• 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
Excerpt from Marx's Communist Manifesto:

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.…They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Click to expand...

All neoMarxists will rationalize aggression and violence - when it suits their purpose.
 
Once actions in demonstrating political opinion cross the line to lighting fires, damaging property, engaging in assault and battery, violence, or uttering of hate to incite violence, I would argue based on criminal law they are now exempt from protection as freedom of speech. As for the size of crowds and where they congregate might I point out in most cases that is covered under MUNICIPAL BY LAWS and ORDINANCES which can in the US be enforced by ANY police agency or the NG if the NG is asked by the Governor.

I give the traditional legal explanation. When something crosses the line is fact specific and so there is no one size fits all definition and more importantly even if someone is charged, there still has to be due process in court with a Judge rendering a decision as to guilt or innocence based on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Interesting municipal ordinances do NOT require that standard of proof and may be based on balance of probilities or in most cases strict liability (a presumption of offence until it can be proved there was no offence-that evidence standard changes with municipal laws because there is less likelihood someone is put in jail or there is no overwhelming evidence, i.e., the offense is self evident or will only need be proven by the by-law enforcement officer or police).
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...
We need to put that word liberal to rest.

These are not liberal people by any stretch of the imagination. They would not recognize a liberal principle if it smacked them alongside their ignorant little faces.
 
Gardener said:
We need to put that word liberal to rest.

These are not liberal people by any stretch of the imagination. They would not recognize a liberal principle if it smacked them alongside their ignorant little faces.
Click to expand...
True. They are actually Maknovists but using that term would just confuse them.
 
Depends on how bad the situation is. If you have a system that is designed to inflict injustice on people and the people have no other option then violence can be excusable. I believe we easily allow ourselves to be taken over by fash because we have a completely black and white view on political violence that is based on knee jerk thinking.
 
reinaert said:
No, I think your definition of terrorism and your modification of its acceptability renders the Revolutionary War into a five year campaign of terrorism.
Click to expand...
How utterly ignorant and self-serving.
 
bomberfox said:
Depends on how bad the situation is. If you have a system that is designed to inflict injustice on people and the people have no other option then violence can be excusable. I believe we easily allow ourselves to be taken over by fash because we have a completely black and white view on political violence that is based on knee jerk thinking.
Click to expand...
1. Pacifism is often moral surrender and cowardice.

2. "Turn the other cheek" has an expiration date. Especially when the adversary takes advantage of the irrational commitment to it.

3. Fascists are a special case, because they have always used democracy to destroy it.
 
The reason i have come to the conclusion that political violence is no longer completely unacceptable is precisely because we have put ourselves in a bind that makes legal remedies in all but letter impossible. There wont be any legal consequences for a president that leads political violence and uses it quite fragrantly and skirts by on technicalities. If a president can do this without getting arrested the law is inept. We are in might makes right territory precisely because the American system is a failure even if not a total failure.

Then again i have also come to the conclusion that our system has made a trump like figure inevitable. I do not totally blame the voters, the system will have to be radically changed.
 
​
​
Property damage can be legitimate protest.​
- even though -​
It is generally not covered under the 1st Amendment or the law.​


Protests can mean the law is wrong or that the govt is acting unethically (but legally) or that the govt is acting illegally (and unethically).

These are all cases where the electorate MUST exercise its authority to bring the govt into line.

Sadly, when govt are behaving badly, they often seek to limit the avenues the electorate can use to effect change.

If the other avenues to effect change have been diminished by the govt, the electorate's ethical obligation to bring the govt into line is even greater.

The electorates' ethical obligation to keep the govt in check can supersede the electorate's obligations to respect that govt's laws
 
Lutherf said:
As long as you have a militant anarcho-communist in there some way.
Click to expand...
The conditions demanded both. What followed eliminated them. Each (one might broadly consider them Bakuninists) arose in specific conditions (warfare, breaking the logistical control structures of their respective states) and each failed when those conditions changed, but they did not.
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...

He wrote about revolution being inevitable.

Thomas Jefferson also wrote about revolution, as did Thomas Paine.
 
Are aggressive acts legitimate forms of protest and do you believe they are protected free speech?
Click to expand...

Never against civilians, e.g. blocking highways, looting, etc.

But against the state or state property? Be my guest.
 
reinaert said:
The conditions demanded both. What followed eliminated them. Each (one might broadly consider them Bakuninists) arose in specific conditions (warfare, breaking the logistical control structures of their respective states) and each failed when those conditions changed, but they did not.
Click to expand...
Hence the Trotskyite pursuit of permanent revolution. As soon as one faction settles in to their own thing the "revolutionaries" need to come along and rile them up again. I mean, if you want to make sure you NEVER have a civil society then it's a great way to go!
 
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...
There isn’t enough info in your question to make a decision. For example the Boston tea party was an aggressive protests.m as was the attack on Fort Sumpter.

I support the former but not the latter as do most people.
 
Dans La Lune said:
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.
Click to expand...
What high drama. All your allegations are rooted in propaganda circulating across social media.

There are no masked, unidentified strangers who are kidnapping people from the street.
 
Slartibartfast said:
There isn’t enough info in your question to make a decision. For example the Boston tea party was an aggressive protests.m as was the attack on Fort Sumpter.

I support the former but not the latter as do most people.
Click to expand...

It would seem that your response is “Other” and your elaboration is that it’s at least sometimes legitimate.

Would you consider those legitimate examples to be legally protected forms of speech?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom