Why are some rights subsidized, while others are not?

[Tanasi]

In my state starting tomorrow this will take effect: Following incidents where protesters took to the streets and even interstate highways in Nashville, lawmakers sought to up the penalty for those who illegally obstruct “highways, streets, sidewalks, railways, waterways, elevators, aisles, or hallways” of public access.

This new law increases the Class C misdemeanor fine of $50 to $200 if a person also obstructs an emergency vehicle. During several marches, police vehicles were unable to pass protesters, but allowed the protests to continue without arrest.

Maybe a good beating with pool noodles will set them straight...

[TheHuckster]

Nobody suggested that.

My remarks are a response to Daskinor, not your remarks.

Regarding paying for services to clean up and protect your protest, I am torn. On one hand, the fee is to directly pay for the services you need. It shouldn't be an arbitrary fee, but rather reimbursement for municipal services. If tax dollars should pay for cleaning up, why shouldn't they also pay for the signs, markers, and all the other materials? Not to mention, protests at such a scale that they require such services are often sponsored by groups funded by donations.

On the other hand, I agree with the idea of as few barriers to protest as possible.

[Canarr]

Again, it's about planning ahead of time more than anything else. My town's had protests in the streets in the past, and the ones that were actually planned ahead of time, while they still caused disruption, was still something people could plan for. It's the "let's surprise everyone by suddenly shutting down the interstate, and get bystanders fired for being late for work or risk innocent lives" mentality that I'm against.

Nobody suggested that. My first post on this topic was with the question whether or not it is true that you can only get a permit for protesting if you're able to pay for police time and street cleaning.

I do not object to permits being required for protests in public; that is a sensible measure. But I do object to people being required to pay for the priviledge, because that will by necessity mean that poor people have less options for protest than wealthy people do, and that'd just be wrong.

[TheHuckster]

What exactly are you objecting to? The staging of public protests and the corresponding interruption of public life in general, or just the same without paying for police overtime and street cleaning?

Because I'm fairly certain that for the people who have to wait or take detours, it doesn't make a lot of difference whether or not the protesters paid for the priviledge.

Again, it's about planning ahead of time more than anything else. My town's had protests in the streets in the past, and the ones that were actually planned ahead of time, while they still caused disruption, was still something people could plan for. It's the "let's surprise everyone by suddenly shutting down the interstate, and get bystanders fired for being late for work or risk innocent lives" mentality that I'm against.

[Canarr]

So, what's your plan? Should citizens have the right to unequivocally and arbitrarily disrupt others' lives, close roads, and use emergency-response resources at no cost and with no consequences because they're mad at society? There comes a point where one's exercising of their rights starts to infringe on others' rights.

What exactly are you objecting to? The staging of public protests and the corresponding interruption of public life in general, or just the same without paying for police overtime and street cleaning?

Because I'm fairly certain that for the people who have to wait or take detours, it doesn't make a lot of difference whether or not the protesters paid for the priviledge.

[s_stabeler]

it's not actually entirely true that you can't restrict protestors from blocking roads. There have been rulings before that people protesting abortion clinics can't block employees of said abortion clinics from getting into work. Yell insults at them, yes. actively block them, no.

It's also worth debating what makes a protest a protest. It is- I think everyone can agree- fairly obvious that just blocking a road and claiming it's a protest isn't enough.(you really need to st least specify what you are protesting against)

[TheHuckster]

The whole ambulance argument centers around the idea that a municipality does not have the ability for emergency responders to communicate. That protesters are the only thing that can ever prevent an ambulance from getting anywhere. Not simple traffic on roads not ever meant to have cars on them, other accidents, construction, temporary road closures ect... And this is all assuming for some reason the protesters are willing to block an ambulance. Generally they don't. There has been some recent unsubstantiated claims on the Facebook that have been stroking this fire.

But why even risk it? Traffic and accidents are a fact of life. The people causing them aren't intentionally doing so. And I've already addressed the advanced notice people get before construction blocks traffic. Protests also typically cause vastly more disruption than accidents and construction does. Entire cities have been shut down to traffic as a result.

Or a firearm if it is allowed by your state because the second. Because there are court decisions on those aspects of protest.

Using a firearm in your protest (which I can't find any use for other than violent threats or intimidation) is anything but peaceful.

