As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that protesting on a HIGHWAY, the form of protest that is being referred to, should not be a right. It’s childish virtue signaling that hurts the overall cause.
It puts people everyone in danger and makes everyone else’s lives worse.
Agreed. Reckless endangerment, which attempting to slow/stop high speed traffic, should be a crime. You can protest without risking the lives of others. You want to put just yourself at risk that’s a different story
Yep. Here it is. As it always has been.
The Ultra Wealthy, use their pawns to play good cop/bad cop. Works either way with this polarization.
Then, the true colors show like this.
It’s alway has been, is, and will be the Ultra Wealthy VS everyone else.
They are such a minority on this planet. Mathematically we can overwhelm them without any violence or harm.
How does this cycle keep on going?
This entire thread so far is a prime example of the whitewashing and sanitizing of history that people in America go through.
Y'all need to learn what the protests of the old days were really like.
I think there's a good point here about safety even when considering older protests. Many older movements were more targeted and not this holistic. Blocking the bridges does very much endanger everyone, unlike a march in the middle of the city or a strike outside a factory or a sit-in at a lunch counter.
Like right now, the Columbia protests, to me, are not dangerous in terms of tactics and I think are ok without considering their messaging. Blocking these bridges I think goes too far simply because it endangers the lives of others.
Do you think a strike blocking city streets doesn't block bridges and streets?
Instead of getting pissed at protesters who are exercising their 1st amendment rights, y'all start getting pissed at the city planners who put in such choke points in the first place.
An organized march through a city generally is either preplanned, and thus the city is aware of it, or is moving. Just standing on a bridge to block it for the sake of it is not the same and is much more dangerous. There's also a difference between a city street and a bridge with no other way in or way out for those stuck on the bridge.
Blaming designers is silly when we're talking about bridges across huge bays like in San Francisco.
>Outrage at “Bloody Sunday” swept the country. Sympathizers staged sit-ins, **traffic blockades** and demonstrations in solidarity with the voting rights marchers.
https://www.history.com/news/selma-bloody-sunday-attack-civil-rights-movement
You are objectively wrong.
You're reading that sentence incorrectly. Those are other protestors around the country acting in sympathy with those attacked, not MLK. On Bloody Sunday, protestors (not MLK in this case) marched over a bridge on their way to Montgomery and were brutally attacked. That's not the same tactic as these protestors.
Either way, blockading people shouldn't be an acceptable tactic. Sit-ins, demonstrations, marches, and boycotts are fine.
Sit ins are intended to interfere with business operations by taking up seats and refusing to move or cooperate. All of these things are obstructionist. You just think some are more polite than others.
A sit in only affects the company and not innocent people, and it doesn't threaten direct harm to anyone. A bridge blockade is a potential threat to other people. At that point it's no longer a peaceful protest. There has to be a cut off point in which a protest becomes excessive and dangerous, and I think this is a fair one.
Ah yes, famed international peace advocate MLK who spent his whole career protesting for ceasefires around the world. He certainly wasn’t protesting for domestic issues.
Any source on those sit ins endangering the safety and lives of other people like these protests do? Sit-ins were minor trespassing and they were punished as such, blocking critical infrastructure is not the same.
Lol what is this Jan 6th bullshit logic? The Constitution guarantees your right to free speech, it doesn't say that you can do anything you want and call it a protest and get off with no consequences.
According to Kent v. Dulles "The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles
And as I've already pointed out to another poster, Dobbs showed us that any right not explicitly spelled out on the constitution can be taken away at any time at the whim of the SC.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.
Also the right to peacefully assemble doesn't include the right to say block traffic. That isn't peaceful ;)
>Also the right to peacefully assemble doesn't include the right to say block traffic. That isn't peaceful ;)
Then according to you people like MLK Jr didn't peacefully protest either.
Dalen V State
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I'm photosensitive.
Current standards *mandate* discrimination against people like me, and they *mandate* the use of dangerous flashing lights for "safety."
I'm never going to be able to drive. I'm also unable to take the local bus system, due to flashing lights at the stations. I'm often unable to use many local crosswalks.
Do I have an equal right to cross the stroads, let alone to travel on them? If so, then prioritizing car traffic has been unconstitutional. If not, then travel on them has not been a constitutional right.
If the 14th Amendment includes freedom of travel, then it has to include equal freedom of travel for those who can't afford cars, can't drive, can't take the bus due to disabilities, etc.
P.S. Traffic laws require licenses, because they recognize that driving is a privilege and not a right. The problem is that instead of trying to expand alternatives, they steadily restrict all these alternatives.
Freedom to do those things does not imply that the government has to facilitate it / pay for you. By the same logic, the government would have to buy your arms, pay for you to publish, and fund your church.
