What is the purpose of blocking a street/highway?

a reply to: nobunaga

Every single time black lives matters or some protest involving african americans is marching or protesting, they end up linking arms, and blocking a highway.

Not saying that I think it's appropriate to stop traffic like this, but I feel that i have to point out that it's not just a "black lives matter" thing, it's a pretty common tactic at protests/demonstrations.

Again, I don't agree with it, but it's not a race thing.

a reply to: nobunaga

I gave you several sources, all with corroborating information, if you do not like that private citizens can protest in public thoroughfares petition the Supreme Court with a brief stating that this right should be curtailed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Who died?

That's also evasive. Nobody has to die. Drinking and driving isn't illegal because somebody dies everytime; it's illegal because the chances of death and injury are increased needlessly and sometimes people die. So I'll ask you again. Is blocking ambulances and firefights from performing their civic duties constitutionally protected? Answer.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
That's also evasive. Nobody has to die.

So you are talking in hypotheticals?

Great, in my hypothetical scenario the dispassionate citizen urinated his rights away to the Federal government, who cares for them now?

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Who died?

That's also evasive. Nobody has to die. Drinking and driving isn't illegal because somebody dies everytime; it's illegal because the chances of death and injury are increased needlessly and sometimes people die. So I'll ask you again. Is blocking ambulances and firefights from performing their civic duties constitutionally protected? Answer.

This is two valued Aristotelian logic, buddy. Yes or no.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
That's also evasive. Nobody has to die.

So you are talking in hypotheticals?

Great, in my hypothetical scenario the dispassionate citizen urinated his rights away to the Federal government, who cares for them now?

Yes or no. Answer.

a reply to: nobunaga

I have a fiance who is 33 weeks pregnant. If the nimrods work their way up to northwest Louisiana and are blocking a freeway when she goes into labor, I'm not stopping. If they're stupid enough to block a highway with cars coming and going then they deserve what they get.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yah, and none of your sources state that its ok to block traffic. your wrong mason boy...

originally posted by: ware2010
a reply to: intrptr
its not holding traffic up, though...

Thats why they do it. Blocking commerce. They also blocked mall entrances, I think.

Thats how they get a response, because business is what makes the world go round and as soon as you block commerce the oligarchs get upset, call out the guard.

Then you got a confrontation, then the press shows up to get the money shot, and thats how attention is drawn to their movement.

Remember occupy? When they showed up to block the steps of WallStreet, the cops said we can't let you do that. But we will let you go down the street and occupy the park. Then everyones like WTH, whats occupying the park all about?

The corporations that run things, the government and the cops don't care if you occupy your keyboard, they get concerned when something interrupts their revenue stream. Like roadways and malls for instance. Pretty hard to convict them for it, too. They aren't burning looting or breaking things... its peaceful assembly and protest.

People complain about it but would join them in a minute if their kid was killed unjustly. And be really upset if protest was made illegal.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Is blocking ambulances and firefights from performing their civic duties constitutionally protected?

If they are blocked by people legally assembled in public thoroughfares then it is obviously Constitutionally protected.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

With or without a permit they are legally allowed to prevent you from blocking some roadways.

It's good that they're blocking them because quite a few truck drivers are pissed and scared, especially after what happened to Reginald Denny. About the only way we're legally allowed to protect ourselves is with our trucks, and sooner or later they're going to block a road, a driver is going to flip out and put the pedal down. And the company they work for is going to back them up.

a reply to: intrptr

No, but they do that too.

a reply to: LSU0408

If the nimrods work their way up to northwest Louisiana and are blocking a freeway when she goes into labor, I'm not stopping. If they're stupid enough to block a highway with cars coming and going then they deserve what they get.

You'd be the nimrod, ramming your vehicle into massed crowds of people with your pregnant wife on board.

he Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6]

www.loc.gov...

Blocking roadways is not speech.

It's an action.

They can SAY what ever they wish.

Q.E.D.

Action is not speech.

originally posted by: nobunaga
yah, and none of your sources state that its ok to block traffic.

Being in a public thoroughfare carries the implication that travel would be hindered.

Does that simple logic escape you?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Is blocking ambulances and firefights from performing their civic duties constitutionally protected?

If they are blocked by people legally assembled in public thoroughfares then it is obviously Constitutionally protected.

Are you saying that in some cases blocking ambulances and firefighters from performing their civic duties is constitutionally protected?

Because that's the way it works.



Would you rather they be penned up in free-speech zones?

Aren't some of you vociferous complainers the same people who bitch about those?

Gee...wonder what's different here....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am going to guess you are wrong... in the same way you cant stand up and shout fire in a crowded theater...

If your actions decrease the safety of the public as a whole you are wrong... as I mentioned before if someone dies because of the blocking of streets and intersections I expect the protest organizers to be arrested/sued.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: intrptr

No, but they do that too.

BLM is about saving lives, "lives matter". They don't to you apparently, you'd run them down to get your wife in labor to the hospital... amiright?

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Is blocking ambulances and firefights from performing their civic duties constitutionally protected?

If they are blocked by people legally assembled in public thoroughfares then it is obviously Constitutionally protected.

Are you saying that in some cases blocking ambulances and firefighters from performing their civic duties is constitutionally protected?

They would let those through, fool. Thos ambulances and firefighters probably have a harder time getting through in normal, daily Atlanta traffic than they would during a protest.