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

[Slartibartfast]

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?

In my understanding of current SCOTUS view on legally protected free speech, probably not.

To be fair though, if we look at the coal miners of West Virginia as they protested to protect their communities, health, having decent pay and what not… if I were law enforcement I would not prosecute even if it ran afoul of whatever the law was at the time. Human rights are a fundamental thing in my view.

 

[reinaert]

Hence the Trotskyite pursuit of permanent revolution.

You believe.

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!

You tell yourself.

 

[trixare4kids]

Again, nobody is KIDNAPPING people off the streets.
All you're doing is perpetuating a false narrative.

 

[Gardener]

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

But against the state or state property? Be my guest.

This provides the distinction between terrorism and guerilla war.

Those in this thread who support terrorism obfuscate and/or deny this distinction.

 

[tharock220]

Peaceful protests are pointless and ineffective.

Violent protests are illegal.

Is there another option?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

.

Who here feels that legal (but fictitious) persons count as civilians/citizens?​

.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

Your hero just nationalized U.S. Steel, wants price caps, and he illegally implemented tariffs based on emergencies that does not exist.

In his first term, he intervened in the economy to bail out farmers.

During Covid, with the help of the Republican Party, he signed into law a wide variety of economic interventions.

There is no contemporary political figure more Marxist than Trump.

Trump supporters are more Marxist than anyone on the Left.

Nationalizing Steel Companies? What Is This, a Labour Government? | National Review

Republicans are supposed to be fighting socialism, not implementing the ideas of Clement Attlee with MAGA characteristics.

www.nationalreview.com

Trump signs executive order that aims to slash drug prices by at least 50%

The plan won't be limited to Medicare prescriptions but will also target medications covered by Medicaid and private insurance. Weight-loss drugs are expected to be on the list.

www.nbcnews.com

https://www.cato.org/blog/tariff-advocates-rarely-talk-about-consumers-linchpin-capitalism-freedom

 

[LouC]

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

Guess it depends on the definition of "aggressive" to be considered here.

For examples...

Screaming ones non threatening point of view, aggressively, outside the White House fence should be protected.

Screaming aggressively ones point of view, along with threats of harm to the president or others, as one scales and jumps the White House fence should be met with a legal response and not be considered "protected".

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

Everyday college kegger, ammirite?

 

[mrjurrs]

Civil disobedience is not constitutionally protected speech.

That doesn't mean that there are not times when it is required.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

That depends on what you're protesting. If you're advocating for a conservative cause, such as overturning an election your favorite candidate lost, then vandalism, arson, throwing rocks and terrorizing police and elected officials is all protected PEACEFUL speech. Nothing more than an everyday college kegger:



Look at all these "peaceful" protestors.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Again, nobody is KIDNAPPING people off the streets.
All you're doing is perpetuating a false narrative.

If they did that, then violence is justified, right?

ICE Kidnappings​

Recent reports have highlighted growing concerns over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducting aggressive raids and detaining individuals without clear justification, often in unmarked vans and without disclosing their whereabouts. These actions have been described by critics as "kidnappings," particularly when individuals are taken without due process or criminal charges.

In Los Angeles, ICE conducted raids that led to the detention of over 100 individuals, many of whom had no criminal records. Families and legal advocates have expressed outrage, stating that they have been unable to contact their loved ones or obtain information about their detention. Some were reportedly taken from workplaces, including a car wash and gas station, and transported to detention facilities in Texas without their families being notified.

In Philadelphia, a disturbing incident occurred where a man impersonating an ICE agent zip-tied a woman and stole $1,000 from her. This has raised fears that the aggressive tactics employed by ICE are being mimicked by criminals, further endangering vulnerable communities.

There have also been high-profile cases involving students and academics. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish-born PhD student at Tufts University, was abducted by masked agents and taken to a detention center over 1,000 miles away from her home. Her lawyers were initially unable to locate her, and she was held without formal charges.

In New York, a mother and her three children were detained by ICE during a raid in Sackets Harbor. They were taken without a judicial warrant and transported to a detention facility in Texas, despite reportedly complying with immigration court procedures.

Critics argue that ICE’s actions are increasingly resembling those of a paramilitary force, with agents operating in plain clothes, concealing their identities, and detaining individuals based on perceived immigration status rather than actual criminal threats. Advocacy groups and legal organizations have called for reforms, transparency, and an end to what they describe as unlawful and inhumane practices.

These incidents have sparked protests, legal challenges, and calls for congressional action to rein in ICE’s authority and ensure due process for all individuals, regardless of immigration status.

‘Kidnapped’: families and lawyers desperate to contact LA workers arrested in Ice raids

As many demand the release of loved ones, Trump’s ‘border czar’ admits some were arrested without criminal records

www.theguardian.com

How ICE detained a Utah college student after a brief traffic stop

Immigration agents detained Caroline Dias Goncalves after they obtained her information from the local officer who pulled her over in Colorado, according to an administrative review.

www.nbcnews.com

The US government is effectively kidnapping people for opposing genocide | Moira Donegan

Rumeysa Ozturk, a visa holder, was snatched off the streets by Ice agents and sent to a detention center 1,000 miles away for opposing war crimes in Gaza

www.theguardian.com

 

[OrphanSlug]

Questioning both the intention of the thread and the sincerity behind it.

