Any SCOTUS decision limiting petitioning to government offices. In fact, it is generally argued they can take place anywhere. The action itself is the petitioning, not any faux handing over of a document with a lot of signatures.
Technically, yes, "petitioning" is drawing the attention of the government to a cause or an issue, regardless of where it takes place.
But, in practice, the government holds office hours and makes available multiple ways to "petition" the government without creating a disturbance or a disruption.
That said, it does not mean that people can't make disturbances or disruptions. They can. But when they do, they must take responsibility and be prepared to suffer ordinary penalties. Additionally, they should not expect to but might risk suffering bad treatment at the hands of the authorities including excessive punishment, harsh handling, injury and death. Nobody should have to suffer such risks, but life is uncertain and the authorities employee an excessive number of bullies, racists, thugs and fascists. (Note: even one is too many.)
The purpose of such demonstrations is to inconvenience the public, to draw their attention to what the demonstrators believe is a wrong.
Correct.
As a veteran road sitter myself (both Iraq Wars), I can tell you that nonviolent civil disobedience is not just a question of nicely dressed people standing in tidy groups in front of the courthouse waiting for the cops to arrive, where upon they all calmly and quietly climb into the paddy wagon.
True.
It also includes going limp, shouting slogans while in custody, refusing to cooperate with the booking system, extending solidarity to fellow prisoners, going on a hunger strike or pray-in while inside.
Those are all valid protest actions. Going limp is an excellent tactic because it is non-resisting but increases the delay and inconvenience. Solidarity is always desirable. Shouting slogans is part of solidarity and effectively promotes the cause. Hunger strikes are very risky and not so effective so I do not recommend them. The only effect of praying is to provide comfort to those who believe in prayer.
These actions may not be "civil" according to your rather constricted definition, but they are certainly nonviolent disobedience.
Yup. With the emphasis on non-violent. Very civil according to my definition which matches with the generally accepted definition of civil disobedience.
And as for throwing bottles and rocks, did you know Martin Luther King Jr. Was a communist? Or that BLM is a black nationalist Marxist group? Or the POTUS is not an American? Yes, a cop told me...
As to that, it is a bunch of gobbledy-gook that has no relationship to the rest of your otherwise excellent post.
= new reply since forum marked as read
?itok=VoWDr1E-
