zlacker

>>laurex+(OP)
I had been heartened by the right's recent upswing in fierce support for the first amendment, but unfortunately I've seen little of that support during the protests as freedom of assembly and freedom of the press have been attacked. For example Rand Paul has not tweeted in a week. Sadly, as always, these kind of principled arguments, on both sides, are a sham to advance whatever the partisan battle of the week is.

>>bosswi+V7
Because rioting isn’t free speech. All conservatives support peaceable assembly and protest. They also fiercely believe in property rights as inherently tied to the concept of liberty. It is right in the Declaration of Independence. No conservative worth his or her salt will defend theft, property destruction, etc.

>>rpiguy+QG
Anybody remember the Clinton administration, when the popular cry was "Charlton Heston is my president!" and "The purpose of the Right to Bear Arms isn't for hunting, it is so that politicians fear the people!"

Yeah, I don't either.

Yes, rioting isn't free speech. Unfortunately, nothing short of rioting seems to work---the people in question are poor and already at the bottom of the social pile, so their options seem limited.

>>mcguir+ZI
But rioting doesn’t work. The first comprehensive study of riots was just done at Princeton and riots are found to result in crackdowns, not reform. Occupy Wallstreet, Ferguson riots, 1968 riots, LA Riots, Camden riots, all had opposite the intended effect.

Democrats already had the African American vote and the cities. Rioting will swing the suburbs back to Republicans, completing the cycle again.

>>rpiguy+8K
Likely true. But a peaceful demonstration results in no media coverage and no changes at all.

This all will not end well.

P.s. Were there significant riots with the Occupy thing? I seem to recall it being mostly quiet (and completely ineffectual).