[Daskinor]

That's exactly why construction companies need express permission and give the municipality lots of notice so they can set up detours and inform emergency services of what's going to happen.

If it's an unscheduled, surprise protest, then they don't necessarily know to go around beforehand. Again, construction companies provide LOTS of notice so everyone can plan for this stuff.

But I still maintain that if someone died as a result, the protesters should be liable. Blocking roads is a very careless activity.

The whole ambulance argument centers around the idea that a municipality does not have the ability for emergency responders to communicate. That protesters are the only thing that can ever prevent an ambulance from getting anywhere. Not simple traffic on roads not ever meant to have cars on them, other accidents, construction, temporary road closures ect... And this is all assuming for some reason the protesters are willing to block an ambulance. Generally they don't. There has been some recent unsubstantiated claims on the Facebook that have been stroking this fire.

http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-ma...nt-in-memphis/

http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-pro..._medium=social

And here's where you've just completely gone off the rails on constitutional rights, then. Your statement here seems to be that the criteria of what constitutes a legal protest depends solely on how many people are involved. It's okay if a mob blocks a road, because their exercising their rights. My rights as an individual to do the same don't exist. You're contradicting yourself.

Not really, I stated that I cant find any case data on protests that involving a singular person and something like a tractor trailer. I have found cases of singular road protests, best example was someone protesting a sobriety stop a few years ago. I am simply not sure in this case. The only thing I could find was purposely blocking a road then abandoning the cars, and that was not protested as protest. I simply cant find a legal opinion if you were just say, sitting in it.

But when it comes to protesting with 'things' there is a gray area, simply because there is no precedent on how to apply the laws. But you can be sure protesting with just your body is protected. And a sign because that is speech. Or a firearm if it is allowed by your state because the second. Because there are court decisions on those aspects of protest.

Size has nothing to do with it, the opinions I was looking for are based on protesting with property. And as I said there is very little precedent on the subject I could find, making it a gray area. There is not even resolution to cases of people mailing dildos to public officials as a type of protest.

I was just about to hit 'post' and a coworker found an incident of Truck drivers trying to force a slowdown on the capitol beltway by driving the minimum speed next to each other. Of course this did not work because the average speed on 495 is 0 MPH. They where ticketed and did not fight the tickets in court. I thought I mention it because it does involve a tractor trailer.

Utility companies are subsidized by the government to an extent that they might as well be public. They're about as public as Amtrak or the Postal Service at this point.

But they are not, and that is a legal distinction when it comes to exercising constitutional rights.

[TheHuckster]

New York has a law that says women need to cover their breasts. But the court's have repeatedly ruled that a law does not apply if women go topless in protest. Setting aside the freedom of speech and 14th amendment arguments for the moment.

Baring breasts don't risk lives. Blocking roads of emergency vehicles do.

The blocking ambulance thing is one of those weird arguments that sound good in principle but fall apart under scrutiny. What happens if a road is blocked because of private construction.

That's exactly why construction companies need express permission and give the municipality lots of notice so they can set up detours and inform emergency services of what's going to happen.

The question that needs to be answered first is why couldn't the ambulance go around, take another route or be dispatched from another direction.

If it's an unscheduled, surprise protest, then they don't necessarily know to go around beforehand. Again, construction companies provide LOTS of notice so everyone can plan for this stuff.

And yes if for some reason an ambulance was somehow unable to get to a hospital in time, and the protesters were not purposely blocking the ambulance. It still be a peaceful protest.

But I still maintain that if someone died as a result, the protesters should be liable. Blocking roads is a very careless activity.

As for the singular case of you as a person blocking traffic with a trailer for reasons of protest. It gets to be a gray area. I can't find any case notes about a singular protester doing something like that. There is going to be a gray area based on allot of legal precedent. My cursory glance makes me think that your right to protest wont extend to you tractor-trailer.

And here's where you've just completely gone off the rails on constitutional rights, then. Your statement here seems to be that the criteria of what constitutes a legal protest depends solely on how many people are involved. It's okay if a mob blocks a road, because their exercising their rights. My rights as an individual to do the same don't exist. You're contradicting yourself.

Roads are vital infrastructure. But they are without a doubt public property, and that muddies the water allot. The utilities belong to the utility companies, and the right to protest does not extend to them because they are private.