 

[Lutherf]

Everyday college kegger, ammirite?

We've had hundreds of left wing protests over the years but, without fail, you guys always come back to the one right wing protest you can think of.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

We've had hundreds of left wing protests over the years but, without fail, you guys always come back to the one right wing protest you can think of.

That one protest proves your hypocrisy.

To this day you call it an everyday college kegger while demanding the full force of the U.S. military be brought down on Los Angeles for fleeting, low-intensity violence (scuffles, thrown rocks, etc.)

If it's a protest in favor of something you don't like = TOTAL ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!

If it's a violent protest in favor of something you like = I don't get it guys. What's the big deal? It's just an "everyday college kegger."

 

[W_Heisenberg]

We've had hundreds of left wing protests over the years but, without fail, you guys always come back to the one right wing protest you can think of.

So you're opposed to Trump pardoning them right? Right? RIGHT?!?!?!

 

[Visbek]

1. Pacifism is often moral surrender and cowardice.

Or, it's incredibly courageous and morally superior, as it means:
- the activists need to be willing to be subjected to violence in order to advance their cause
- the activists refrain from engaging in the kind of violence to which they object

I won't say that "pacifism always works," but it certainly isn't a form of surrendering.

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

oooooookay....

Pacifism certainly isn't "irrational." Video games notwithstanding, pretty much everyone wants to live a peaceful life.

The point of non-violent activism is that it shows the cruelty, brutality and immorality of the target of the protest.

By the way, Gandhi joined India's independence movement in 1915; India didn't secure its independence until 1947. When was the "expiration date" on the non-violent, no-revenge, civil disobedience movement he led?

3. Fascists are a special case, because they have always used democracy to destroy it.

Actually....

It looks to me like most fascist regimes forcibly seize power.

Franco didn't rise to power via democratic elections. He won a 3-year long civil war.

The Kuomintang arguably had some fascist tendencies. It wasn't elected to rule Taiwan.

Greece's electoral system basically wasn't functional when Ioannis Metaxas seized power in a coup in 1936.

In 1940, Quisling staged a coup when the Nazis invaded Finland.

Portugal was already a dictatorship when Salazar and Estado Novo seized power.

The Nazis forcibly installed fascist regimes in France and Croatia.

Looks to me like less than half of all fascist regimes seized power by exploiting weaknesses in democratic regimes. Most seized power via force.

 

[Lutherf]

That one protest proves your hypocrisy.

To this day you call it an everyday college kegger while demanding the full force of the U.S. military be brought down on Los Angeles for fleeting, low-intensity violence (scuffles, thrown rocks, etc.)

If it's a protest in favor of something you don't like = TOTAL ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!

If it's a violent protest in favor of something you like = I don't get it guys. What's the big deal? It's just an "everyday college kegger."

At some point it would be a good idea for you to go back and read the "kegger" post again.

 

[Hello My Son]

Questioning both the intention of the thread and the sincerity behind it.

Why is that? It's a straightforward question and I haven't said a thing about anyone's responses nor argued against anyone's opinion on the matter. It's an interesting topic to see where different opinions lie.

 

[LouC]

Civil disobedience is not constitutionally protected speech.

That doesn't mean that there are not times when it is required.

Non assaultive and or destructive Civil Disobedience at times might be required in order to effect needed change.

Fo example a "sit in" of a Dean's office to protest an arbitrary and or totalitarian school edict.

 

[Lursa]

The Boston Tea Party comes to mind…

And Jan 6

 

[LouC]

And Jan 6

The Boston Tea Party was a material destruction protest, tea, organized by members of the oppressed citizenry against their King and his Government, and January 6th was a protest with material destruction and violence by non-oppressed members of the citizenry, organized by a would be King, against his own Government.

Other than that, they were just the same.

 

[Lursa]

The Boston Tea Party was a material destruction protest, tea, organized by members of the oppressed citizenry against their King and his Government, and January 6th was a protest with material destruction and violence by non-oppressed members of the citizenry, organized by a would be King, against his own Government.

Other than that, they were just the same.

LOL sorry, I was referring to previous comments on "color." My bad!

 

[OrphanSlug]

Why is that? It's a straightforward question and I haven't said a thing about anyone's responses nor argued against anyone's opinion on the matter. It's an interesting topic to see where different opinions lie.

Being very direct, pulling no punches. In the modern context, our political divisions over the last 50-60 years, the line between "legitimate forms of protest" and aggressive acts, or "civil disobedience" if you like that term, is as clear as mud.

Jan 6th, responses to George Floyd or Rodney King, or some other law enforcement violence, during then after the Oklahoma City bombing or the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" nonsense, targeted murders and assassinations or attempts at, gunning a bunch of kids down at a school or a group of largely minority people at a grocery store, responses to Immigration sweeps, throwing soup on a painting or blocking a road over climate change, responses here to Israel and Hamas (and others,) just about any weekend on a college campus somewhere in this nation, etc.

Example after example of politics deciding what is and is not legitimate, it gets old watching people split hairs on what can be legitimate because they agree with the issue and sometimes the response.

So again, given all we see right wing to left wing, how can this poll be sincere?

 

[Gardener]

That one protest proves your hypocrisy.

The summer of hate proves yours.


That does not even include the fact that Jan 6, was against governmental targets while your summer of hate victimized innocent citizens, instead.