It still is a right. I went to inauguration protests myself. They had fences up around the route and we had to go through metal detectors and be searched to get near the street. The cops pepper sprayed the crowd through the fences.

What isn't a right though is violent insurrection, sedition, and storming government buildings. Preventing that, when it's been discussed and planned in the open, and threatens our democracy, seems very prudent.

At protest you attended, what would have happened if there were no fences, and no cops spraying the crowd? Would the government buildings have been stormed without?

And why do people expect them to be insufficient for keeping the trumpers at bay?

There were no open and organized calls for violence, attacking government institutions, or executing representatives, leading up to the protests I was a part of (someone did throw an egg though). There are now, and a recent and pretty successful attack on the Capital. That's why we need tighter controls now.

And what would have happened back then with no fences? The fences were a block back from the street, and I was inside them. Most likely there would have been a much larger visible protesting crowd along the route, and probably less conflict because people couldn't get in in time. I completely understand the metal detectors that were there, but I really doubt the chances of someone taking a shot back then are even 1/100th of the chances someone would next week.

Thanks this helps put things in perspective.

They absolutely have the right to do that. They don't however have the affirmative right to be helped in their quest to do that.

They have also lost the presumption of good faith. Lots of things start to suck when people just start assuming that you'll up and try to kill someone if you're allowed into the area. Triply so if they keep saying that that's exactly what they want to do.

Or shorter "actions have consequences".

You can still peacefully protest it. Just beware the company you keep.

I seem to recall protests where they firebombed police stations. Don't get me wrong, I supported those protests and paid a good chunk of money out of pocket to bail out protestors, that's how I remember.

They can still protest it, although why you’d protest a free and fair election is beyond me.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

They're protesting because they think it wasn't free and fair.

Edit: What's controversial about this? This is literally stating what the protestors think.

And that claim has been evaluated in 40 different courts, and debunked. At what point does simply thinking something take precedence over the need for a peaceful transition of power?

I've heard that but can't find the cases went into discovery and were heard to weigh those claims. Do you know which cases did?

I'd love to read the details because that's not "debunking" but outright "disproving" which would be immensely useful.

"Debunked" wasn't the right word. They were tossed by the judges for lack of evidence.

I believe legally, those would be claims or allegations, not evidence.

I'm still hoping to find cases that went into discovery and the evidence (not just allegations) were torn apart and evaluated. So far I've only found lack of standing and latches so not particularly helpful.

There was certainly no shortage during / following the incumbent president's inauguration.

It isn't unreasonable that people wish to publicly express their discontent with the choice their peers made even if they don't believe any rules were broken. My own state saw a lot of protests when a certain politician was elected governor despite no one seriously suggesting the election was rigged in his favor.

If nothing else, it shows the incoming politician that they do not have the support of a large number of their constituents and therefor have no claim to a mandate.

> although why you’d protest a free and fair election is beyond me.

Protests of discontent against duly elected politicians serve to remind that politician of the people's will, which the politician is supposed to represent during his time in office. Also, since politicians are usually concerned with reelection, protests show them a demographic that they might have to satisfy somehow in order to secure that reelection.

Sure, people coming out to protest Biden’s inauguration are likely to be an extremist fringe and there is little that a Biden administration could do to immediately satisfy them. But the fact that large numbers of citizens can come together to voice any idea peacefully, no matter how weird, has historically been concerned a good thing in the West.

Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done and statistically speaking it was not seen to be done.

"Although there’s no widespread evidence of election fraud, fully 72 percent of Republicans say they don’t trust the presidential election results."[0] That article was from December, so things may have changed since. But it's clear that something is seriously wrong when the distrust numbers are that large.

[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/22/do-republ...

If the distrust numbers are so large despite no evidence of any fraud at all, then perhaps the problem is not the election but whoever is talking to 72% of the republicans...

The normal burden of proof: is there evidence of crime? But maybe the system needs to go further than that, and demonstrate that it is sound. Outreach? Meet and greet the counters? Count watching party (in the sense of cookies and soft drinks)? Some conspiracy theorists might never be convinced, but this is more than that.

This is just false, as has been repeatedly examined in various courts. If you have non-debunked evidence to the contrary, when everyone else has gone looking and found nothing, perhaps you ought to present it?

I'm not going to argue with you as you seem to have a completely fixed viewpoint, which I am assume no amount of evidence will shake. You can do the research yourself if you are so inclined. You reference the dismissed court cases, as if courts solely prove or disprove the validity of information--regardless, I'll leave you with this:

"Republicans argue that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote count, they can’t provide that evidence and have asked for discovery. Still, while the courts have agreed that irregularities have occurred, they weren’t willing to grant discovery unless Republicans first present enough evidence of fraud to overturn the election. Republicans thus faced a kind of Catch 22."

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988

> no amount of evidence

Surely some amount greater than zero would be a start, however. Citing statistics isn't a great first choice, since it's so easy to retroactively fit statistics to whatever outcome you want to see. Fraud on the scale you are alleging would leave a hell of a lot of evidence that couldn't possibly be completely swept under the rug. A misapplication of Benford's Law is a really weak argument.

Which vote counts were they unable to watch?

Not all sets of numbers follow Benford's law. https://youtu.be/etx0k1nLn78?t=442

Really? After 4 years of unrelenting conspiracy theories that the 2016 election was not "free and fair", I find that an interesting comment.