|
The fact that they weren't breaking the law. Your entire post here is going into hypotheticals that don't exist. Which generally is what happens when you are against something, but the actual facts on the ground don't allow you to make an arguement.
If an adult with the strength of a 3 year old started hitting (and hurting) a body builder, the body builder totally should hit back. There should be no reason he should have to allow himself to be hit and hurt just because the jackass who is doing it is hiding behind their own weakness. |
No, if an adult with the strength of a 3 year old started hitting a body builder, the body buider should still not hit back. Doesn't have to just take it, but hitting back isn't right either. Two wrongs don't make a right, and when you have the power to do a much greater wrong, than all the more so you shouldn't. Of course, in this case, the body builder hitting back isn't an analogy for the corporation stopping people from trespassing, that would be more like if the body builder restrained the wimpy adult at arms length. The hitting back is analogous to the corporation going farther than stopping trespassing, and infringing upon the person's life and livelihood.
My entire post is going into hypotheticals that DO exist, which is precisely the problem. I don't give a shit about Vera personally. It wasn't fracking or Vera that made me click on the thread, it was wondering what it meant by corporate dictatorship. I read it and determined that indeed there was corporate abuse of power happening. A lady can't go to various places that she needs to go, and has done nothing to deserve that. Yes, she trespassed, but not on those areas. That seems simple enough. I write one sentence you don't like, and you feel the need to bring me into the debate. You dodge everything I say by focusing on some small aspect of what I said and twisting my words.
Look, neither of us think that trespassing should be legal. Neither of us think what she did was legal. Neither of us think that protesting isn't a right under the constitution. Neither of us think that private property shouldn't be protected. Neither of us think that laws should apply unequally to certain people or entities. I presume that neither of us really like this particular protester. I don't, and I don't get the impression that you do. However neither of us think that how much we like a person or cause should affect how the law affects a person or entity. Hence, neither of us think that the company was wrong to kick Vera off the business sites she was causing a problem on. We agree on all of that.
What we don't seem to agree on are two things. First, you seem to think that the law doesn't say that Vera is barred from various places unrelated to fracking, and that it's a misinterpretation of the law, or that if it isn't, that the company won't bother Vera if she goes to the fracking unrelated places. I disagree, as the interpretation seems correct to me, and I don't trust the corporation not to abuse their power. Second, you seem to think that corporations wouldn't do this on purpose to stop protesters, and that the potential in a law to be abused shouldn't be corrected. I disagree, because I think it is only common sense as a corporation to try to shut up protesters without having to listen to their demands, and any corporation doing the opposite is an anomaly. I also think that if something can be abused, it will be, and it's better to take precautions against it's abuse than to wait for it to be abused. If a law can potentially be abused, it should be corrected, and this is an example of that. If you disagree with me on these things, then you'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm not changing my mind.
There is a third possibility that you might be disagreeing with me on, I'm not sure. At times you seem to suggest that if the company WERE to bar Vera from a hospital, supermarket, lake shore, etc., that they would not only be legally protected, but also would be doing the right thing. I agree that they are legally protected to do that, however I think it would be wrong to do that to her. Maybe they wouldn't do that to her, but the fact that the law allows for it, which I believe it does, is something that bothers me. If you do in fact think that the company not only legally CAN, but actually SHOULD bar her from those places, then...holy crap, I don't even know what to say to you. That's horrible. If you don't, but you think that a law allowing for something like that should be allowed to remain as it is, then again, that's horrible. If you don't think that either, but are just trying to say that company did nothing wrong, and this whole huge conversation was just to defend the company's right to file a restraining order in the first place then...huh...okay...I never said they couldn't, whatever. But maybe you're just mad that I don't trust them not to file charges if she goes on the sites unrelated to fracking, and you think they wouldn't and she should just stop trespassing on the drilling sites and still feel free to go to the supermarket. If you think that, you're just naive. I'm sorry.
