It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.
The fact that there are people out there wasting their own time and their own resources standing on the street for days and protesting is proof enough that there is something wrong. Why would anyone protest if there wasn't something (that they thought was) seriously wrong going on?
> It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.
It's certainly better for the status quo, because "civilized" protest actually requires the other side to want to change things. In reality, it often does not, and "civilized" protests end up being exercises in futility. That's why protests happen - it's a form of pressure.
It’s pretty cruel and brutal to me but it gets them what they want I guess.
The real question is, in a modern society, where freedom of speech exists, how disruptive should protests be allowed to be?
I don’t know the answer myself but I think some limits may be required.
Sure, that's cruel. Unlike Louis XVI, the sheep and cows were not the ones who were accountable for a deeply unfair status quo.
> The real question is, in a modern society, where freedom of speech exists, how disruptive should protests be allowed to be?
Freedom of speech alone does not guarantee fairness.
> I don’t know the answer myself but I think some limits may be required.
What are the guarantees that legislative or executive power over such limits does not get abused for profit or ideology?
That sounds like the logic behind "free speech zones". Yeah, we're not blocking protests, or arresting legal protesters. You just have to protest in a designated area 5 miles away where it won't disrupt everyone.