The Forum > General Discussion > The Right To Protest?
The Right To Protest?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 21
- 22
- 23
-
- All
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 31 May 2014 5:38:09 PM
| |
cont'd ...
I guess that I'm probably not putting things very well here and you guys can probably do much better than I'm doing. My primary concern is not to tar all protests with the same brush. As Annabel Crabb did. It is the bad eggs that tend to make the news, get the attention, and distort the message. I also can't help wondering if this is something the media focuses on far too often .They do it deliberately - as do the politicians who are keen to focus on the bad eggs to deflect from the reasons people are protesting in the first place. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 31 May 2014 5:51:29 PM
| |
Those who behaved like rock apes at that Q&A should have their Uni attendance cancelled. They clearly do not deserve access Taxpayer funded facilities.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 31 May 2014 6:04:22 PM
| |
one protestor in Australia gaoled because he refused move on orders (and paying subsequent fines) when showing an actual picture of an unborn child outside abortion industry. Usually 'progressive ' scream the right to protest unless it is not part of their world view. The ferals on Q&A had no right to shut down free speach although they would of found good bedfellows with the ABC.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 31 May 2014 6:05:00 PM
| |
<In other words -
the more violent and disruptive a protest - the more media attention it's going to attract. Hence good for the "cause."> Good for whose cause though? Students might want their plight known, but the pests who invaded Q&A had their own secondary agenda. It became headline hunting for some individuals and a looney Left mob - public nuisances - who crave attention and see power in disrupting 'authority'. What about this? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-20003058 Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 31 May 2014 6:07:28 PM
| |
Good for what cause?
Excellent question. I'm merely going on what one of the student organisers quoted and spoke of on TV. She seemed to feel that the publicity received brought more attention to the plight of students. She felt that people were now made aware of student feelings and now at least people were discussing the issues of student fees, et cetera. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 31 May 2014 6:18:23 PM
|
And please don't get me wrong - I do believe that the
right to protest should be regarded as a necessary and
accepted means of expression. What spoils it for me -
are those people who for whatever reason take over the
demonstrations and obstruct the message that the others
are trying to get through. The ones who (for whatever
reason - simply disrupt and wreck things for everyone else).
However, I was told by a guest over dinner -
that the media thrives on what's "newsworthy,"
rather than quiet and peaceful. In other words -
the more violent and disruptive a protest - the more media
attention it's going to attract. Hence good for the "cause."
I was told that -photographers do not photograph peaceful protests.
Does anyone agree with this - and how true is it?