Do You Agree With This Statement (GAME)

[UKMikey]

They were protesting on the street outside the clinic. The law made it impossible to do this.

And...?

 

[HenrySwanson]

So they're creating restrictions on their ability to protest

 

[UKMikey]

So they're creating restrictions on their protest

And...?

Who says they should have the right to unrestricted protest? Especially when they abuse that right as in the photographs above?

 

[HenrySwanson]

And...?

Who says they should have the right to unrestricted protest? Especially when they abuse that right as in the photographs above?

So they should be allowed to protest....subject to certain conditions?

 

[UKMikey]

So they should be allowed to protest....subject to certain conditions?

Yes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So they should be allowed to protest....subject to certain conditions?

Yes. The same is true of any protest, no? They're not allowed in my living room without my permission, for example.

 

[Imari]

So they should be allowed to protest....subject to certain conditions?

Is this surprising to you? You're not allowed to incite violence or criminal behaviour when you protest. You're not permitted to trespass or endanger people just because you're protesting. Even harassing other people is generally pretty poorly looked upon when protesting, hence why there are laws making people back off of abortion clinics, graveyards and other places where ordinary citizens are likely to be going through highly emotionally charged experiences even without protesters.

Your right to free speech is not a ticket to be an :censored:hole to other people. Protesting when done correctly is a way of making sure that your views or opinions are publically visible. That's all. It is not an invitation to try to be annoying enough to other people that they will agree with you out of sheer frustration.

Welcome to living in a society with other people.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Is this surprising to you? You're not allowed to incite violence or criminal behaviour when you protest. You're not permitted to trespass or endanger people just because you're protesting. Even harassing other people is generally pretty poorly looked upon when protesting, hence why there are laws making people back off of abortion clinics, graveyards and other places where ordinary citizens are likely to be going through highly emotionally charged experiences even without protesters.

Your right to free speech is not a ticket to be an :censored:hole to other people. Protesting when done correctly is a way of making sure that your views or opinions are publically visible. That's all. It is not an invitation to try to be annoying enough to other people that they will agree with you out of sheer frustration.

Welcome to living in a society with other people.

I'm just interested in who decides what is "crossing the line" with regards to protesting. Why are the images in @UKMikey's post considered unacceptable, and who considers them unacceptable? Why are they not allowed in a public space?

Why is the ban on protesters outside a school valid?

 

[UKMikey]

The abortion clinic buffer zone was to prevent targeted harassment.

Ealing council argued that some users of the clinic who had abortions many years ago were still “significantly affected by their encounters with the activists”. The authority’s QC said the council received a petition signed by more than 3,500 people urging it to take action.

The people behind the school protests were lying.

October's five-day hearing at the city's Priory Courts heard there were further "untrue" and "harmful" allegations made about the school on social media, and how a visiting imam had claimed to parents there were "paedophiles" inside the school.

Other false claims included that the school had a "paedophile agenda" and staff were "teaching children how to masturbate".

"None of this is true," Mr Justice Warby said as he handed down the ban at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre.

"None of the defendants have suggested it was true and the council has proved it is not true."

 

[Imari]

I'm just interested in who decides what is "crossing the line" with regards to protesting. Why are the images in @UKMikey's post considered unacceptable, and who considers them unacceptable? Why are they not allowed in a public space?

Society decides what's acceptable, the same way most laws are ultimately made. Society decides that allowing people to king hit each other outside the pub on a Friday night makes for a worse place for everyone to live in, and so it becomes illegal.

This isn't to say that anything that's legal is sensible, that's clearly not the case. But over a long enough time span, a society will codify it's social norms to allow that which it deems reasonable and disallow that which it does not.

This seems like pretty basic stuff when it comes to interacting with other humans. Presumably at some point in your life you've lived in a house with other people. There were probably things that as a household you all agreed not to do, because it made life more comfortable for everyone. You're free to talk and argue with people, but it's considered bad form to wake them up in the middle of the night to do so, for example.

Protesting is much the same. Some societies will find certain protests too disruptive for the limited benefit that it provides the protesters. Sure, it might feel real good to get up in the face of some woman who has just had an abortion and make her cry, but a reasonable society might deem that an unnecessary burden on her when you could just as easily have your protest down the block or outside City Hall.