Utility companies are subsidized by the government to an extent that they might as well be public. They're about as public as Amtrak or the Postal Service at this point.

[Daskinor]

Yes, but there are laws against blocking traffic. If I were to take a tractor trailer and have it block traffic, I'd be breaking the law. Furthermore, if this action had lead to the death of someone (i.e. it blocked an ambulance from taking a dying patient to the hospital), then it's no longer a peaceful protest. Roads are a vital piece of infrastructure, and blocking them from being used can be as damaging and should be as illegal as shutting off power to a neighborhood or DDoSing a website.

New York has a law that says women need to cover their breasts. But the court's have repeatedly ruled that a law does not apply if women go topless in protest. Setting aside the freedom of speech and 14th amendment arguments for the moment.

The government simply can not enforce a law that is being used to break up a peaceful protest. And this also applies to blocking roads.

The blocking ambulance thing is one of those weird arguments that sound good in principle but fall apart under scrutiny. What happens if a road is blocked because of private construction. Or because something is being loaded or unloaded via crane and cannot simply be stopped. What if its a festival closure and you simply cannot get stuff out of the way.

The question that needs to be answered first is why couldn't the ambulance go around, take another route or be dispatched from another direction.

And yes if for some reason an ambulance was somehow unable to get to a hospital in time, and the protesters were not purposely blocking the ambulance. It still be a peaceful protest.

As for the singular case of you as a person blocking traffic with a trailer for reasons of protest. It gets to be a gray area. I can't find any case notes about a singular protester doing something like that. There is going to be a gray area based on allot of legal precedent. My cursory glance makes me think that your right to protest wont extend to you tractor-trailer.

Roads are vital infrastructure. But they are without a doubt public property, and that muddies the water allot. The utilities belong to the utility companies, and the right to protest does not extend to them because they are private.

[TheHuckster]

As a matter of opinion, a protest by definition is disruptive. And as more people exercise their rights, by scale the more disruptive the protest becomes.

Also the government is barred from making laws to restrict peaceful protests. Giving us our right to protest. By no extension of any other part of the constitution do you have a right to have unblocked roads or having your day unimpaired by other people protesting.

Yes, but there are laws against blocking traffic. If I were to take a tractor trailer and have it block traffic, I'd be breaking the law. Furthermore, if this action had lead to the death of someone (i.e. it blocked an ambulance from taking a dying patient to the hospital), then it's no longer a peaceful protest. Roads are a vital piece of infrastructure, and blocking them from being used can be as damaging and should be as illegal as shutting off power to a neighborhood or DDoSing a website.

[Daskinor]

So, what's your plan? Should citizens have the right to unequivocally and arbitrarily disrupt others' lives, close roads, and use emergency-response resources at no cost and with no consequences because they're mad at society? There comes a point where one's exercising of their rights starts to infringe on others' rights.

As a matter of opinion, a protest by definition is disruptive. And as more people exercise their rights, by scale the more disruptive the protest becomes.

Also the government is barred from making laws to restrict peaceful protests. Giving us our right to protest. By no extension of any other part of the constitution do you have a right to have unblocked roads or having your day unimpaired by other people protesting.

Simply put you don't have a right to be shielded from other peoples peaceful exercise of their rights. And even if you disagree what they are protesting today, its a right that has brought so much social change in this country. And in some way has increased everyone's life for the better. It could be the civil rights movement, public education, or the 40 hour work week.

[TheHuckster]

No, of course not the only one; but a fairly important one. And one option for protest that poor people could conveniently be excluded from by placing a bill on that.

So, what's your plan? Should citizens have the right to unequivocally and arbitrarily disrupt others' lives, close roads, and use emergency-response resources at no cost and with no consequences because they're mad at society? There comes a point where one's exercising of their rights starts to infringe on others' rights.

[Canarr]

No, of course not the only one; but a fairly important one. And one option for protest that poor people could conveniently be excluded from by placing a bill on that.

[Greenday]

Is that really so? You don't get a permit for a protest march in the US unless you can cover the cost for police etc? Because if so, that seems like a splendid way to keep poor people from exercising their right to protest - just give 'em a bill they can't pay.

Is marching in the street, stopping all traffic, drastically increasing the amount of trash produced, etc. etc. the only way to protest?