accept all that but the point of a demonstration is to GAIN the approval of the cause. So how else would you do that?
If you can't demonstrate legally then you should not do it. You have no right to violate the rights of others.
Agreed. However the question is, what should the law be? Protecting the right to demonstrate or the right to get to work?
Interesting conundrum. While I would like to answer yes, it comes to mind that partisan governments could use this to their advantage to limit the free speech rights of others, very similar to what the US left has been doing to the US right.
There are many ways to "demonstrate" without keeping any one person from reporting to work. Any decent person knows not to impede other's rights, all rights, when they demonstrate. No excuses.
If they need the approval of the general public, they are wise not to inconvenience the general public. They shouldn't expect support if they are causing people to lose business. Demonstrations can be held without blocking roads and highways or access to certain buildings
