And they can arrest people for standing and in their mind praying. I am not religious, but that seems to be a slippery slope.
Here's a 1 minute clip
Here's a 1 minute clip
They are standing out front of an abortion clinic. It’s a form of intimidation, it’s intentional and specific.
Laws also exist in Australia that restrict protest in and around an abortion clinic. It does NOT mean you can not protest against abortion. It simply means your protest should not involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific citizens as they exercise their right to engage with abortion services.
Your out of context statement has close to nothing to do with this new law change, which from first read seems unreasonable to me.
I don't find this to be a satisfying explanation. Basically it boils down to "well there's a law on the books for this, and there's a plausible reason for implementing it, therefore it's okay". The same excuse works for protesters in china being arrested for "disturbing social harmony". The objection that the parent poster is raising isn't that the people are being arbitrarily detained, it's that the reason behind the arrest was unjust.
>Laws also exist in Australia that restrict protest in and around an abortion clinic. It does NOT mean you can not protest against abortion. It simply means your protest should not involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific citizens as they exercise their right to engage with abortion services.
Would you agree with this statement if this was flipped to protect a group that you don't like, eg the cops?
"Laws also exist in [insert red state here] that restrict protest in and around a police station. It does NOT mean you can not protest against the police. It simply means your protest should not involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific citizens as they try to do their jobs."
Praying while standing is not a "form of intimidation"
Why has she chosen to stand and pray out front of an abortion clinic? She hasn’t chosen a random place. She hasn’t chosen her home, or place of worship, or a public square.
If I stood out front of your house and silently prayed for your family as they came and went, you’d eventually call the cops too. Especially if I brought my 20 mates and we stayed all night.
Protest should be utilised to bring attention to issues, and change the opinion of the majority, to enact change. It shouldn’t be used to intimidate a minority into changing their opinion or behaviour.
If the aim is to intimidate and harass vulnerable people, yes.
Patients and employees turn up to an abortion clinic. The patients being the ones who could be intimidated, less so the employees.
A slaughterhouse and a private prison are only frequented by employees. But likewise, if the protest was held outside the houses of employees from the slaughterhouse or private prison, this is again blurring the line of protest vs intimidation.
What is the intent? Is it to gather support and influence public opinion to change the rules around an activity? Or is it to intimidate participants in an activity to affect their behaviour?
I think the issue is that standing silently is intimidating and it’s a form of speech. But it should be allowed.
The purpose of the abortion protesters is to stop people from getting abortions.
The purpose of strikers is to stop customers buying and scabs working.
Etc etc.
I think we need to avoid “context” that makes things we agree with right and things we disagree with wrong.
I think the vulnerability of patients at an abortion clinic is an important factor. But I also think a similar argument could made for ‘scabs’.
It’s good food for thought, thanks.
It’s not cut-and-dry https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1144/protests-in-ne...
It’s an tension between free speech and privacy.
> Protest should be utilised to bring attention to issues, and change the opinion of the majority, to enact change.
That’s the goal.
In a free society, however, no one group owns the definition of an issue; and being near a protest is also intimidating whether or not that is the protestors’ intent.
That alone doesn’t justify restricting protests.
This is the argument of a child who states “I’m not touching you” while holding their hand directly in front of another’s face. Technically true and contextually irrelevant. An obviously bad faith argument.
But standing in a single public place and holding a placard or whatnot is not harassment.
No more than a war protestor standing in front of parliament for a month silently protesting is harassing the lawmakers in the building.