• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are aggressive acts legitimate forms of protest and do you believe they are protected free speech?

Are aggressive acts (Property damage, starting fires, etc.) legitimate protest and protected speech?

  • Total voters
    50
Hello My Son

Hello My Son

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2023
Messages
6,406
Reaction score
3,708
Location
Heaven
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
 
If protest has reached the form of violence, it's meeting government resistance. Violence is the last resort, after all other forms of protest has failed.

What's the scenario? A fascist takeover? Taking down Confederate Statues? Legitimacy of the protest depends on the legitimacy of the cause, and the need for violence is largely predicated on the nature of government resistance.

If masked, unidentified strangers are kidnapping people from the street, I would argue that violence is warranted. As that's a fully illegal act under the guise of legality.
 
Hello My Son said:
I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on the situation.

One thing we should note is that 99% of the time, critics will suggest that ANY protest tactics are "too aggressive." E.g. MLK Jr and Gandhi were both attacked for being "too extreme" or violating laws (ones they found to be unjust btw). Often, these accusations are made in bad faith, as the true intention is to make them and their movements go away.

Further, there's a long history of authorities infiltrating protest movements and using informants. In some cases, those infiltrators will encourage or participate in illegal behavior, sometimes to bolster their credibility, other times to discredit those movements.

Even complaints about minor damage are often raised in bad faith, as those same critics fail to acknowledge that riots after sporting events often cause more damage than many protests.

And of course, let's not forget that many of the critics are rank hypocrites. You can't defend the J6 insurgents or celebrate the Boston Tea Party, while insisting that protesters whose goals you disagree with are all violent paid crisis actors who crave illegitimate violence.

Ultimately, movements need to determine for themselves what actions will be effective, and that will change from one day to the next. What they can't do is allow critics acting in bad faith to decide what is, and is not, a legitimate protest.

P.S.: If you haven't done so already, I recommend you read MLK Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." He discusses a few of these topics, and why activists shouldn't pay attention to those types of critics.
 
Hello My Son said:
I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
Click to expand...
These posters are neoMarxists. (This forum has many)

Karl Marx wrote about aggressive acts and violence as being acceptable forms of protest between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in his Communist Manifesto.
 
SkyChief said:
These posters are neoMarxists.
Click to expand...
Another one whining about the left leaning members of this forum. JAYSUS, this has recently become a new theme. You aren't the first. The new grievance is too many leftists on here. I mean, do folks on the Right ever do ANYTHING but moan and groan? It's getting pathetic, it really is.
 
Would think you would have to define 'aggressive acts'.
'Aggressive acts' that lead to violence and/or physical harm to others or destruction of property?
Not protected by the 1st Amendment.
But 'aggressive acts' do not have to reach this level.
 
What a remarkably stupid post - devoid of any logic or reason.

And YOU using the word pathetic!. You don't even understand the irony of that.
 
Hello My Son said:
I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
Click to expand...

What's "aggressive?" It's an attitude, a tone. Perhaps 'violence' would have been a better word. Or harm, damage, etc.

No, violence and property damage are not acceptable in protest and should not be protected.
 
I voted yes, violence is forbidden to those who profess to follow Buddha.
 
The answer is black and white. There's rioting just to cause mayhem/damage and to go looting and the there's rioting for a legitimate civic or social injustice/cause.
 
dmpi said:
The answer is black and white. There's rioting just to cause mayhem/damage and to go looting and the there's rioting for a legitimate civic or social injustice/cause.
Click to expand...
Just depends on the color of the people doing it too.
 
Terrorism is predicated upon the notion of punishing random, innocent people for some grievance the perp has with the government.

It is never acceptable.
 
Gardener said:
Terrorism is predicated upon the notion of punishing random, innocent people for some grievance the perp has with the government.

It is never acceptable.
Click to expand...
This definition of terrorism is strained, and bogus.

It also renders the entire USRW unacceptable.
 
Focusing on whether protest acts are "legitimate" while the state is ILLEGALLY engaging is mass kidnapping, incarceration, and human trafficking is kinda missing the forest for the trees, don't you think?

Maybe the government shouldn't be doing evil shit yeah?
 
Hello My Son said:
I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
Click to expand...
That depends on what you're protesting. If you're advocating for a liberal cause then vandalism, arson, throwing rocks and terrorizing motorists is all protected PEACEFUL speech. If you're advocating somethingthat ISN'T a liberal cause then holding signs and wearing patriotic gear is domestic terrorism. Finally, if you're protesting abortion then sitting silently in prayer then you are among the worst of the worst and need to be removed from society permanently.
 
reinaert said:
This definition of terrorism is strained, and bogus.

It also renders the entire USRW unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Yes, you support leftist terrorism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.