• BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      My point was that I don’t think it’s absurd for it to not be legal to completely block access to a facility, and that if it were established to be completely legal, malicious groups could cause quite a lot of harm. The law cannot be selectively applied to causes deemed noble, and you probably don’t want the government having the power to decide which those are.

      There’s a difference between inconveniencing someone and making it impossible for them to operate and conduct legal affairs. Again, if some group of people were pissed off at you for whatever reason, should it be legal for them to block you from entering your home?

      Even in strikes, picket lines don’t make it physically impossible to enter a workplace; they only make in significantly more unpleasant. To flip this, would you defend the right of oil workers to physically prevent Greta from leaving her hotel? Because the law cannot distinguish between these situations. Either this is a legal protest tactic, by any and all parties, or it isn’t.

      Thunberg was among dozens of protesters who chanted “oily money out” and sought to block access to the hotel on Tuesday.

      I should be clear, I’m basing this off of this line in the article; if they were just standing outside and chanting and access wasn’t prevented, I’d wholeheartedly agree that this would be a gross violation of free speech.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ultimately, this is philosophical difference in how much we value rule of law and individual rights and how willing we are to sacrifice them for causes we deem as more important. Everyone has their own line there, so I won’t fault you for having a different one than me.

          Personally, I’m not convinced that protests of this nature really accomplish anything of consequence, but I may be something of a cynic. I’d much rather see pressure aimed at politicians who can actually enact changes over simply annoying some oil executives that will only ever pursue profit as much as legally allowed.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you have to tell yourself that I’m some heartless bootlicker, go ahead. Personally, I feel pretty fine with myself and think I’ll manage to live with an internet rando thinking I’m a simp for big oil. Enjoy your day.

              • cman6@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                For some reason you can’t have a reasonable discussion in this thread. I agree with everything you’ve said above.