[dubfan]

The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.

[thaumaturgy]

Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching, and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free society.

I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing that.

I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was would move me further towards supporting protests on highways.

The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.

[cubano]

Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble

Well hold on there...the "right to assemble" is granted as long as the overall public well-being isn't put in jeopardy

ie the cant-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater chestnut.

Isn't it possible that by blocking the "major highways", that perhaps emergency vehicles could be prevented from doing their life-saving deeds?

[vacri]

Clarifying further, 'terrorism' means using fear (the 'terror' part) to achieve political goals (the 'ism' part). Peacefully blocking a highway might be civil disobedience, but it's nowhere near terrifying.

[dubfan]

> The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian police state.

My view is it's gone the opposite direction. We've neutered our police forces such that they can't even protect the rights of citizens to go about their business without being impeded by anti-authoritarian protestors, and we've accepted that as a fact of life. If this country didn't have the inertia of having the world's reserve currency and the largest industrial capacity for a crucial ~50-60 year period, nobody would invest in us given our social unrest.

[sfeng]

> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.

they also weren't killing people or 'inciting terror'.

[veidr]

> The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.

Yeah, that and the dead children, schoolteachers with their legs blown off, orphans left behind after their parents were shredded or burned to death, etc that results from actual terrorism. That's basically the only difference.

[SwellJoe]

"The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric."

Are you serious? You see no difference between beheading someone and sending out a video of it, and peacefully stopping traffic for a few minutes, other than the way they talk about it? Flying airplanes into buildings, and disrupting a train schedule for a little while by peacefully locking arms, are the same thing to you? Suicide bombers, and a (simulated, and peaceful) "die-in" in a shopping mall, those are morally no different?

That's such an unreasonable, and inflammatory, position to take that I'm genuinely not even sure how to communicate with you.

[IanDrake]

You're absolutely right.

Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom.

We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.

[vacri]

Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right

What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom.

If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.

[dubfan]

> Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion.

A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.

[wbronitsky]

I should think that the difference between blocking traffic for a short period of time and terrorism is death and suffering. I would say the only similarity between the two is that they both seek to advance political agendas. This is like saying the only difference between a filibuster and terrorism is rhetoric.

[rtpg]

so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run?

Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.

[dubfan]

Yeah, being late to my job because my bus can't get through a protest and getting fired as a result is just a slight inconvenience.

[Thrymr]

> The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.

Also, the terror.

[beedogs]

I'm sorry, but whether or not you're inconvenienced is of absolutely no consequence and should have no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people to protest.

If a bit of a delay on the roads is all you've got to complain about, you've got it pretty damn good.

[click170]

Um, yes, it very much should.

This isn't about blocking roads or stopping transit. Its about being heard. Unfortunately it takes more than a sternly worded letter to voice their frustration and outrage, and here you are trying to take one of their few remaining outlets away from them.

You don't honestly believe that do you?

[dubfan]

They have as much of a right to speak as I have to ignore them. When my right to ignore them is taken away, I have a problem with that.

[rokhayakebe]

Upvoted, but your comment sounds a bit self centered.

"Anybody who enjoys social freedom because others have toiled, and some are still toiling, for it should give up his freedom when the state needs it."

You enjoy many benefits because the "citizens" you speak of contribute to the state and make it so you live there happily and safely. Now when these people, together as citizens, feel like their "social contract" is being abused, they have a right, through the government, to put an immediate and sharp hold on your freedom to have the matter resolved.

Now in this case, if the police did not act, you can consider it as an approval. If you disagree with this method, you also have the right to protest in the same manner.

Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.

[eropple]

> Edit: Also a protest is a nuisance, terrorism is an actual threat to your freedom.

Eh. My freedoms are a lot less threatened by terrorism than by the people responding to terrorism.