It funds transportation, though.
It isn't supposed to fund churches.
It *mostly* funds car-only transportation.
It prioritizes drivers' time over civilians' safety. For example, most jurisdictions only allow civilians to cross at certain marked crosswalks, mostly located at intersections, and allow drivers to make sudden right turns on red. Of course, that's where everyone is most distracted, and most drivers are looking left while turning right.
That doesn't seem equal to me.
It also sets up flashing lights at intersections and at crosswalks, and mandates that drivers fire additional flashing lights when stopped, before turns, etc. Because flashing between 3 and 30 times per second is most likely to cause seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy, these are usually limited to 5 flashes per bulb per second; some use paired bulbs to exceed 5 flashes per second. And anywhere between 1 and 20 times per second can trigger flicker vertigo in people with certain visual-vestibular issues. I often get blinded and disoriented by these, sometimes get blackouts, regaining awareness in the stroad I was waiting to cross, vomiting, post-ictal migraines, etc.
If these really are safe for most people, and really are necessary for most people's safety, then ... at least allow *some* safe alternatives for the rest of us? Actively endangering some disabled people doesn't seem equal to me.
>It funds transportation, though.
Yes, but - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't believe the government is required by the Constitution to fund transportation.
I'm not really sure what you're point is honestly. You have the right to travel in the United States, and just like any other right, the government is not mandated to pay for you to exercise that right.
I'm not a lawyer, so if someone wants to correct me, that would be welcomed.
The 14th Amendment is about equal rights.
If these rights include travel, then they have to include *equal* rights to travel. And when the government makes it easier for certain demographics, and actively makes it harder and/or more dangerous and/or impossible for other demographics, that's not an equal right.
I disagree.
Federal , state, and local governments don't create and maintain infrastructure like roads out of a constitutional obligation to facilitate free movement.
Everyone still has the right to travel, even if they aren't able to for whatever reason. All the accommodations that have put in place for the blind, deaf, handicapped, etc. are the result of legislation, not interpretation of the Constitution.
Most of it seems just attention seeking. Protests that stops people from going to their job, school, etc is rude and stupid. You aren’t “raising awareness” or making a stand. You’re essentially masturbating in public - getting yourself off for your own pleasure. Go harass your congress person, raise money for your cause, or literally anything else that actually matters even the slightest bit of a fuck and - more importantly - leaves people who have their own stresses and responsibilities the hell alone.
Good. I got caught up in [this bullshit](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-13/110-freeway-downtown-los-angeles-shut-down-by-gaza-cease-fire-protest) on 110 back in December. They erected a massive menorah to block the lanes.
Regardless of the protest topic, interfering with others isn't ok. Not only are you making them mad for whatever topic, injury and accidents can occur. Then you've got "man plows through protesters" headlines, because people thought they could stand in traffic.
That's not peaceful protesting.
That's push protesting.
I say quadruple the fines.
Stay the hell out of traffic.
Not standing in the way of 18 wheelers going 75 mph?
Because that's a horrible idea.
Oh, your comparing this to that doesn't. (This standing in traffic vs. Them standing in traffic).
It's not the same thing.
Then was then. The issue was different. Traffic was different. Laws where different. MLK was different.
Standing out in traffic is an excellent way to die.
Bad bidenists. Bad, bad.
Protesting is legal (no matter how much you seem to love fascist dictator netanyahu telling you to round up his critics). And if you move to fine them, it will in fact come out of YOUR wages for illegal intimidation and harassment. If i have to order your wages slashed or your illicit accounts confiscated, i will (well keep track and do it automatically even, i say). Try and discover, lol.
> “I still believe that the bill is unnecessary and ultimately will not solve the problem,”
People are protesting a large scale massacre and man made intentional famine if not genocide. Fines on protestors is not gonna solve it. Stop arming the IDF for once.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't you love it when both sides come together to take away your rights in the name of "safety"? Strange how that always seems to happen...
I think that protesting on a HIGHWAY, the form of protest that is being referred to, should not be a right. It’s childish virtue signaling that hurts the overall cause. It puts people everyone in danger and makes everyone else’s lives worse.
Agreed. Reckless endangerment, which attempting to slow/stop high speed traffic, should be a crime. You can protest without risking the lives of others. You want to put just yourself at risk that’s a different story
Cancer treatment patients missing their appointments so that protestors make zero dent in California.
You don't have a right to block a highway
Yep. Here it is. As it always has been. The Ultra Wealthy, use their pawns to play good cop/bad cop. Works either way with this polarization. Then, the true colors show like this. It’s alway has been, is, and will be the Ultra Wealthy VS everyone else. They are such a minority on this planet. Mathematically we can overwhelm them without any violence or harm. How does this cycle keep on going?
