Putzing around on the InnerNut, I came across this story on todays protests in NYC. They're basically covering themselves in fake blood and lying down in the middle of the street, stopping traffic and causing widespread disturbances. About 150 have been arrested.
We endured something similar in Ft. Fun a few days ago, and an interesting idea has been floating around since then. The core of the idea is that it costs a fair amount of money to have 20-30 police officers protect these mental infants, making sure no one gets hurt and that they don't hurt anyone else. So, all those who abuse the police protection (eg. picking fights with cops or bystanders, laying down in the street, throwing up on the sidewalk, hurling shit at buildings, starting riots, destroying private or public property, et cetera) should be arrested and slapped with a fine large enough to cover the cost of having the police babysit them instead of doing their regular patrols as well as pay to repair the damage the protests caused.
Protesters who peacefully assemble and present their views would not be considered for this treatment unless they crossed the line I mentioned above. Those that do cross the line would probably find themselves financially strapped after only a few incidents, leaving those who are serious about winning minds and hearts to do the protesting. I've read several interviews with peace protesters who were upset with the violent fringe. They claimed, rightfully so IMO, that the fringes were distracting from the message they were trying to deliver. A fine system such as this would help the serious protesters as much as it would those trying to occupy the same planet as them.
I didn't come up with this idea, but the more I examine it the more I like it. Any opinions from readerland?
Posted by Dork at March 27, 2003 04:30 PM | TrackBackThat would be patently unfair to the poverty-stricken socialists who want only to steal our money through the miracle of taxation (but only for the causes they consider right, mind you). You see, people like me could afford to protest for a fortnight while they would be running on a stopwatch lest they end up bankrupt.
Posted by: andy on March 27, 2003 04:47 PMMwahahahaha!
Posted by: Matt on March 27, 2003 04:51 PMExcellent idea. Unfortunately the ACLU would probably jump in and fight extensively for these morons' rights under the guise of the 1st Amendment. Better to round them up and ship 'em to Iraq and give them a taste of the dictatorship they're providing aid and comfort to with their actions.
Posted by: Stu on April 1, 2003 09:05 AMA person never tells you anything until contradicted.
Posted by: Ellman Wendy on December 10, 2003 11:26 PMBelieving in God does not require believing in religion.
Posted by: Kaplan Jodi on December 21, 2003 12:59 AMBelieving in God does not require believing in religion.
Posted by: Bevington Sarah on January 10, 2004 04:13 AM