Should celebrities avoid talking politics to fans ?

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Property damage isn't a part of this discussion man.
But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.

The obvious difference I see with your example is those people were protesting the actual laws themselves.
If you want to protest for the right to march on the freeway and you believe that to be your constitutional right to do so and you believe anti-pedestrian laws on the freeway discriminate against those not in a car, then by all means march on the freeway.

Again, this pointless fixation on protests on highways. Big red herring, as someone else already said eloquently. Certain creepy politicians are so happy you have gone along with their anti-protest plan! I'm sure they are patting themselves on the back.

This has been mentioned several times. This freeway thing was not brought up by the "anti-protesters." And if my memory serves correct, it was you who brought it up. If not you, someone with the same argument, but pretty sure you.
I don't see how it is fair to bring up this topic, then say it is a red herring and we are falling into the republican trap for discussing it. If it shouldn't be discussed, then don't bring it up. I still haven't seen a second example of someone's rights being denied.
That would be like me going to the gun thread, making a ridiculous claim about gun safety that is untrue, then faulting you for responding.

I still don't know where the idea that republicans are anti-protest comes from. I have not heard of examples where anyone is denied the right to protest. The only example given was people were ticketed for blocking a freeway, thus why this whole debate started.

Back to my previous comment. I would agree there are circumstances where breaking the law to protest is appropriate. The only occasions are when the law itself is being protested, like segregation laws and your examples. But breaking a random law, unrelated to what is being protested, and then being held accountable for the broken law is not taking away anyone's right to protest.

Let me flip sides here.. to what I do agree with, from my friends further left of center of me. One part of the discussion was about piling on laws aimed at protesting. I kind of think of it as RICO type law stuff. You try to stuff as many penalties into an action as possible, forcing plea deals or long prison sentences. It's why our incarceration rate is so high in this country (among other reasons).
I would be vehemently against law that take the same action but increases the penalty if occurring while a person is exercising the right to free speech. Here is a pretty hard left summary, so do your own research, but it is true that the objective is to make things more punitive on protesters.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers-in-five-states-propose-bills-to-criminalize-peaceful-protest/

I read that article, thought it was pretty lame. Right off the bat you tell it is bias from the title, and the description of the laws are misleading. It says they are trying to pass a law that would allow drivers to run over freeway protesters. That is just not true. It just wont hold the diver criminally responsible and charge them with criminal negligence if they accidentally run over a protester on the freeway, like you can if you accidentally run over a pedestrian in a residential street. Seems totally reasonable to me.
One thing I would not agree with is the year in jail, that is excessive. A fine for obstructing traffic seems reasonable to me, not a year in jail.
Protests are great. Very few made a big deal of the Occupy protests that lasted for months. The only issues were the semi-permanent tent cities that began to develop, and in some cases people were told to disburse. Other than that I don't remember any issues.
And I agree there should be no law that increases the punishment if the crime was committed during a protest, it should not factor. So on the flip side it does not excuse it either.
We've gone in full circles for about a week at this point and we've all shared our thoughts. There are just 2 sides, those who think it is acceptable to break laws during a protest and those who think the law should be upheld.

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Property damage isn't a part of this discussion man.
But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.

The obvious difference I see with your example is those people were protesting the actual laws themselves.
If you want to protest for the right to march on the freeway and you believe that to be your constitutional right to do so and you believe anti-pedestrian laws on the freeway discriminate against those not in a car, then by all means march on the freeway.

Again, this pointless fixation on protests on highways. Big red herring, as someone else already said eloquently. Certain creepy politicians are so happy you have gone along with their anti-protest plan! I'm sure they are patting themselves on the back.

This has been mentioned several times. This freeway thing was not brought up by the "anti-protesters." And if my memory serves correct, it was you who brought it up. If not you, someone with the same argument, but pretty sure you.
I don't see how it is fair to bring up this topic, then say it is a red herring and we are falling into the republican trap for discussing it. If it shouldn't be discussed, then don't bring it up. I still haven't seen a second example of someone's rights being denied.
That would be like me going to the gun thread, making a ridiculous claim about gun safety that is untrue, then faulting you for responding.

I still don't know where the idea that republicans are anti-protest comes from. I have not heard of examples where anyone is denied the right to protest. The only example given was people were ticketed for blocking a freeway, thus why this whole debate started.

Back to my previous comment. I would agree there are circumstances where breaking the law to protest is appropriate. The only occasions are when the law itself is being protested, like segregation laws and your examples. But breaking a random law, unrelated to what is being protested, and then being held accountable for the broken law is not taking away anyone's right to protest.

Let me flip sides here.. to what I do agree with, from my friends further left of center of me. One part of the discussion was about piling on laws aimed at protesting. I kind of think of it as RICO type law stuff. You try to stuff as many penalties into an action as possible, forcing plea deals or long prison sentences. It's why our incarceration rate is so high in this country (among other reasons).
I would be vehemently against law that take the same action but increases the penalty if occurring while a person is exercising the right to free speech. Here is a pretty hard left summary, so do your own research, but it is true that the objective is to make things more punitive on protesters.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers-in-five-states-propose-bills-to-criminalize-peaceful-protest/

I read that article, thought it was pretty lame. Right off the bat you tell it is bias from the title, and the description of the laws are misleading. It says they are trying to pass a law that would allow drivers to run over freeway protesters. That is just not true. It just wont hold the diver criminally responsible if they accidentally run over a protester. Seems totally reasonable to me.
One thing I would not agree with is the year in jail, that is excessive. A fine for obstructing traffic seems reasonable to me, not a year in jail.

I'm not really opining on the validity of the laws, rather what I think would be a legitimate concern and overreach; that is different punishments for what is essentially the same 'crime', should one be committed while protesting and the other not.

I completely agree, I edited my response to reflect that.

rustneversleeps said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

rustneversleeps said:

my2hands said:

rustneversleeps said:

Smellyman said:

Checking in...still talking about protesting......out

they talk about the same shit over and over for months on end. its lunatic behavior. they think they know everything.

I think the conversations & debates going on around the country are fucking awesome, and ultimately good for the country and all of us.

i think people that argue every day on the internet are lunatics. Keyboard Heroes.

Somebody feels inadequate perhaps?
Drink more goat's milk, it's good for cognition.

Hahaha, the people discussing and debating current events online are lunatics ... I wonder what that makes discussion board lurkers who only drop occasional useless criticism of the people whose posts they obviously spend their time reading (or worse yet, don't read anything and simply drop by to insult people)?

you never discussed a topic in your life, lets get real. you argue and act like you know everything about everything. (insert yellow giggling face)

WTF is your problem today?

rustneversleeps said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

rustneversleeps said:

my2hands said:

rustneversleeps said:

Smellyman said:

Checking in...still talking about protesting......out

they talk about the same shit over and over for months on end. its lunatic behavior. they think they know everything.

I think the conversations & debates going on around the country are fucking awesome, and ultimately good for the country and all of us.

i think people that argue every day on the internet are lunatics. Keyboard Heroes.

Somebody feels inadequate perhaps?
Drink more goat's milk, it's good for cognition.

Hahaha, the people discussing and debating current events online are lunatics ... I wonder what that makes discussion board lurkers who only drop occasional useless criticism of the people whose posts they obviously spend their time reading (or worse yet, don't read anything and simply drop by to insult people)?

you never discussed a topic in your life, lets get real. you argue and act like you know everything about everything. (insert yellow giggling face)

A little harsh.I haven't gotten that impression from her, and even though I disagree on most things except Mankind, I appreciate a different view.