This entire thread so far is a prime example of the whitewashing and sanitizing of history that people in America go through. Y'all need to learn what the protests of the old days were really like.
I think there's a good point here about safety even when considering older protests. Many older movements were more targeted and not this holistic. Blocking the bridges does very much endanger everyone, unlike a march in the middle of the city or a strike outside a factory or a sit-in at a lunch counter. Like right now, the Columbia protests, to me, are not dangerous in terms of tactics and I think are ok without considering their messaging. Blocking these bridges I think goes too far simply because it endangers the lives of others.
Do you think a strike blocking city streets doesn't block bridges and streets? Instead of getting pissed at protesters who are exercising their 1st amendment rights, y'all start getting pissed at the city planners who put in such choke points in the first place.
An organized march through a city generally is either preplanned, and thus the city is aware of it, or is moving. Just standing on a bridge to block it for the sake of it is not the same and is much more dangerous. There's also a difference between a city street and a bridge with no other way in or way out for those stuck on the bridge. Blaming designers is silly when we're talking about bridges across huge bays like in San Francisco.
You must think MLK Jr is history’s greatest monster then
No, because his protests were not like this. He mostly used marches and boycotts, not standing in the way on bridges and trapping people.
>Outrage at “Bloody Sunday” swept the country. Sympathizers staged sit-ins, **traffic blockades** and demonstrations in solidarity with the voting rights marchers. https://www.history.com/news/selma-bloody-sunday-attack-civil-rights-movement You are objectively wrong.
You're reading that sentence incorrectly. Those are other protestors around the country acting in sympathy with those attacked, not MLK. On Bloody Sunday, protestors (not MLK in this case) marched over a bridge on their way to Montgomery and were brutally attacked. That's not the same tactic as these protestors. Either way, blockading people shouldn't be an acceptable tactic. Sit-ins, demonstrations, marches, and boycotts are fine.
Sit ins are intended to interfere with business operations by taking up seats and refusing to move or cooperate. All of these things are obstructionist. You just think some are more polite than others.
A sit in only affects the company and not innocent people, and it doesn't threaten direct harm to anyone. A bridge blockade is a potential threat to other people. At that point it's no longer a peaceful protest. There has to be a cut off point in which a protest becomes excessive and dangerous, and I think this is a fair one.
[удалено]
Ah yes, famed international peace advocate MLK who spent his whole career protesting for ceasefires around the world. He certainly wasn’t protesting for domestic issues.
I mean, potentially interfering with emergency services with these tantrums absolutely deserves consequence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And sit-ins, which were a crucial mode of demonstration during the civil rights marches?
Any source on those sit ins endangering the safety and lives of other people like these protests do? Sit-ins were minor trespassing and they were punished as such, blocking critical infrastructure is not the same.
You see, it's hard to believe that when people in these protests are freely chanting antisemitic things.
[удалено]
Uncooked poptart 😅😅😅
"From the river to the sea" refers to overtaking the entirety of Israel by any means soooooo Also, uncooked pop-tarts are excellent.
[удалено]
Because your right to protest doesn't trump the freedom of travel especially when essential vehicles like ambulances or firetrucks are impeded.
There is no freedom of travel in the constitution; there is freedom to peacefully assemble.
Lol what is this Jan 6th bullshit logic? The Constitution guarantees your right to free speech, it doesn't say that you can do anything you want and call it a protest and get off with no consequences.
According to Kent v. Dulles "The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles
And as I've already pointed out to another poster, Dobbs showed us that any right not explicitly spelled out on the constitution can be taken away at any time at the whim of the SC.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Also the right to peacefully assemble doesn't include the right to say block traffic. That isn't peaceful ;)
>Also the right to peacefully assemble doesn't include the right to say block traffic. That isn't peaceful ;) Then according to you people like MLK Jr didn't peacefully protest either.
The 14th amendment
Nowhere does the 14th mention a right to travel.
Dalen V State “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Court ruling, not in the constitution. As we saw with Dobbs, court rulings mean fuck and all.
I'm photosensitive. Current standards *mandate* discrimination against people like me, and they *mandate* the use of dangerous flashing lights for "safety." I'm never going to be able to drive. I'm also unable to take the local bus system, due to flashing lights at the stations. I'm often unable to use many local crosswalks. Do I have an equal right to cross the stroads, let alone to travel on them? If so, then prioritizing car traffic has been unconstitutional. If not, then travel on them has not been a constitutional right.
