I'm confused, because you seem to be coming from both sides with your post. Let me make this clear; I think that you have every right to protest. Your right to protest stops when you start interfering with other people's property or rights. (Strictly speaking, there are some exceptions for semi-public private property, like malls.) You can't take over Acme Inc's office. You can't block people's access to a business; you can picket the business. But you can't block the sidewalk. You can't block the roads. Late last week, the Occupy DC group staged a protest; they marched to the Key Bridge. They were completely legal; they didn't block the roads, they didn't block the bridge. Nobody arrested them for this. (I think there may have been a couple of arrests for people who did something that the group was not supporting.) I absolutely defend and support their right to this protest. But not when they break the law.
Again, so long as they don't block the entrance, get any appropriate permits, disperse when told to do so, they're free to protest. I'm very definitely pro-life; if I'm dispatched to a clinic that does abortions for being vandalized, or for protesters blocking it -- I'm going to do my job, without regard to my beliefs regarding abortion.
My opinion is if one group of citizens is allowed to blockade private businesses and public thoroughfares then all groups should be able to. If one group is denied the ‘right’ then all should be. Protests should be allowed but should not interfere with the rights of others or take away from public order. Private property rights should be upheld and enforced. Common decency should be expected and enforced. When arrests are called for they should be made. If made they should use the least amount of force needed to make the arrest. I agree with Levin quoted in the NPR article above that acts that are illegal should be addressed not encouraged, as the encouraged illegality promotes not only further illegal acts but an escalation of the violence.
These kids linking arms and blockading after numerous warnings and with the foreknowledge that they were breaking the law should have been arrested and should face federal not just misdemeanor charges. The means of breaking up the protest by use of pepper spray is legal (I am not an attorney nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn) and justified in my opinion. As would have been the use of pain compliance methods even if they further risked ‘bad pr’.
Regards
Brian King
I don't see what federal charge there might have been at UC-Davis. And, like I said -- I'm confused. You seem to be on both sides of this. To me, it's clear. Protest all you want. If you break the law in protesting -- you get arrested. If enough people get arrested, maybe it convinces the larger public that the law is bad. Or maybe it convinces them of the opposite -- and they push to make that law stronger or more restrictive. (Yeah, that's a risk when you draw attention to something... Wonder if some of these Occupy folks have considered that they may just find some backlash, and have people who paid off their college loans get a little ticked that they don't want to have to do the same. Just seizing on one issue that's been brought out... Imagine a law requiring public service if you can't pay off your loan...)