Why is the ban on protesters outside a school valid?

You'll notice that it's a school, not schools in general. If you read the first two paragraphs of the article you'd understand why this specific school has an exclusion zone around it.

A High Court judge ruled in favour of an exclusion zone to remain around Anderton Park, in Birmingham, which has been targeted by protesters for months.

The protests had an averse effect on pupils, residents and staff, leading to 21 teachers being treated for stress, Mr Justice Warby said.

Is it reasonable for the protesters to be causing emotional harm to others in order to exercise their free speech? I think there's a very strong argument for that being a violation of the rights of the students and teachers, and so the judge ruled that the protesters could gtfo.

If people set up outside your house and behaved in the manner that these protesters did towards you, you'd be rightly aggrieved. As I said in the last post, it's one thing to make one's opinion publically clear, and it's another to be actively attempting to make the lives of other people awful. I don't see things like this as bans or restrictions on protesting as much as they're restrictions on how much of a ballbag you can be while you're protesting.

For you personally, what sort of actions would you consider to be unreasonable at a protest?

 

[HenrySwanson]

The abortion clinic buffer zone was to prevent targeted harassment.


The people behind the school protests were lying.

And....? Do protesters have to pass a lie detector test?

Society decides what's acceptable, the same way most laws are ultimately made. Society decides that allowing people to king hit each other outside the pub on a Friday night makes for a worse place for everyone to live in, and so it becomes illegal.

This isn't to say that anything that's legal is sensible, that's clearly not the case. But over a long enough time span, a society will codify it's social norms to allow that which it deems reasonable and disallow that which it does not.

This seems like pretty basic stuff when it comes to interacting with other humans. Presumably at some point in your life you've lived in a house with other people. There were probably things that as a household you all agreed not to do, because it made life more comfortable for everyone. You're free to talk and argue with people, but it's considered bad form to wake them up in the middle of the night to do so, for example.

Protesting is much the same. Some societies will find certain protests too disruptive for the limited benefit that it provides the protesters. Sure, it might feel real good to get up in the face of some woman who has just had an abortion and make her cry, but a reasonable society might deem that an unnecessary burden on her when you could just as easily have your protest down the block or outside City Hall.

Yeah, I don't see them as decent people either (and believe me, I've interacted with some of those who were outside that very clinic). But does that mean there should be a law against it?

I'm not convinced....

You'll notice that it's a school, not schools in general. If you read the first two paragraphs of the article you'd understand why this specific school has an exclusion zone around it.

So because they made people feel bad they should be removed?

Why can't any institution (school or otherwise) petition for exclusion zones based on feelings?

Should we similarly grant an application for an exclusion zone for the Israeli embassy if its workers are being treated for stress?

Is it reasonable for the protesters to be causing emotional harm to others in order to exercise their free speech? I think there's a very strong argument for that being a violation of the rights of the students and teachers, and so the judge ruled that the protesters could gtfo.

If people set up outside your house and behaved in the manner that these protesters did towards you, you'd be rightly aggrieved. As I said in the last post, it's one thing to make one's opinion publically clear, and it's another to be actively attempting to make the lives of other people awful. I don't see things like this as bans or restrictions on protesting as much as they're restrictions on how much of a ballbag you can be while you're protesting.

Invoking the power of @Danoff I'd ask how that is a violation of their rights.

For you personally, what sort of actions would you consider to be unreasonable at a protest?

Unreasonable? Everything I've been arguing with you on.

Unlawful? Violence, or inciting violence.

 

[Imari]

But does that mean there should be a law against it?

I'm not convinced....

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to point out the basic observation that different groups and societies will come to wildly different interpretations of what they consider to be acceptable behaviour. You can see this by looking at the world and noticing that all legal and social systems are not identical.

A society made up of HenrySwansons might be fine with such a protest. It would seem that the UK, as represented by it's judicial system, is not.

So because they made people feel bad they should be removed?

Don't do that. Don't dismiss aggressive intimidation as "making someone feel bad".

