I approve protests which are highly visible but not obstructive even if I don't support the cause. This is freedom of expression done right. It expresses itself without suppressing anyone else's expression.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
What about "obstructive" in the sense of civil disobedience? For example, Rosa Parks refusing to move from her seat in the White section of the bus? Or what about a march that obstructs traffic? Or a strike that obstructs a business or institution from functioning as usual?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyVicendese
I am thinking in the context of shutting down other people's expression. Like shouting over speakers or barring the way or preventing others from praying or standing for the anthem. There could be concerns about those other things, particularly obstructing traffic but different
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ok, thanks for clarification. Sometimes, though, speech might be curtailed if it constitutes harassment, eg anti abortion protestors assailing women seeking abortions at clinics. Maybe in that case the protestors are obstructing others from exercising their rights.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, I was torn on that one but came down on the side of moving them just far enough away so the women could go and hear what they had to say if they wanted to but could just walk straight in without having to. Also banning Britain First from the entrance of mosques.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.