672
submitted 5 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Oh so now the road protestors are threatening and harassing the people in the cars instead of just telling signs at them and holding signs?

Lmao.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Literally no one said that. I fully support anyone wishing to protest against Israel's treatment of Palestine and the hypocritical enabling of the democrats. The issue being discussed is whether or not certain rights and freedoms should have rules attached to it.

Blocking a bridge, people say there should not be rules against it because they need to be a disruption to be heard properly. Some people say certain rules preventing the right of assembly should be allowed in certain cases, like blocking hospital access or creating buffer zones around schools and abortion clinics.

Some people say there shouldn't be any rules at all preventing any rights from being expressed.

I'm of the opinion that blocking traffic shouldn't be allowed for protesting peacefully. Line the edges and walkways of the bridge and be as visible as you want with large vibrant signs and megaphones, but don't stand in the street preventing people from getting to work.

Others disagree and simply say that it's a right to do it, but then they are fine with attaching certain rules to other rights like preventing hate speech. It's simply a matter of trying to find where the line should be drawn.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

You said it. This entire thing is in the context of protestors blocking the road. Either that or you're trying to deflect rather than deal with the actual issue.

Emergency vehicles just drive up the other side of the road.

And no. Your daily commute just isn't that important. Protests that don't get seen don't mean anything. Pushing people out of sight for your convenience effectively destroys the first amendment.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Please try to develop some reading comprehension.

In the context of

So would you agree there should be rules about protestors blocking access to planned parenthood? Or is it perfectly fine the way the system is right now, just allowing them to threaten and harass everyone going inside for unhindered rights or assembly?

It was in direct reply to your comment about planned parenting protestors.

In none of my comments am I bashing the bridge protestors other than saying they should not be allowed to block traffic, and the right of assembly should have rules and regulations to determine "proper" and "improper" forms of protest.

I don't even know what you are arguing about.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

That the second you make proper and improper forms of peaceful protest you've abrogated the first amendment and made violence inevitable. Peaceful protest is the bedrock of all our rights. The people in power already routinely try to neutralize it so they can control the narrative. There's no reason to make it easier for them. We cried foul when the Bush administration trundled the protestors off to free speech zones for security concerns. The convenience of some car drivers doesn't even begin to rate.

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
672 points (100.0% liked)

News

22896 readers
4072 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS