Mitigating disruption to a rally/demonstration

Status
Not open for further replies.
RyanB said:
If you’re *trying* to keep things legal, you let law enforcement get involved, rather than try to take matters into your own hands. Responding in such ways to folks like these, most always doesn’t end by them just “going away”. You’re playing partisan games by doing what @Katamarino is suggesting and we all know the usual outcome from that.
Click to expand...
Really? If someone does something you don't like, even if it is legal, you are going to call the police instead of trying to handle it yourself (legally)?

I don't like the way my neighbor mows the lawn crossing over into my lawn. Should I call the cops?
 
JOhnH said:
Really? If someone does something you don't like, even if it is legal, you are going to call the police instead of trying to handle it yourself (legally)?

I don't like the way my neighbor mows the lawn crossing over into my lawn. Should I call the cops?
Click to expand...
You’re really making an apples to oranges comparison. If I’m at a rally or some kind of demonstration and we get a party of folks who are opposed to whatever it is being demonstrated, do you actually believe that trying to intentionally be a dick towards them, which is only going to escalate the situation will solve anything? Partisan games usually don’t just calmly end by doing what’s been described. Consider the source, interpret the ignorance and let law enforcement handle it. That said, I don’t feel the need to attend these types of meetings to begin with, so y’all go right on ahead and fight fire with fire and see how that works out.
 
If it's a rally, move it to a place where you can screen all those entering and turn away those at the door you don't wish to attend.

If it's a protest, outside and on public property, following US rules, they have just as much right to be there as you do so what you can do is limited. And if neither you nor they are doing anything besides shouting over each other, the cops can't do anything to the "cult". I guess you could try to find something that makes their speakers/equipment emit feedback, but that would probably make your protesters leave as well because that is an almost painful noise.
 
RyanB said:
You’re really making an apples to oranges comparison. If I’m at a rally or some kind of demonstration and we get a party of folks who are opposed to whatever it is being demonstrated, do you actually believe that trying to intentionally be a dick towards them, which is only going to escalate the situation will solve anything? Partisan games usually don’t just calmly end by doing what’s been described. Consider the source, interpret the ignorance and let law enforcement handle it. That said, I don’t feel the need to attend these types of meetings to begin with, so y’all go right on ahead and fight fire with fire and see how that works out.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue with you any more, because I really do see both sides of this.
And I don't go to those types of rallies either, so I have no first had experience. Im sure that some of them have the potential to devolve into a lot more violence than others and I don't need to be there as both sides are generally more extremist, one way or the other than I am.

That said, it is completely normal and human that if someone does you wrong, you fantasize about getting back at them. That can actually be quite therapeutic as long as you don't carry through, unless perhaps your are Jesus. And I have a feeling that @Katamarino didn't actually do any of those things he described. Sort of like me fantasizing about how I am going to spend my $790million Mega Millions winnings today.
 
JOhnH said:
I'm not going to argue with you any more, because I really do see both sides of this.
And I don't go to those types of rallies either, so I have no first had experience. Im sure that some of them have the potential to devolve into a lot more violence than others and I don't need to be there as both sides are generally more extremist, one way or the other than I am.

That said, it is completely normal and human that if someone does you wrong, you fantasize about getting back at them. That can actually be quite therapeutic as long as you don't carry through, unless perhaps your are Jesus. And I have a feeling that @Katamarino didn't actually do any of those things he described. Sort of like me fantasizing about how I am going to spend my $790million Mega Millions winnings today.
Click to expand...
You can't spend your winnings today as the drawing is on Tuesday. :D

Also without more details this reads like one group is exercising free speech, another group is exercising free speech as well, but the first group doesn't want the second group to exercise it and is wondering how to prevent others from exercising it.

"I'm for free speech as long as its the same speech as mine."

Unless I'm missing something.
 
JOhnH said:
Yeah, I sort of forgot he said that. But at least he said he wanted to TRY to keep it legal...
Click to expand...
I missed that part of his post originally. He specifically stated he would accept or conduct activity that was illegal if there was plausible deniability.