Being publically accused of paedophilia, which puts one in danger of losing ones livelihood and having some moron vigilante attack you in the name of "saving the children", is a very good reason to be scared. Having a whole group of loud, aggressive people outside your workplace accusing you of false crimes and threatening your personal safety sounds very stressful.

I don't know if you've ever been in an extended situation where you feared for your life and safety, but it's pretty :censored:ing awful. It damages people, potentially for the rest of their lives. You may see that as weakness, but it's just a fact of how human psychology works.

If you want to say that causing mental harms should never be a reason for restricting someone's behaviour, just say that. Don't couch it in language that minimises it and makes it sound childish. Say what you mean.

Why can't any institution (school or otherwise) petition for exclusion zones based on feelings?

Ignoring the fact that you're still trying to minimise the damage by calling it "feelings", they could if the society chose to allow that. That's why this particular case needed a judge to rule on it.

Fortunately, most modern western societies deem there to be a certain give and take between the need for individuals to express themselves and the need for individuals not to feel threatened. In cases such as this where there is aggressive behaviour and explicit or implied threats to the safety of people who are just going about their daily lives, most states tend to impose restrictions of some kind.

Should we similarly grant an application for an exclusion zone for the Israeli embassy if its workers are being treated for stress?

Maybe. What are the causes of that stress? Would an exclusion zone help, and would the things it prevents be ones that are desirable to prevent? Does the society or state that this Israeli embassy is located within recognise these stressors as unreasonable? Does the Israeli embassy itself even care?

See? You could make a nuanced decision based on the specific facts of the situation instead of trying to use a vague hypothetical to create some ridiculously broad generalisation to be applied to all human behaviour.

And please stop trying to dismiss anything that doesn't involve physical violence as inconsequential. It's an outmoded view of mental health and well being. Don't write this off as "PC gone wild" either, that's not what I mean. There are absolutely a lot of situations where the right response to non-physical harassment is to ignore it. But at the same time, painting all non-physical harassment as not important misses a lot of really damaging things that you can do to a person without ever even being in the same room as them.

Nuance and context. They're important.

Invoking the power of @Danoff I'd ask how that is a violation of their rights.

Do you have a natural right to not be harmed mentally or physically? Probably, if you're harming someone else you've certainly given up any right you might have had not to be harmed in return. There has been plenty of discussion about the use of force against another and it's relation to natural rights, and the general overview is that if you use force on another person you've given up your right not to have force used against you.

There is also the idea of legal rights, and most societies recognise that an individual should not be threatened or intimidated without appropriate cause. But depending on the society, that might not be the case. In the Agglomerated Territories of HenrySwanson, there might not be any such right.

In this specific case, the UK does indeed have laws against harassment. They've chosen not to bring those specifically into play here, but I think that those laws are indicative of the attitude of the society in general towards unnecessary harassment.

Unreasonable? Everything I've been arguing with you on.

So you remember that discussion in the Islam thread that went on for pages and pages (and is still going on) because you couldn't be specific about what you meant by "Islam is a more violent religion"?

You're doing it again. Instead of giving concrete examples as a response to a question, you've just waved your arm and gestured to everything. How am I, a person who cannot read your mind, supposed to realistically interpret what you think is an unreasonable action without creating strawmen?

Maybe have another go at answering if you want this conversation to go anywhere. If you can't be more specific than "everything I've been arguing about" with respect to the behaviours that you deem to be acceptable at a protest, then I don't believe that you've put enough thought into this to have a worthwhile opinion.

 

[UKMikey]

And....? Do protesters have to pass a lie detector test?

Did anybody said they did? No, just that their rights to protest and parade their lies wherever they want aren't protected by law. Society as interpreted by the rule of law places limits on acceptable behaviour.

And... the judge was in the right to uphold these limits, by stopping them protesting outside the school and harassing the staff.

 

[Daz555]

And now for the next statement: "Abortion, except when the mother or fetus's life is in danger, should not be legal".

Disagree.

Anti abortion laws serve only to outlaw safe abortions. Abortions will continue regardless.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Another statement:

Love is an involuntary emotion so instructions to love others are illogical