Hello again, all. Lively discussion, here, and I'd love to express my agreement/disagreement/pov/amusement on some of the things said. Probably won't get to all of that, since I also want to stick to the main topic. *Sigh* Such is life.
Salient points, yes. As for the implementation of the law, though, I'd love to agree with you on toward whom certain aspects would be likely to apply, but that's the problem. If that were the case (ie, intention), two significant things would not already have happened. Thusly:
1. The law would not have been worded so as to make it a punishable offense to encourage others to protest, regardless of where/when.
2. The police would most likely have focused on violent protesters/those blatantly causing material disruption, rather than peaceful demonstrators. Truthfully, this might well be a case of overzealousness on the part of a few well-meaning but misguided officers, but from some of the footage I've seen and stories I've heard from folks involved, it certainly does appear to be more of an institutionalised pattern of behaviour.
I entirely agree with you, there. Each person has rights, and for some to insist that others join in a protest (striking from class), is just as bad as denying folks the right to do so.
Rods and cones. I agree that folks tend to get a little involved in significant issues, sometimes to the point where it becomes an ideological dichotomy ("my viewpoint v. anything else"). But, it has to be said: we have colour vision. Very few things are as simple as 'shades of grey', and almost none as simple as 'black and white.' Minor point, I know, but I'm a stickler sometimes.
Must disagree, here. Again, "offering encouragement = exercise of free speech," "subject to penalty = infringement of freedom of speech." That said, the right belongs to everyone, so I wouldn't think people protesting its infringement are necessarily thinking only of themselves.
I do agree, here, and completely, both with the poster and the law in question. Nothing wrong with a protest, and, if it helps keep things from getting out of hand (violence, injuries, property damage, people not involved in the protest disrupting it...), it's a good idea to let the police know ahead of time, so they can have folks on hand to help out, if necessary. Likewise, demonstrating on private property (college grounds?) is a little out of line, too.
Gotta admit, I'm no mind reader, so I don't know if I should agree or disagree. Do the protesters think/feel this way? Couldn't say. As for the freedoms of others, I agree that they are equally important and should not be infringed upon, either. And, since the bill doesn't seem to discriminate in any way regarding who does the "providing of encouragement," it's arguable that one could face penatlies for saying, "fine, you go to that protest," whether one means it or not. Interesting, no?
Why, indeed? I wholeheartedly agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to advocate freedom while limiting another's. Just doesn't seem the thing someone legitimately protesting would do. Of course, as we've said, weed out the folks doing the dirty deeds, and what you're left with ought to be the folks with a legitimate beef. Seems to be the case, of late.
Speaking as an anarchist, philosophically speaking, I'm mildly offended by the generalised implication, there, but I do know language is flexible. For the record, behaviourally, I'm more inclined to categorise the offenders as nihilists. Meanwhile, I agree. And, with this, as well: And this: Splendid! I absolutely adore this, it's so apt! You are correct, each and every person has the right to protest or encourage another to protest, regardless of how anyone else feels about what they say. Enacting a law threatening penalties and empowering the police to derail a demonstration is just the sort of bullying the public needn't stand for. Citizens do have the right to carry on the business of protest, regardless of draconian measures aimed at silencing them. And when a law is wrong, unfair, and infringing on the rights of citizens, no matter how "good" the legislators may believe their argument in enacting it, it is the duty of free citizens to ignore it.
Finally, to paraphrase your opening, as well as to touch on another point (good on you for tying the two together), "Your (g, I guess) right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." The freedom to passively be in a place or position should be inviolable, and actively opposing it is unreasonable, at best. The right to speak, to protest, is essentially fundamental, and for those inconvenienced by it, that's unfortunate. More reason for early notifications, I'd say. Know a road's gonna be out, or traffic's bad in a particular area? Go another route, right? Great stuff, folks. Loving it.
Oh, one last thing:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...ht-of-protest/
You know there's something to the protest when the guys who should know are protesting.