Topic: Oh how far we have fallen

[scottws]

So all this talk about patent law and taxes and the redistribution of wealth and practically non-functioning government has gotten me in a bit of a sour mood.  But it can always get worse.

Today I came across an article talking about a protest in San Francisco related to BART shutting down cell service in one of its stations due to a protest being organize there.  Reading the comments of this article has been an eye-opening experience.  Some gems:

Comment author thinks protests should never inconvenience people:

Listen, I'm all for protesting, all for calling out BART for shutting down/planning to shut down cell service, but FUCK THAT. You don't get to interfere with my fiancee getting from Walnut Creek to SF so she can go to school. You don't get to interfere with honest, hard working people (read: non-Anonymous asshats) just trying to get to and from work. Bunch of whiny bitches.

Not U.S.-related, but comment author wishes mobile phone and data usage was cut of during Vancouver riots:

Wow, just wow.

First of all, let me just say that coming from Vancouver, I wish cell service would have been cut off during the recent stanley cup riots. No cell service doesn't mean you can't protest, it just means that you can't post to twitter: "OMG, cop just batoned me. Gonna smash some windows, LOL".

A huge factor that made the Vancouver riots, and more recently the London riots so bad is that a large portion of the people participating were just taking pictures on their phones and posting to twitter. When you have a bunch of people milling around like this, it allows those few who came to loot and riot to stay anonymous, and it makes the riot police that much more nervous, since they are so outnumbered.

Comment author actually states that protests never have any effect on policy:

Was there ever a bigger waste of time than a protest? When has a protest ever changed national policy?

Comment author condones government limiting protests to designated areas and even uses the phrase "illegal protest":

I think you are using the term "block" much to loosely and are reading the 1st amendment much too literally. Many, many court decisions over the years have confirmed the right of congress and state and local governments to regulate when, where and how protests occur. Governments cannot, however, dictate the actual content of protests.

So, in the case, the government of San Francisco has the right to say, for example, that protests may not occur on BART property but may occur within X feet of a BART station.

So, according to the courts, you are wrong: these protesters have the right to protest, but do not have the right to do so in any manner they choose. The government is well within their rights to ensure that the protest does not disrupt BART service or the commute of BART's riders. The government even has the right to fine or imprison those that disobey any such laws that exist.

Funny: that's exactly how I think this whole protesting thing should work. And, in this observer's humble opinion, I'd rather BART take a preemptive approach to disrupt a clearly illegal protest in planning by shutting down cellphone use on the BART than let the protest happen and arrest a bunch of hipsters/Anon-wannabies. I find that a much better use of government's time and resources.

What the hell is wrong with people in this country?!  People actually now believe that protest should never be disruptive to anyone?  That it never has any effect and is not only a waste of time but an inconvenience to people?  That it should only be allowed in designated areas?  That mobile service should be cut off to help prevent and disperse protests?

Unbelievable. The ability to protest our government and its agencies is something that we should hold closely because many citizens in other countries do not have any right of protest at all, and limiting protest in the U.S. is a slippery slope towards an oppressive regime.  As far as the core issue regarding cutting off mobile service goes, recently I saw an article on ZDnet that argued that mobile communications should be an inalienable right (in the sense that it should not be forcefully removed in order to quell protests or revolts).  I am inclined to agree with that view.

[idolminds]

People have been convinced of the dumbest things, it blows my mind.

[Cools!]

This reminds me of the union strikes we've had here in Toronto the last couple of years. Basically a union goes on strike, of course it's disruptive, then the body against the strikes uses the public's negative reaction to shut down the strikes and nothing gets achieved. Yeah it's annoying when something like public transit strikes, but often times there's a good reason behind it that we should be aware of and do something about. Just recently the government of Ontario even passed legislation that makes the TTC (the public transit system in Toronto) an essential service which removes the employees right to strike.

[Cobra951]

Some state governments have gone into the union-busting business too, Ohio among them.  Most people either support that or don't care.  Very sad indeed.

[sirean_syan]

I agree completely that people are complete morons to throw away these freedoms so easily and willingly. If anything ever made me believe in a conspiracy to turn people into sheep, it's the thought behind that final comment you posted.

