What if you are, say, an animal rights activist, silently protesting in front of a slaughterhouse? Or an advocate for criminal justice reform, silently protesting in front of a private prison? Or an environmental activist, silently protesting in front of a polluting factory? Do you believe all that should be illegal too?

Again, the context is different. And I think you’re deliberately ignoring it to make a more general argument. I’m not sure that’s helpful.

Patients and employees turn up to an abortion clinic. The patients being the ones who could be intimidated, less so the employees.

A slaughterhouse and a private prison are only frequented by employees. But likewise, if the protest was held outside the houses of employees from the slaughterhouse or private prison, this is again blurring the line of protest vs intimidation.

What is the intent? Is it to gather support and influence public opinion to change the rules around an activity? Or is it to intimidate participants in an activity to affect their behaviour?

How about workers striking and silently standing in front a business?

I think the issue is that standing silently is intimidating and it’s a form of speech. But it should be allowed.

The purpose of the abortion protesters is to stop people from getting abortions.

The purpose of strikers is to stop customers buying and scabs working.

Etc etc.

I think we need to avoid “context” that makes things we agree with right and things we disagree with wrong.

I agree that workers strike/slaughterhouse/intimidation of scabs && prolife/abortion clinic/patients are better examples to debate.

I think the vulnerability of patients at an abortion clinic is an important factor. But I also think a similar argument could made for ‘scabs’.

It’s good food for thought, thanks.

> What if you are, say, an animal rights activist, silently protesting in front of a slaughterhouse? Or an advocate for criminal justice reform, silently protesting in front of a private prison? Or an environmental activist, silently protesting in front of a polluting factory? Do you believe all that should be illegal too?

If the aim is to intimidate and harass vulnerable people, yes.

> If I stood out front of your house and silently prayed for your family as they came and went, you’d eventually call the cops too. Especially if I brought my 20 mates and we stayed all night.

It’s not cut-and-dry https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1144/protests-in-ne...

It’s an tension between free speech and privacy.

> Protest should be utilised to bring attention to issues, and change the opinion of the majority, to enact change.

That’s the goal.

In a free society, however, no one group owns the definition of an issue; and being near a protest is also intimidating whether or not that is the protestors’ intent.

That alone doesn’t justify restricting protests.

I can see no charitable way to take this naivety. Either this person is so incredibly sheltered your reasonable response will not be understood because it looks like an alien wrote it (to them) or (IMO much more likely) this is a bad-faith response.