Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So by this logic, Rosa Parks lightly violated the rights of a few dozen people?

(The fantasizing about driving over people kind of strikes me as a little weird, but hey, it is allowed)

The law usually won't do anything to remove the protestors from the road.

There has to be some deterrent to obstructing people's movements. 

When words and reason are no longer are effective, the next logical step is vroom vroom MFers.

For what it’s worth, chance for violence are allowed, for the most part. There’s a kind of narrow category where it’s not, with a fairly high standard

According to the Supreme Court in Brandenburg vs. Ohio (1969), chants for violence are generally not allowed, since the court ruling said "incitement to violence" is not protected under the First Amendment.  A chant for violence and incitement to violence is a difference without distinction, and I believe that has held many times since then when it was cared to be enforced.

I'm not a lawyer, so some of our local shysters could weight in and tell me if I'm wrong.  


https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

I was satisfied with the way UT's president handled the attempts at illegal protests on the UT campus.  He was accused of being heavy-handed when he sent in the state troopers on the very first day, but what they did was ensure that illegal overnight encampments and illegal barricades to public buildings were never established, and the protests went on during the day as they were legally allowed to do, and disbanded every evening as they were legally required to do.  After a few days of their perfectly legal protests, they got bored with only being allowed to use their own first amendment rights and not infringe on the rights of everyone else, so they stopped doing it.

All of the bleeding hearts insisted he should be removed from office.  And everyone else gave him a pat on the shoulder and an attaboy.

Of the several university presidents who had large protests flare up on their campuses around that time, he's one of the few that still has his job.

I was satisfied with the way UT's president handled the attempts at illegal protests on the UT campus.  He was accused of being heavy-handed when he sent in the state troopers on the very first day, but what they did was ensure that illegal overnight encampments and illegal barricades to public buildings were never established, and the protests went on during the day as they were legally allowed to do, and disbanded every evening as they were legally required to do.  After a few days of their perfectly legal protests, they got bored with only being allowed to use their own first amendment rights and not infringe on the rights of everyone else, so they stopped doing it.

All of the bleeding hearts insisted he should be removed from office.  And everyone else gave him a pat on the shoulder and an attaboy.

Of the several university presidents who had large protests flare up on their campuses around that time, he's one of the few that still has his job.

that is exactly how it aught to be handled. people have the right to exercise their first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of assembly. they do not have the right to trespass, vandalize property, commit actual violence or spew direct threats of violence verbally, or obstruct traffic on public roads. 

I was satisfied with the way UT's president handled the attempts at illegal protests on the UT campus.  He was accused of being heavy-handed when he sent in the state troopers on the very first day, but what they did was ensure that illegal overnight encampments and illegal barricades to public buildings were never established, and the protests went on during the day as they were legally allowed to do, and disbanded every evening as they were legally required to do.  After a few days of their perfectly legal protests, they got bored with only being allowed to use their own first amendment rights and not infringe on the rights of everyone else, so they stopped doing it.

All of the bleeding hearts insisted he should be removed from office.  And everyone else gave him a pat on the shoulder and an attaboy.

Of the several university presidents who had large protests flare up on their campuses around that time, he's one of the few that still has his job.

Although I’m mildly skeptical of a pre-emptive crackdown, the letting people (ironically) colonize spaces seemed to produce very little value. I don’t even mind some light camping, but it always led to barricades and other BS.

The intentionally violated the law on that bus. it meant the police were gonna be called, therefore someone’s commute going to be impeded.

I think there are certain times when protesters create those situations, and then I say that’s a bad beat for them. But if they’re not creating a dangerous situation, I’m less sympathetic to what feels like violent urges from drivers.

It also opens up the path to armed protesters defending themselves against pedal-happy drivers with different viewpoints, and that feels like a tricky road to go now

We're opened up to a lot of things. Like a protester using his car to run over innocent people.