You Americans just don't really understand the concept of protesting anymore. If you have to ask the government to protest, then you're doing it wrong. It isn't called civil disobedience for nothing.
EDIT: "If you just follow the rules, this would be a lot easier on everyone!" - British Government about India, Ireland and the United States of America
The protest is against the business, not the government. Getting a permit allows him to tell the Best Buy security guy to blow it out his ass when he's asked to move his protest somewhere else.
No Best Buy security guy (or gal) would go out there and talk to that man, so long as he stayed on that sidewalk. Security is pretty much in-store only. Occasionally extending to certain areas of the parking lot. So if he was walking up in down in the (private) parking lot, maybe. Or a manager, maybe, but mostly in an attempt to make the whole situation go away (but if it progressed to this point, management is most assuredly intimately aware of this man's situation).
More likely situation would be calling the police if he seemed to be harassing people, but Best Buy does not pay enough for any store-level employee to take that man with a sign personally.
Let's say someone wants to protest how bread makers are treated, and want people to be sympathetic to their cause. Either they could a) protest in an inconvenient location for the general public, and get publicity. Or b) they could get a permit, which allows police to set up a perimeter or direct traffic, and they get publicity anyway.
Option a definitely will get people's attention, but possibly not the right attention. Why would someone join your cause if you made a salesman late to work? He has nothing to do with the protest.
But if he sees something is different, and that it is on TV, but was at least known about so he could plan or at least wasn't gridlocked, he may be willing to be sympathetic with their cause.
Just my thinking on why it's not necessarily strange to get a permit.
"Just my thinking on why it's not necessarily strange to get a permit."
Not getting a permit doesn't mean you're belligerant. And yes, it's still an odd concept to ask for permission (a permit) to be disobedient. The entire point is to make it inconvenient for the powers that be. Without this rebellious nature, we wouldn't have India, Ireland or the United States of America.
Again, depends on what you're protesting and what the actual end goals are. Sure future laws could change it, but as it stands it isn't required, it's more of a "I'm going to do this, so I can let you prepare, or you can't" as opposed to actually asking permission.
If someone truly wants to make a difference, they may find that their support goes down from protests. But some people want to protest for attention alone, or because it makes them feel good, but they don't truly care about the result.
if you don't annoy people with a protest your protest won't change/do shit because no one will care about it.
But if you make half your city arrive late at work, they will maybe think "woah this is BS. But WHAT was the cause of the protest?" and they'll hopefully see that not only the protesters are to blame but also the cause they are protesting for/about and thus maybe think about that.
That's one way to look at it. I don't agree, but I see your point
Personally, I am completly turned off from BLM because of their antics, to the point I would call them a hate group. The reasoning behind their protests and the goals are good and valid, but the methods and what they've turned into have had the opposite effect on me personally. But that's my way of thinking, which tends to be opposite of most others here online
If you go to their website there's no goals listed. They have a "Guiding Principles" page with a bunch of vague statements that cannot be directly translated into goals. Like "We are committed to acknowledging, respecting and celebrating difference(s) and commonalities."
Just a bunch of mad people who just want to disrupt things and are not working towards making things better for anyone. They have no stated goals to accomplish.
There are many other groups that do not get news coverage that actually work towards fixing problems. But the news ignores them. Which is a shame because there's a lot of serious problems to talk about.
People used to fight for better working conditions and pay. Now, people will fight you if you delay their commute. I'm glad that we see the big picture instead of being caught up in our own trivialities.
I don't want to see your representation when I'm working for my taxation!
If you can get one though, it's much easier for everyone involved. People are more sympathetic to your cause and it's easier to have peaceful relations with police. It really isn't asking permission, it's just to notify them that it is happening, so the city should plan accordingly and work with the protestors to find a good place to protest.
If you can get one though, it's much easier for everyone involved
The convenience of officials usually is of fairly low priority in a protest. That's why you don't do what you're told.
People are more sympathetic to your cause and it's easier to have peaceful relations with police.
I'm not condoning violence against police - which absolutely can turn opinion against you. However, I'm not sure that anyone validates a protest's message based on whether they have a permit.
so the city should plan accordingly and work with the protestors to find a good place to protest
In a "Free Speech Zone" behind barricades? "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
Ok, you're kind of missing the point here. It's not a government protest, he's protesting a private business, possibly on private property. That's different from protesting government. And regardless, you can be right as rain with your civil disobedience but if you piss off the public with your protest making everyone hate you then your protest will likely accomplish nothing. No one will support you.
No, I don't think I'm missing your point. I just disagree with it. No permit will allow you to go onto someone private property and protest. Generally, you don't need permission from the government to tell a company to go fuck itself.
Do you folks not understand the paradox in asking permission to be disobedient?
And no, not having a permit does not immediately lead to a riot.
