please only make your voices ‘heard’ in the designated free speech zones.
It’s wild that these actually exist in some public places.
There’s one in the Mojave desert, one in northern Alaska, and one in Antartica, so that everyone is covered.
Key take away
To Kavanagh, the crime wasn’t just about blocking traffic. It was “steal[ing] hours of [people’s] lives away.”
Hot Take: If Kavanagh feels so strongly about this. Then make wage theft a felony because it is literally stealing people’s time and it’s a far larger problem than a few blocking a road.
Pretty good idea. Especially for larger companies where they have less of an argument that it was a mistake.
This would include ‘Freedom Convoy’ style trucker blockades too, right?
No, only peasants on foot trying to annoy our wheeled overlords and their owners.
Of course not. Freedom for me and not for thee.
I hope so
Honestly I still oppose it if it negatively impacts protests regardless of what is being protested.
Hell hath no fury like white people mildly inconvenienced
“Lawmakers” don’t want this, “corporate interests funding lawmakers” want this
Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of people socially murdered by US/EPA negligence. Those people were interrupted from going to their jobs and making money for rich twats. Don’t people know that’s so much more important than *checks notes… you getting cancer in your thirties?
No one stands in the way of the almighty car
To everyone saying that this shouldn’t be a protected form of protest, explain why blocking traffic is bad, but this wasn’t: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in_movement
Probably something about either how it affects them directly so that protest is bad. Also possibly about shipping
Great example of false equivalence.
Those sit in demonstrations targeted segregated businesses and the sit in protests happened inside those segregated businesses. As a consequence, the owners of the segregated businesses lost out on revenue and their customers lost the opportunity to make use of their services during the protests, but the customers suffered no further harm, nor were passersby harmed in any way.
Now blocking traffic on the other targets everyone that is moving from one place to another, which can have such consequences as: loss of wages because the person stuck in traffic could not work their hours, people who did not make it to work in time are forced to take up their scarce vacation days, fines from the daycare because the parent was too late with pickin up the children, … But it can also have life altering consequences, such as: a father missing the birth of his child, an ex prisoner failing his parole conditions, a surgeon not making it in time to the hospital, …
It’s really no surprise that blocking traffic is one of the most derided forms of protest, only being beat by rioting and vandalism, while sit in protests on the other hand received widescale support.
The consequences are so vastly different in the harm they cause, that I can’t even begin to fathom how you can possibly believe that these 2 forms of protest are equivalent.
When Japanese railway workers strike they simply did their job, picked up the passengers, and collected no money in protest.
Yeah, those are the best kind of strikes, ones that only harm the money of the organization, without any harm to ordinary people. But it only works for strikes against a service organization that provides a service for an immediate payment, so basically only for things like public transport and toll roads. I can’t think of anything else.
And they also don’t work when striking against semi government organizations where the tax money will be used to make up shortfalls: sure, day passengers could ride for free, but it’s their taxes that will be used to make up the shortfall anyhow.
It can really only work against very specific companies. I wish it was wider applicable, which is why I tried to think it through, but I only find more reasons as to why it would seldom work.
I’m all for people protesting wherever they need to. But roads are not safe. Period. “Drivers should just stop and turn around!” Well, yeah, they should. But if someone doesn’t, a lot of people get hurt. Don’t use your body in a metal cage fight. You’ll lose every time. So if you chose to protest in the street, just be aware of the risks.
I’ve seen photos of kids at roadblock protests. That’s super fucked up. Kids and dogs don’t belong at any protests, let alone ones focused on civil disobedience or whatever you may choose to call it.
This comment isn’t about “muh commute!” It’s about irresponsible organizers putting people in harms way.
Reminder that just about every argument that amounts to “protect the children” is a bullshit argument trying to override free speech and expression with some sort of misguided paternal instinct.
Well this is literally an instance of adults bringing children inherently unsafe.
Don’t bucketize things, handle them individually.
Kids don’t belong at any protests? What are you talking about?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade_(1963)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/birmingham-civil-rights-march-history-dog-photo.html
Not every protest is family friendly, but the vast majority of protests are perfectly safe for kids. And there is a long history of child involvement in protests. I take my baby with me to protests all the time, and she has never been in any danger.
And children should learn about civil disobedience, too. It’s not just for adults.
As for roads not being safe, I imagine you’re against bicycling on the road, too, and using crosswalks.
The little rock 9 was not a protest, in the context of the kids being there. They were there to go to school.
Protests are just waiting for violence unfortunately, be it from state actors, contesting groups, or even unintended risk from within the protest group.
Bicycles and crosswalks have patterned usage , and yes come with risk. There the most dangerous places for pedestrians.