That’s pushes right up to a violation of our ROC. “You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.
 
TCABM said:
I missed that part of his post originally. He specifically stated he would accept or conduct activity that was illegal if there was plausible deniability.

That’s pushes right up to a violation of our ROC. “You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.
Click to expand...


He also said to assume US laws. Of course, that varies by state. I suppose to adjudicate the ROC properly we need to know the state, county, township, etc.
;)
 
Okay... so you have a cult problem. Here's a real easy solution. As we all know, cult members love Kool-Aid. So here's watcha do. Mix ya up a bunch of Kool-Aid and set up a stand with a huge sign saying "Free Kool-Aid for cult members only". Now you don't need to go all Jim Jones on 'em, instead of cyanide you mix in bisacodyl (fast acting laxative). Once all the cult members partake in the free Kool-Aid, it's just a matter of time before they all disperse looking for the nearest port-a-john or similar facilities. So there ya go... problem solved!

WARNING: Just make sure you whisper to all the members of your own party... don't drink the Kool-Aid, don't drink the Kool-Aid, don't drink the Kool-Aid. :cool:
 
Salty said:
Seriously, I don't see the point in the original group, or the "cult" group being there. Nobody is changing anyone's mind by doing what they are doing.
Click to expand...
This. If either group is disrupting the day to day lives and peace of the general public they won't get any support from said public. I say this because marches, rallies, and disrupting traffic by various groups is common around here. They think they will actually change people's minds, when in effect, they are alienating them.
 
Everskyward said:
This. If either group is disrupting the day to day lives and peace of the general public they won't get any support from said public. I say this because marches, rallies, and disrupting traffic by various groups is common around here. They think they will actually change people's minds, when in effect, they are alienating them.
Click to expand...
I wish more people understood this…
 
RyanB said:
I wish more people understood this…
Click to expand...
They do. The people behind the protests and the anti-protests want division. A lot of times they are the same people. They could care less about the “cause”.
 
Salty said:
They do. The people behind the protests and the anti-protests want division. A lot of times they are the same people. They could care less about the “cause”.
Click to expand...
I think most at these rallies are quite the opposite: they "care" so much about the cause, they can't see any other side or different point of view, and they feel the need to label those who disagree with terms like "cult" and their differing opinions "hate".
 
Country Flier said:
I think most at these rallies are quite the opposite: they "care" so much about the cause, they can't see any other side or different point of view, and they feel the need to label those who disagree with terms like "cult" and their differing opinions "hate".
Click to expand...
The people at the rallies are not the ones “behind” the rallies. Generally speaking.

but I agree with your post.
 
Country Flier said:
I think most at these rallies are quite the opposite: they "care" so much about the cause, they can't see any other side or different point of view, and they feel the need to label those who disagree with terms like "cult" and their differing opinions "hate".
Click to expand...
Salty said:
The people at the rallies are not the ones “behind” the rallies. Generally speaking.

but I agree with your post.
Click to expand...
So do I.
 
Half Fast said:
He also said to assume US laws. Of course, that varies by state. I suppose to adjudicate the ROC properly we need to know the state, county, township, etc.
;)
Click to expand...
Hey. I was just thinking about you. Can't remember the thread, so butting in here. Did you go to that they're going to put a remote tower in at that airport in Florida meeting? If so how'd it go. Or just show me the link to that thread and I'll butt out here.
 
luvflyin said:
Hey. I was just thinking about you. Can't remember the thread, so butting in here. Did you go to that they're going to put a remote tower in at that airport in Florida meeting? If so how'd it go. Or just show me the link to that thread and I'll butt out here.
Click to expand...


Yep, went to he meeting. I’ll make an update to the other thread rather than derail this one.
 
Salty said:
they probably like that because it would make them sound like this

Click to expand...
Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth to have a fatal disease.
 
EdFred said:
You can't spend your winnings today as the drawing is on Tuesday. :D

Also without more details this reads like one group is exercising free speech, another group is exercising free speech as well, but the first group doesn't want the second group to exercise it and is wondering how to prevent others from exercising it.