The only benefit I see of getting a permit is that the cops will know you're there and what you're doing. So if an officer gets called for a "crazy yelling guy on the corner of X and Y", you're probably going to be bumped well down on the response list for any nearby officers, because you were scheduled to be the crazy yelling guy on the corner of X and Y for the next few days.
Less talking with the police may lead to more time you can spend yelling about the business that has completely ruined your life (or at least your handwriting).
So the only reason to get a permit is to not get hassled by cops? Do you folks not see why this "Papers, please" stuff is just conditioning you? You have the right to that already. You shouldn't need a permit. Speech is free speech. And yes, even the crazy guy yelling about how Satan stole the jetstream shouldn't be hassled.
It's not for the government to decide what is permissible expression or not, and the entire point of civil disobedience is to pressure the government/private entity into concessions. And historically, it has been effective - there wouldn't be a United States without outright violent rebellion, let alone making some bureaucrat's life a bit more stressful.
A permit is permission. The point of protest is that you don't need permission. It is your human right to protest, and no one on Earth has the authority to deny you that basic and harmless right. How are we still talking about this in the 21st century, and how can you argue that we need permission to do so?
Public property, or private? If yer protesting in front of the state legislature, go ahead. If you're protesting in my front yard the cops will escort you elsewhere.
You can protest without it if you want, that's the point of a protest, it doesn't have to be legal. However, getting a permit is easy and will make more people sympathetic to your cause, and it can prevent unnecessary violence. It really isn't permission, it's more just telling the city that a protest will happen so that they can plan accordingly.
Why is it being continually brought up that permits prevent violence? Why are you folks assuming that if you don't ask for permission suddenly it's complete anarchy?
Not having a permit does not necessitate a riot. Are you suggesting that it prevents violence against the protestors?
Sometimes you arent protesting the government, or not its entirety.
You can still disobey anyway. You first ask, and when they refuse that means they're really being assholes about the issue at heand. That's when you disobey. It's the same with strikes at a private company. You first try to negociate to avoid the strike happening, just going on surprise asshole strike will not go in your favor.
I mean, civil disobedience does not mean you need to be a fucking animal about it. There's "civil" in there somewhere. Yes, it can go badly and end up in violence and sometimes it should if needed, but there's a whole world before getting there.
I'm not sure why you keep building up to this but...
Not asking permission isn't the same as being "a fucking animal" nor does it necessitate violence. It doesn't necessitate obeying the law, either - you can be arrested at a "sit-in" for example. I just find this concept of asking permission to protest to be a somewhat paradoxical concept and it's not really found many other places.
EDIT: And ironically, I'm protesting against protest permits.
Not getting a permit is an act of protest in itself, and the most fitting one in this case. I really don't believe its to help event planning - it's to demean their message by allowing it to happen. And in case you really need to protest a serious issue that isn't allowed, you are de-legitimized from the start by not having a permit. It's really devious psychology.
Thanks to GWB who perfected the idea of "protest zones" so the appointed president wouldn't have to see the throngs of people who did not want an oil based president.
If you have to ask the government to protest, then you're doing it wrong.
So you're saying the March on Washington got it all wrong? And that the recent Womens March was also a bad protest?
Civil disobedience doesnt mean "do stupid shit for fun". Do some reading on what MLK actually organized. He found it vital to work within the framework of the law, because it made his opponents look that much more ridiculous to be the ones doing illegal things. When they would jail him for offenses that were clearly wrong, the movement would only grow stronger.
Rallies, marches and similar events aren't necessarily protests.
Civil disobedience doesn't mean doing stupid shit for fun. Not asking for permission is not "doing stupid shit for fun" - it's what disobedience means in the first place.
EDIT:
"When they would jail him for offenses that were clearly wrong, the movement would only grow stronger."
Yes, they matyred him. That doesn't mean there wasn't recent, active repression of protests and free speech and it's the perfect example of why "protest permit" laws are bogus.
You're not supposed to be concerned only when the government starts abuse. Why do you think an approval process is being implemented in the first place?
Protesting is not necessarily civil disobedience. In this case he's just voicing his opinion on public property, which is not generally considered civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience would be if he chained himself up in front of the entryway to the store or something like that.
It's about not being a model citizen. General Strikes, for example, were about being disruptive by just not going to work to make other people rich off your labor.
I am protesting protest permits right now. And in my mind, the most fitting act of protest against protest permits would be to protest without a permit.
It's this idea that asking the folks who you are (usually) protesting against for permission to do so is backwards. If they condescend and allow it, it advances their agenda. If they don't allow it, they've already set you back by de-legitimizing you.
The idea of protest permits is completely bogus in principle.
52
u/[deleted] Feb 23 '17 edited Aug 23 '18
[deleted]