Staging a protest in a roadway is not patterned usage and is just waiting for an accident, or the evil actions of an opposing murderer.
As opposed to climate issues, where children do not live on the Earth and are therefore unaffected.
Just because someone is involved in the system doesn’t mean they should be “on the front lines”.
Kids are affected by war in Ukraine. Should children be on the front lines? Of course not.
Are you actually comparing bringing children to a peaceful protest with conscripting child soldiers?
Obviously I’m drawing a hypothetical to.make a point. Only a very presupposed reader would think I’m suggesting the magnitude of danger is equal. The exercise requires critical thinking to realize what is similar and what is not between the examples.
For your assistance:
My core point is that a highway is an unsafe place to gather.
Adults have the agency to make personal risk decisions, and children do not.
As for roads not being safe, I imagine you’re against bicycling on the road, too, and using crosswalks.
There are a lot of people in this thread just beating the shit out of strawman
I was absolutely baffled by the downvote brigade in this thread, who see no qualms with blocking traffic as a form of protest, so I tried to find some numbers as to what non Lemmy users think of this kind of protest, and not surprisingly, it turns out that people are overwhelmingly against it.
The best statistics article I could find in my short search: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/47565-american-opinion-portest-tactics-acceptability
So for the USA at least, 80% of polled People considered blocking traffic usually/always unacceptable, while only 11% were usually/always ok with it.
Lemmy users on average really do hold some fringe opinions, which makes me wonder about the demographics of the users on here :)
I’d bet if you reframed the question as being about people’s personal interests, more would support it. Whether that’s abortion for fundamentalists or climate for liberals and lefties
I’m in favor of much more and much more drastic climate action, I’m still against blocking traffic. It not only harms other people, it also causes antipathy to whatever cause is being championed. It’s really lose lose.
Fuck cars in general.
Trains, subways & trams please.
Also, I would not be surprised if the auto industry is who’s lobbying for this, people won’t buy cars if they have no where to drive.
That’s not really the point.
Imagine a world where we didn’t fuck up public transit and protesters stood in subway doors to block them, preventing the trains from running.
Still just free speech and should be allowed to continue?
I 100% support the right to peaceful protest. I wish we had more protests. There are so many things that really need protesting, and I mean big large scale protest like back in the days of MLK with a million people marching down the National Mall. A big part of the point of protest is to get people to join your side. Stopping traffic is like throwing spray paint in an art museum. It turns people against you. Whether it should be legal or not, it’s a really dumb protest tactic.
You want to protest against cars? Fine. But if you do that by blocking the road, you just create more pollution from everybody sitting in traffic. And I promise not one of those people sitting in traffic is going to ever think that your cause is legitimate after that. They are going to hate you and everything you stand for.
“Mlk did it right!”
Mlk famously blocked roads, it’s like his main thing outside of the dream speaches.
“Not like that.”
If you’re gonna cite MLK…
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Good. Block ambulances -> go to jail. Plenty of legal ways to make your voice heard.
There’s I believe one example of that in the us and they were charged under the relevant currently existing law that makes willfully blocking emergency vehicles a crime.
So anyone in standstill traffic when an ambulance comes will go to jail? Or does this not apply if you’re in a car?
In my opinion, if you knowingly block or don’t have good faith in attempting to move away, it should be illegal.
Do you understand the difference between accidentally doing something wrong and being negligent and causing harm? Like you get that if I swing a bat around in my backyard and someone sneaks up behind me that is a lot different than if I swung a bat around in a crowded room?
Would you consider it negligent to drive somewhere you know is going to be busy, and therefore have potential to block an ambulance?
No.
What’s the difference between that and being at a protest that blocks a road?
Scale and intent and flexibility.
Scale: one car contributes almost nothing to a traffic jam
Intent: a person driving somewhere is trying to drive somewhere. A person abandoning their car or standing in the road is trying to, in the words of people ITT, “causing inconvenience” and getting people “angry”.
Flexibility: if you are in your car and see lights flashing you can at least try to get out of the way. If you have abandoned your car to cause a jam you can’t.
You really can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim you are trying to inconvenience people and bring attention to your pet cause while also claiming you are just doing what normal people are doing.
The right to protest is important, but there have to be limitations. If you stage a protest where you commit crimes to disproportionately harm other people, then there have to be consequences.
Proportionality is important: if there’s a protest march with tens of thousands of people just walking from one place to another place, then obviously traffic will be a massive clusterfuck, with thousands of other ordinary people stuck in traffic. But if your protest can only get a few dozen people together and you set about creating the same amount of traffic gridlock, that’s something that can only be achieved by doing stupid shit and then there have to be consequences.