"I'm for free speech as long as its the same speech as mine."

Unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

I had a slightly different read - group 2 is trying to prevent group’s 1 speech, so what kind of legal things can group 1 do on defense. To me, group 2 is showing no respect and deserves little accommodation.

btw, you CAN spend your winnings today, but you’ve only got about a 1 in 302 million chance of being able to pay the bill.
 
TCABM said:
I missed that part of his post originally. He specifically stated he would accept or conduct activity that was illegal if there was plausible deniability.

That’s pushes right up to a violation of our ROC. “You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.
Click to expand...

No comment on the "concern" of the OP. Just wanted to point out that even POA doesn't uphold their own ROC very well ... o_O
 
EdFred said:
You can't spend your winnings today as the drawing is on Tuesday. :D
Click to expand...
But I can fantasize about spending it today, or any time up until the drawing. After Tuesday, I won't even be able to do that.
Let's see, I can give each one of my 17 brothers, sisters and their children a million each, and still have $447.4 million left, assuming I take a lump sum. Then I wouldn't have to suspect that they will be asking for money each time I see their names on my caller-ID. And with that kind of money, I could "probably" update the panel in the Bonanza.
 
I’m assuming group 1 has all the proper permits. I’m assuming group 2 does not, and doesn’t need any since that group isn’t the one organizing the event. What kind of buffer zone will there be? For example if the permit allows for group 1 to use the “park” or some specific area, are there natural boundaries? Does group 1 get “all the way to the curb” so group 2 would not be able to get closer that across the street? Are there noise ordinances that would be violated if group 2 used amplification? Will there be any security provided by the local constabulary?

Sometimes the best way to deal with groups like that are just to ignore them, no matter how much they try to not to be ignored. If group 1 expends energy trying to outshout group 2, then group 2 wins.

At my youngest daughter’s college graduation the Westboro Baptist Church was protesting, but the rest of us were so busy with our own things we barely noticed.
 
SkyChaser said:
If it's a rally, move it to a place where you can screen all those entering and turn away those at the door you don't wish to attend.

If it's a protest, outside and on public property, following US rules, they have just as much right to be there as you do so what you can do is limited. And if neither you nor they are doing anything besides shouting over each other, the cops can't do anything to the "cult". I guess you could try to find something that makes their speakers/equipment emit feedback, but that would probably make your protesters leave as well because that is an almost painful noise.
Click to expand...
This.

You're being intentionally disruptive and someone else comes long to disrupt your disruption.... Too bad? Your exercise of free speech isn't more or less important than theirs.
 
Salty said:
I have better things to do with my time. Seriously, I don't see the point in the original group, or the "cult" group being there. Nobody is changing anyone's mind by doing what they are doing. Neither will the "third" group trying to disrupt the "cult" group change anyones mind, in fact, it's more likely to create a wider chasm between the groups.

It's not like there are people out there going "Geee, I'm glad they protested, I had no idea that was happening. I agree!"
Click to expand...
Why are either group there? Because in the US we have the right ( by law in the Constitution ) of peaceful assembly, redress of of the Government and free speech - within reason and within certain reasonable restrictions defined by local authorities.
 
murphey said:
Why are either group there? Because in the US we have the right ( by law in the Constitution ) of peaceful assembly, redress of of the Government and free speech - within reason and within certain reasonable restrictions defined by local authorities.
Click to expand...
They all have a right do do pointless things. We fly airplanes designed a hundred years ago for crying out loud, who are we to throw stones at that?

But I have a right to think they are all annoying pests. (All three levels of protestors discussed)
 
Lindberg said:
Your exercise of free speech isn't more or less important than theirs.
Click to expand...

I disagree, worded differently. Your right to speak is equally important. Neither one of you should be disrupting the other. Trying to silence someone else should be unthinkable in the American mind.

I mean, how weak is your position if your only way of winning is to quash debate?
 
Many people need to learn the art of persuasion. Changing people's opinion is something that requires a little more than a bullhorn or a tube of superglue.
 
