The only way public demonstrations are going to have an effect is for them to be massive and concentrated. That does not mean widespread protests are a bad idea per se, but that if none of the protests actually have mass, they are going to be ignored by both officials and your fellow citizens as a temporary annoyance for which they will hold little sympathy.
Development of public support against greater security at the cost of freedom is the only way to make meaningful change. Yes, marches/demonstrations can be part of this. But small demonstrations do not alone capture the public's interest. One must capture the public mind--and that means informing the public and winning their support of having less "security" where weaking or violating the protections of their basic rights are concerned.
Right now, as various polls have showed, far too many Americans desire the feeling and theater of security. They are content to be invaded at airport security because eventually they can still fly. They are content to have their communications slurped up because they can still send that email and make that phone call.
It's not until they're staring at a public fountain from which they are not able to drink because it has a stupid printed sign above it that says "Whites Only" that the public will accept that things have gone horribly wrong.
I think demonstrations would be excellent to see, but not if they're anything like the Occupy movement, which the wider public opposed against their own self interest. It is very difficult to get the public's attention when they do not feel the effects. The public is rather shitty at evaluating and appreciating things in the abstract. Demonstrations that are massive and concentrated would have a much more significant impact. Think of the Civil Rights March on Washington. That level of mass and concentration. Doubling it would be even better.
And yet, even that basic right to protest has been severely weakened by the fact that one must get a permit to protest in many of the locations that would be tactically good choices. This is madness. The 4th is not the only Amendment that the People have allowed to be weakened over the last two centuries.
Americans have become very lazy where protecting their rights are concerned, because the vast majority of Americans do not participate in protecting those rights when they are violated against minority factions.
> The only way public demonstrations are going to have an effect is for them to be massive and concentrated. That does not mean widespread protests are a bad idea per se, but that if none of the protests actually have mass, they are going to be ignored by both officials and your fellow citizens as a temporary annoyance for which they will hold little sympathy.
This statement sounds a little defeatist and gives an excuse for not participating in demonstrations (since the required massive scale is likely not reached, one might be better of not going).
Actually demonstrations, even if they do not effect immediate change, will still have a number of positive outcomes. First, they will likely be reported on in the news (at least that would be the case in Germany), raising awareness. Second, demonstrators will meet like minded individuals with whom they can network and form strategies. Third, demonstrators will realize that they are not isolated and feel more empowered as a result. Last, it will at least remind the public and politicians that some people do care about this.
Is any of this enough to affect change? Likely not. But it is a first step and if we can't even go demonstrate against this then we might as well stop caring. The possibility that demonstrations will not have the immediate effect we desire should not stop us.
Development of public support against greater security at the cost of freedom is the only way to make meaningful change. Yes, marches/demonstrations can be part of this. But small demonstrations do not alone capture the public's interest. One must capture the public mind--and that means informing the public and winning their support of having less "security" where weaking or violating the protections of their basic rights are concerned.
Right now, as various polls have showed, far too many Americans desire the feeling and theater of security. They are content to be invaded at airport security because eventually they can still fly. They are content to have their communications slurped up because they can still send that email and make that phone call.
It's not until they're staring at a public fountain from which they are not able to drink because it has a stupid printed sign above it that says "Whites Only" that the public will accept that things have gone horribly wrong.
I think demonstrations would be excellent to see, but not if they're anything like the Occupy movement, which the wider public opposed against their own self interest. It is very difficult to get the public's attention when they do not feel the effects. The public is rather shitty at evaluating and appreciating things in the abstract. Demonstrations that are massive and concentrated would have a much more significant impact. Think of the Civil Rights March on Washington. That level of mass and concentration. Doubling it would be even better.
And yet, even that basic right to protest has been severely weakened by the fact that one must get a permit to protest in many of the locations that would be tactically good choices. This is madness. The 4th is not the only Amendment that the People have allowed to be weakened over the last two centuries.
Americans have become very lazy where protecting their rights are concerned, because the vast majority of Americans do not participate in protecting those rights when they are violated against minority factions.