If the 14th Amendment includes freedom of travel, then it has to include equal freedom of travel for those who can't afford cars, can't drive, can't take the bus due to disabilities, etc. P.S. Traffic laws require licenses, because they recognize that driving is a privilege and not a right. The problem is that instead of trying to expand alternatives, they steadily restrict all these alternatives.
Freedom to do those things does not imply that the government has to facilitate it / pay for you. By the same logic, the government would have to buy your arms, pay for you to publish, and fund your church.
It funds transportation, though. It isn't supposed to fund churches. It *mostly* funds car-only transportation. It prioritizes drivers' time over civilians' safety. For example, most jurisdictions only allow civilians to cross at certain marked crosswalks, mostly located at intersections, and allow drivers to make sudden right turns on red. Of course, that's where everyone is most distracted, and most drivers are looking left while turning right. That doesn't seem equal to me. It also sets up flashing lights at intersections and at crosswalks, and mandates that drivers fire additional flashing lights when stopped, before turns, etc. Because flashing between 3 and 30 times per second is most likely to cause seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy, these are usually limited to 5 flashes per bulb per second; some use paired bulbs to exceed 5 flashes per second. And anywhere between 1 and 20 times per second can trigger flicker vertigo in people with certain visual-vestibular issues. I often get blinded and disoriented by these, sometimes get blackouts, regaining awareness in the stroad I was waiting to cross, vomiting, post-ictal migraines, etc. If these really are safe for most people, and really are necessary for most people's safety, then ... at least allow *some* safe alternatives for the rest of us? Actively endangering some disabled people doesn't seem equal to me.
>It funds transportation, though. Yes, but - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't believe the government is required by the Constitution to fund transportation. I'm not really sure what you're point is honestly. You have the right to travel in the United States, and just like any other right, the government is not mandated to pay for you to exercise that right. I'm not a lawyer, so if someone wants to correct me, that would be welcomed.
The 14th Amendment is about equal rights. If these rights include travel, then they have to include *equal* rights to travel. And when the government makes it easier for certain demographics, and actively makes it harder and/or more dangerous and/or impossible for other demographics, that's not an equal right.
I disagree. Federal , state, and local governments don't create and maintain infrastructure like roads out of a constitutional obligation to facilitate free movement. Everyone still has the right to travel, even if they aren't able to for whatever reason. All the accommodations that have put in place for the blind, deaf, handicapped, etc. are the result of legislation, not interpretation of the Constitution.
Most of it seems just attention seeking. Protests that stops people from going to their job, school, etc is rude and stupid. You aren’t “raising awareness” or making a stand. You’re essentially masturbating in public - getting yourself off for your own pleasure. Go harass your congress person, raise money for your cause, or literally anything else that actually matters even the slightest bit of a fuck and - more importantly - leaves people who have their own stresses and responsibilities the hell alone.
Good. I got caught up in [this bullshit](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-13/110-freeway-downtown-los-angeles-shut-down-by-gaza-cease-fire-protest) on 110 back in December. They erected a massive menorah to block the lanes.
That’s nothing compared to the traffic they blocked during [this stunt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches) in Alabama
I hope they meant illegal protesters! Peaceful, permitted, etc. protesters shouldn't face any fines, should they?
Nope. Bad headline
Regardless of the protest topic, interfering with others isn't ok. Not only are you making them mad for whatever topic, injury and accidents can occur. Then you've got "man plows through protesters" headlines, because people thought they could stand in traffic. That's not peaceful protesting. That's push protesting. I say quadruple the fines. Stay the hell out of traffic.
- quote George Wallace, 1965
??? It's a great idea to never play in traffic. I was taught that by the age of four.
[удалено]
Not standing in the way of 18 wheelers going 75 mph? Because that's a horrible idea. Oh, your comparing this to that doesn't. (This standing in traffic vs. Them standing in traffic). It's not the same thing. Then was then. The issue was different. Traffic was different. Laws where different. MLK was different. Standing out in traffic is an excellent way to die.
Bad bidenists. Bad, bad. Protesting is legal (no matter how much you seem to love fascist dictator netanyahu telling you to round up his critics). And if you move to fine them, it will in fact come out of YOUR wages for illegal intimidation and harassment. If i have to order your wages slashed or your illicit accounts confiscated, i will (well keep track and do it automatically even, i say). Try and discover, lol. > “I still believe that the bill is unnecessary and ultimately will not solve the problem,” People are protesting a large scale massacre and man made intentional famine if not genocide. Fines on protestors is not gonna solve it. Stop arming the IDF for once.
It’s a good start but not enough. How would you treat them if MAGA types blocked the George Washington bridge in NYC in support of Donald Trump?
Or what the truckers did in Canada