Get a lot of elephants.

Feed them a LOT of ExLax.

Point the elephant away from the offending group.

Let nature take its course....
 
A brief reminder of how free speech works in this country (this is an over-simplified summary, and will therefore be given replies of "YOU ARE WRONG!"):

1) People are allowed to state their views. You are not required to listen or agree with them.
2) People who disagree with you are allowed to state their views, including to you. You are not required to listen to or agree with them.
3) People who disagree with those in line 2 (that would generally be those in line 1, in this case the OP) are allowed to voice their discontent. You are not required to listen to or agree with them.
4) People are allowed to tell the people in group 3 that they shouldn't be performing the actions outlined in 3. Incidentally, the people in this line (line 4) are also allowed to say similar to line 2. Nobody is required to listen to or agree with... hopefully by now you get the idea.

And obviously, there are some laws that exist that limit all of the above. Some make sense, some don't.

Culturally in this country, things should start at 1, and then those who aren't interested should just go away and ignore those people in group 1. I can recall times where I've, for whatever reason, walked past protesters who were very impassioned and angry, I just did what New Yorkers do best and pretend they weren't even there. However for some reason in recent years it's not enough to just ignore them, people feel they need to counterprotest. This happened in the past too, it just seems more prevalent now. Maybe that's because of social media. But so we keep on going down the rabbit hole.

Me, I have better things to do than participate in protests, anti-protests, anti-anti protests, etc., so I'll get back to thinking about (and doing) those.
 
Three or four decades ago there was a popular phrase: “I disagree with what you’re saying, but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it.” IMHO, that’s the heart of America, or at least what America used to be.

Somehow, today it’s become, “I disagree with what you’re saying, and I’ll do anything and everything possible to stop you from saying it.”
 
I say both groups need to get a job, or a hobby, or something. I don't have enough time in the day to go waste it "rallying" over whatever. What a waste of time.
 
Half Fast said:
Three or four decades ago there was a popular phrase: “I disagree with what you’re saying, but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it.” IMHO, that’s the heart of America, or at least what America used to be.

Somehow, today it’s become, “I disagree with what you’re saying, and I’ll do anything and everything possible to stop you from saying it.”
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. A feeling that is lost for many these days.

Hate, danger, division, and fear get much higher ratings than peaceful discourse. I think a lot of this comes down to how we evolved. Thousands of years ago, if we ignored a threat we'd get eaten/invaded/killed/forced to listen to Polka. Threats were more obvious when they came, and they had to have some level of proximity (or otherwise be delayed by communication limits) to be present in the mind. Pirates (or worse, the British) had to be close enough to fire cannons. Now an ICBM could come from the other side of the world. It's funny to think about how slow news traveled up until the invention of the telegraph and then radio. Just over 500 years ago most of the people in the western hemisphere and eastern hemisphere had no clue that even the other hemisphere existed. Now something can happen literally on the other side of the world, and we could be made aware of it within minutes if not faster.

We live in a world where more than anything, the economy is after our attention since that drives revenue in one way, shape, or form - be it subscription payments, advertising revenue, commercial purchase of a product, donation to [your side] of a political cause. If we're actually just out living our lives and aren't afraid of [thing happening/the other side winning] that hurts all those revenue streams.

Now if you'll excuse me, Amazon has been suggesting some lovely tin foil hats for my consideration, and I think this year's fashion trends with them are just fabulous. Oh, and my soapbox is worn out. I need a better and taller one.
 
Half Fast said:
Three or four decades ago there was a popular phrase: “I disagree with what you’re saying, but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it.” IMHO, that’s the heart of America, or at least what America used to be.

Somehow, today it’s become, “I disagree with what you’re saying, and I’ll do anything and everything possible to stop you from saying it.”
Click to expand...

It wasn’t even 30 or 40 years ago. It was less than ten, but not much leas than that. At some point in the last ten years, the latter group’s behaviors/beliefs have alienated the former.

But I bet today there are still more people in the former group than in the latter group
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top