It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.
It's protesting AND also mixing illegal vandalism and criminal violations as part of the actions.
It's not "free speech" anymore if it is costing people's property and loss of business during restoration work.
So if these people were held to PAY for the costs of their protests, they might learn the difference.
It isn't free to speak before judges and courts when you have to hire a lawyer at 250/hour.
It isn't free speech to pay for million dollar ad time during the Super Bowl.
As the Anonymous group's legal case has brought out, their defense lawyer was arguing
that "reducing or slowing access" to financial websites and transactions was a consequence of "free speech"
but the prosecution argued it was causing financial damage and "wasn't free" but an illegal form of interfering with commerce.
Agreed. Once they start committing acts of violence and vandalism, it isn't protesting anymore. That is called rioting.
It boils down to the Golden Rule and applying that to Civil Laws.
To petition or protest for more consistent Law Enforcement, we need Civil Obedience, not disobedience.
If you want due process of law, you can't very well violate due process of law to protest.
Just like officers are taught you cannot break the very laws you are trying to enforce.
The same should go for citizens, and also corporations criticized for blurring grey areas of law.
We should all take the same vows to uphold the Constitution as seriously as our Vets and Police
so we have a mutual commitment and respect, a civil contract we all agree to follow in spirit.
I once wrote a letter published in a campus paper, following the response to students
claiming they were exercising their free speech, but disrupted a formal ceremony on campus.
Basically the First Amendment cannot be abused to "yell fire in a crowded theatre"
without violating the rest of the Amendment that ensures "the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble." If you disrupt the peace by creating a breach, that is violating the spirit of the same law; taking parts out of context with the whole. My point was there is a natural limit on free exercise/free speech by using this law to check itself.
Again, if you want free speech and due process, by the Golden Rule, this means to respect the same for others. Somehow we are not learning or teaching this, but setting very poor examples.
I can only worry for the kids who are told not to bully, while surrounded by adults who do this for a living as what we've turned the media and political process into. No wonder kids and now full grown adults are so disillusioned with authority, and have lost respect. Without consistency, it seems the laws say one thing and everyone does another. How can we enforce laws or raise kids in such an environment? Crazy making!
============
ETN Letter to Editor 1995 said:
...one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms to
show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.
...
The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.
...
I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.
http www.houstonprogressive.org "Letter to the Editor, Rice Thresher, 1995"
