I think we generally recognize large group protests as a form of speech. Going back to my initial example, if a restaurant’s customer base is cut off by a long-term protest like occupy, and it closes as a result, this would be economic harm resulting from (what we consider) speech. I’m not saying any individual would be held to blame for this, but I’m asking at what point it would be appropriate for the government to intervene on behalf of such economically injured individuals and, e.g., force the protest to move elsewhere. How do we differentiate the damage a “good” small proprietor suffers from e.g. the damage we may be intentionally inflicting on an “evil” multinational corporation?
I’m answering: Never. Not beyond laws we already have.
1 Like
Hmmm, who benefits from that sort of behavior? Ever hung out with that sort of person outside of a protest? Ever wonder if they’re just hired thugs, there to scare reasonable people away?
At the very least, treat them like the enemy they are.
Actually, I know a number of these people and they aren’t “hired thugs.” They are action oriented anarchists that have decided that nonviolence and chanting in the streets doesn’t change things. You can disagree (I often do) but that doesn’t make them all secret cops or something.
That is absurd. Please look into the concepts of “investment” and “limited resources”.
I never meant to say they were hired thugs, rather that they do exactly what hired thugs would do to give any cause a bad name and scare off anyone who might be thinking of following or joining the actual protest.
They might as well be hired thugs.
Humor me. How does the idea of giving someone money in the hopes that they’ll give you more later mean that you are “harmed” when your bet doesn’t pay off?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
