2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSenator Sanders Supports the First Amendment...Stop the Presses
For those unfamiliar, this is what the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I am not one to protest. But I have every intention of protesting Trump the next time he's in town. I feel it is my patriotic duty to do so. To show him and the rest of the world that Trump is not us. I realize that his supporters could be dangerous and could actually hurt me. This is honestly why I feel it is my duty to protest him. We cannot let them bully us into silence.
That is exactly what these accusations against Sanders are intent on doing...bully people into silence.
I have no desire to protest Clinton right at this particular second. But I support the right of others to do so. I also support the right of people to protest Senator Sanders, and I actually spoke out here on behalf of the women who disrupted his event last year.
People with enormous power and influence should be protested. Our leaders are not listening to the people. They need to be confronted in whatever way we can get in front of them.
Do I believe cursing at children is effective protest? Not particularly. Do I understand why it has come to this? Absolutely.
The fundamental issue is that authoritarians do everything they possibly can to make protesters look bad in order to paint a social cost to others interested in joining them. Ridicule is a powerful tool. Showcasing the few who take it a step too far is done to discourage others from joining the hundreds and even thousands of "regular" people participating.
Understand that there is also a long history of agents provocateurs -- people acting as agents of the state sent to infiltrate protestors and ratchet up the tension and actively encourage violence.
Senator Sanders supports protest as a legitimate First Amendment right and is not going to tell people not to assert their rights. Why should he? I would be offended if he did.
msongs
(67,395 posts)He didn't encourage. He simply refused to be baited into discouraging a legitimate form of political dissent.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment, don't you?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
When Congress starts trying to stop the BS cheerleaders from protesting, then come get me, because then I will be right there with you.
Until then, Freedom of Speech does NOT mean Freedom from Consequences or Freedom from Criticism.
Dems2002
(509 posts)Senator Sanders is a government agent. He didn't address specific acts. He didn't encourage his supporters. He simply said that lawful assembly outside a venue in protest is something that he's not going to speak against.
What he was willing to speak against and discourage are people who seek to interrupt said events. He said that he didn't care for that.
Since Sanders is a government official, discouraging people from protesting would suggest a person willing to revoke our rights to protest. Which many, many government officials seem inclined to do.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If someone wants to shame the guy who made a kid cry, go for it. But I know how the government does work. And it would not surprise me if the worst behavior was from people paid to be there and do exactly that. If you think I'm crazy, read a history book.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)People have the right to protest
People have the right to criticize the protesters
People have the right to criticize those people as well
Dems2002
(509 posts)I agree with the right of people to protest, protest the protestors and protest those protesting the protestors...
But I admit to a bit of surprise that protesting the protestors is such a thing here.
The general sentiment I see from the Clinton crowd is that it's unacceptable for people to the left of Clinton to protest her. As if we shouldn't do that. It's impolite.
They can feel that way. And I can think that they have a streak of totalitarianism that frightens me and makes me actually WANT to protest Clinton when this desire had never occurred to me prior to witnessing this hysterical over reaction.
The effect of this over reaction is likely going to be an increase in the number of people protesting Clinton.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)He was clearly not saying that as an agent of the government.
When Trump says outlandish things, it is our job to hold him accountable because if he were to be elected President, he could have a chance to make his desires law.
If Bernie said he was against people protesting, this would be a frightening statement for a person running for President to make. Because once he became President, he could attempt to make laws against protestors.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)I'm shocked when I hear it from people that call themselves Progressives and/or Democrats. It's embarrassing.
I don't believe any politician to be Godlike figures who shouldn't face protesters. I absolutely despise the sentiment that expects people to sit quietly and shut up. I cannot comprehend how there are so many of those types of people on this forum.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)My only problem around here is how people are calling this a 1st Amendment issue ... that it is not.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)"Do I believe cursing at children is effective protest? Not particularly. Do I understand why it has come to this? Absolutely."
"The fundamental issue is that authoritarians do everything they possibly can to make protesters look bad in order to paint a social cost to others interested in joining them."
No
The protesters made themselves look bad by acting like loud-mouthed juvenile pea-brains.
Do continue on ..there are negative consequences for that free speech .
If you don't believe that the goal of the state is to make protestors look bad, you're living in denial. Does that mean protestors don't sometimes help their cause? Of course not.
At the same time, there is a desire from people who support lily livered, peaceful protest, to quake at the knees and blame failings on the people cursing at children because it makes them look bad.
The fact is, the conservative movement has been extraordinarily successful employing behavior many of us find appalling. Partially because they've elected leaders similar to them and made those who aren't similar afraid of them.
Successful protest movements demand all kinds. They demand those who yell and throw rocks at police and engage in "illegal" activities even if these individuals end up marginalized and arrested.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The right wing and GOP were making hay with arguments like that.