However, coming from the Bay Area I can see what some folks are thinking here. Protests in the Bay Area are like bad weather. You can't predict them, but you have to expect them to come at some point and screw something up. Part of the problem is they are overused because, I feel, a lot of people in places like San Francisco like to take part because it essentially makes them look cool. It's not about a real cause, but about stroking their ego. The result is there are protests constantly, often over issues that don't require a protest. Others in the area become jaded and it's easy to become angry with the protestors. I know I did in my time there. I can sympathize with the first three comments you posted because of it.

For me, it's more about the protestors championing real causes and then making a meaningful statement when the time comes. Disruptions should be jarring and help make people aware of the cause. It's not about doing this sort of long drawn out whine with occasional loud spikes that only piss off everyone around you. That's what the Bay Area is like and why I understand the willingness to shut down the protestors. The point gets lost in the wash that way things are happening there. That means protestors police themselves and work towards being more effective, not the government. Anyone willing to let the later happen, I don't know.

[K-man]

Back in my day we protested without cell service.  Hell, we didn't even know what cell service was.  The good old days of protesting.

[Quemaqua]

I'll second everything that Sy said, being from the Bay Area as well. San Francisco has got to be the whining capital of the fucking universe. So I completely understand the outrage. If you lived there, you would too.

But I also entirely agree that people are morons to suggest that we throw these freedoms away. This is all part of the same thing I constantly rage about, that people in our country will at this point turn down almost any right they have in favor of convenience. They will give power to anyone to have even the slightest annoyance removed from their lives. These people are the lazy piles of garbage that have been turning our country into the monstrosity it's become.

[scottws]

I hear you about the Bay Area.  I'm sure you guys have heard the stories of one of my ex-girlfriends, who was from Berkeley:

• Led a protest in high school to get Chiquita bananas banned from the school lunchroom.
• Said if someone at UC Berkeley would have painted their car like the General Lee, complete with Confederate flag on the roof, that there would have been a campus-wide protest about it.

Ridiculous.  But hey, I am fully in support of the right to protest as long as it is done in a peaceful manner even if that means I might get inconvenienced once in awhile.

[ren]

People are willing to give up these rights because they view protests as an annoyance and view the protesters as assholes. But if there was ever a true protest in the US, it would not be in a designated area and cutting out twitter or cell phone access would not stop it. People may be willing to waive liberties superficially for the sake of convenience but if push ever came to shove, you can't stop a revolution without a ridiculous level of censorship that is far beyond what these online commentators would ever demand.

[gpw11]

This reminds me of the union strikes we've had here in Toronto the last couple of years. Basically a union goes on strike, of course it's disruptive, then the body against the strikes uses the public's negative reaction to shut down the strikes and nothing gets achieved. Yeah it's annoying when something like public transit strikes, but often times there's a good reason behind it that we should be aware of and do something about. Just recently the government of Ontario even passed legislation that makes the TTC (the public transit system in Toronto) an essential service which removes the employees right to strike.

It works two ways.  In cases of union strikes, ESPECIALLY public service union strikes, the majority of the leverage comes from a negative public backlash to the top.  Transit workers, postal workers, teachers, whatever are all hoping that you're going to sympathize with them rather than lash out against them.  Without public support and sympathy, they have very little leverage at all.  In private industry, revenue is a factor, not so much when it comes to public services. What are the postal workers going to do, starve out the government?  No, they'll stop delivering shit because the people expecting shit will just want it to end. And sometimes the focus of the rage is at the government, sometimes at the workers.  If you don't have a car and all of a sudden have no way to get to work, why would you give a fuck that some motherfucker who sits on his ass all day wants an extra $3 an hour over the next three years and a pension increase when you went to school for years, work harder, and don't get that shit?  And, put enough pressure on the government and they'll respond...simply part of the democratic process and the people have spoken. 

Everyone has a right to protest, but that doesn't protect you from a potential public backlash from being disruptive any more than freedom of speech protects you from someone calling another out for saying something stupid in a public forum.