• @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Oh, there is no implication about it: you need one hell of a justification to deliberately infringe on freedom of movement. It should be a criminal offense on the same level as “harassment” or “simple assault” to deliberately prevent someone from traveling. Each of these protesters should be charged with a separate count for each and every vehicle so delayed.

        And, anyone so impeded should be justified in using any force necessary to end that unlawful impediment.

        • Bro, you can justify killing little old ladies crossing the street with that argument.

          Just admit all you care about is yourself and getting from point A to point B and that right to protest doesn’t actually matter to you.

          • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Reasonable person standard applies to all use of force, so no, not really.

            The right to protest does not extend to infringing on the rights of another. My right to protest does not supersede your right to leave your home and travel in public. I cannot detain you or deny your free movement.

            You do not have a monopoly on the use of public roads, sidewalks, etc. “Taking” the public roads or sidewalks for your private use is not reasonable.

            • So in other words you really don’t care.

              Pedestrians always have right of way regardless of why they’re on the street, to start…

              And the right to protest does protect their right to inconvenience you when on the road. Don’t like it, just turn around or go park your car and walk.

                • They do when they’re protesting, or even for festivals, events, trying to cross and getting stuck. That’s a fact of life you just have to put up with.

                  • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    No, that’s not a fact of life.

                    It might be a fact of law, but if they have figured out some loophole that allows them to get away with it, the law can and should be changed to eliminate that loophole. And that’s the only real effect they will have: convincing the general public to adopt some authoritarian bullshit law that should not need to exist, because nobody should be enough of a cunt to deliberately impede movement.