Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"Economic harm" is a really weak criterion all around for restricting protest rights and one ripe for abuse. I'm not sure if this is the only impact that a line should be drawn at all.

"Public safety" is a good one, you're free to protest but there has to be adequate access for emergency services to get to people in need.

"No significant destruction" is a good one, not just making a mess in the streets but when your movement starts actively destroying property, looting, etc.

If you keep doing economic harm, your movement will tend to get pretty unpopular pretty quickly and the social pressure instead of government force will likely get to you in the end.

Lots of people walking of the job will do significant amounts of economic harm, I don't want people in certain jobs to become effective slaves because their job is important to the economy. And also a general strike is a very powerful action which should be done from time to time, explicitly very economically powerful and definitely should be protected.



> No significant destruction" is a good one, not just making a mess in the streets but when your movement starts actively destroying property, looting, etc

This one is also ripe for abuse - outside forces have been using agents provocateurs for centuries, often undercover cops.


Notably the Canadian government has numerous examples of employing agents provocateurs, enough examples that there is a section of the Wikipedia article dedicated to examples from the Canadian government. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#Canada




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: