Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
You can't just slip in the word violent here. When violence is (or if it's ever) necessary is a different issue.
We were talking about protest in general interfering with speech. And that's where you might see a clash of two extremely important fundamental rights. You can't simplify this down to if one impacts the other then it's illegitimate because there are a thousand non-violent ways this can occur.
If protesters are interfering with a political speech, those protesters can be stopped by the government because they are interfering with the political rights of others.
I can absolutely simplify it down to a fundamentally simple concept. Everyone, on a fundamental level, has the right to express their political speech, publicly. Literally everyone. Literally publicly. It is trivially simple to understand.
Whether violent or non-violent in nature -- you do not have the right to interfere with the free exercise of the rights of others. Period. Full stop. Very simple to understand.
I slip in the word violent there because an allegedly peaceful protest, which has the purposeful effect of nullifying the political rights of others, if not curtailed, will result in violence (whether or not it is justified).
Ask yourself... If you continually prevent your enemies from exercising their political rights, why wouldn't you expect them to eventually resist (not protest) with violence?
~~~
You have the right to protest.
You do not have the right to protest in a way that prevents me from exercising my rights.
You can chose another method of protest that does not effect my rights. Therefore, you are obligated to chose another way.