If you can’t even get enough people together for your protest to not have enough space when walking on the sidewalk, then you should not be protesting in the road and hindering thousands of other people. Apart from how disproportionate it is that a few dozen people want to hold thousands hostage for hours, a protest like that also has the reverse effect and it creates loads of antipathy.
Climate action is very important to me and I do believe that we are not doing nearly enough to address it, but I hate those ludicrous climate protests, where there’s a handful of protesters blocking roads. Those pricks generate so much antipathy and they do nothing to explain to the general public of how important climate action is. Those people are classic self righteous pricks with a holier than thou attitude and they are just making things worse for everyone.
deleted by creator
That’s literally what it is but who would look to history when install they can rely on how they feel.
There is no effective protest without violence and property destruction, I invite you to find a single historical example otherwise.
deleted by creator
Moderate, considerate and thought through opinions get massively down voted in this thread. Thinking problems through will always be a less popular than taking out the pitchforks and following the herd.
I’m as disappointed in humans as you are, but I did find a few more bright spots in this thread :)
About you.
That US soldier who self immolated a few weeks ago to protest the genocide in Gaza was pretty effective. Oh wait, no it’s still happening. And I guess self harm is still violence. Either way I agree with you.
montgomery bus boycott
Bad example. There was tons of violence related to this boycott. There is always violence in a U.S. protest because conservatives insist upon it.
From Wikipedia:
King’s and Abernathy’s houses were firebombed, as were four black Baptist churches. Boycotters were often physically attacked.
Two days after the inauguration of desegregated seating, someone fired a shotgun through the front door of Martin Luther King’s home. A day later, on Christmas Eve, white men attacked a black teenager as she exited a bus. Four days after that, two buses were fired upon by snipers. In one sniper incident, a pregnant woman was shot in both legs. On January 10, 1957, bombs destroyed five black churches and the home of Reverend Robert S. Graetz…
i thought you had meant violence from the protest itself not also the reaction to it
Without interruption what incentive does protest have to make change?
deleted by creator
If you were around for the civil rights era, I know exactly what side of the sit-in movement you would be on.
Excuse me? Cops? Could you please stop killing people? Please? No? Okay then.
deleted by creator
“black lives matter” is a message, wtf are you talking about then?
deleted by creator
shit take tbh
the only way to get shit done in this fucked up society is to cause disruptions. Otherwise, people will turn a blind eye
Cops block traffic for illegitimate reasons all the fucking time
There isn’t an effective form of protest that doesn’t involve inconveniencing people.
But what if your message is “can we all get along together please?” the other persons message is litteraly “you don’t deserve a vote, you don’t deserve equal rights, you don’t even deserve to drink the same water as me, you are not even legally a person, this is the law, get out of my face nigge* before the lynch mob arrives, because I won’t stop them”
How are you supposed to remove yourself from that situation when that situation is brought onto you, and there’s no way to simply negotiate or compromise because the two “opinions” are diametrically opposed.
If someone’s boot is on another person’s throat, I honestly don’t care if I sound like an asshole as I tell them to move their fucking boot. I’d rather be an asshole on the right side of history than a coward who was just following orders.
deleted by creator
I do understand your point, but as a layperson there is no real way to single out your protest impact to only effect those directly responsible, especially when, in most cases, those directly responsible are removed from the community to a degree that there is little you could do to impact them without also impacting their innocent underpaid intern who’s just trying to do their job.
Yes, protesting impacts a bunch of people that can’t individually do anything and are therefore being inconvenienced (mildly or substantially, depending on the individual) for something they have no control over that is someone else’s fault.
But I think part of the reason you see it this way is due to a general a lack of solidarity. If I’m inconvenienced because my bus is stuck behind a protest, that sucks, but I’m not going to blame the protesters (unless I genuinely disagree with their requests/what they’re protesting) I’m going to blame the very same people the protesters are trying to reach, because they are the reason that petitions, inquires, public outcry and lobbying hasn’t worked and now we’re at a stage of protest.
It might push a few of us to get off the bus and join the protest because what else can we do. It might prompt someone to write into their local representatives to push them to hurry up and sign negotiations so the protest can end because they’re sick of the slow bus.
There’s no such thing as someone that has “nothing to do with the issue” when the issue impacts us as a society. If you feel like a social issue has nothing to do with you, but the protests around it are impacting you, you have to ask yourself what you’re gaining from the current system, and what stands to be gained from the changes demanded by the protesters. If you genuinely think you have nothing to do with it, you might be a true hermit.
Found the fascist.
