Sounds to me like you're brainwashed by corporate propaganda. Why are you even bringing GMOs into this? Just because both issues involve public health concerns at the expense of corporations doesn't mean he supports the anti GMO movement.

Except he does support the GMO's movement.

I've brought this up because we've had many political conversations before where he only knew one side of the story.

He tends to not fully research out both sides of things before he gets upset.

Show me where in the first ammendment you have a right to go into peoples homes and other private property without their permission, constantly.

Because that's why this restraining order was issued.   She kept going on to their private property without permission... and bringing a bunch of other people.

So she got a restraining order barring her from all buisnsses owned by the people she kept invading.

Not sure what about that seems very controversial.  Just that they own a lot of stuff i guess.

I mean, if you owned a warehouse where you stored valueable things... would you be perfectly cool with people just randomly breaking into your warehouse at all hours of the day...   is that protected by the first ammendment?

Will you also be perfectly cool when one of them fucks around too much and a crate crushses them, making YOU legally responsible since you knew thes people were tresspassing and never made any steps to stop them from doing so?



I think your letting your support for the stopping of fracking, get in the way of pretty open and shut case.

You can't go into other peoples property, and if you do... courts should be able to give you a restraining order... to make you stay away from places you aren't even supposed to be in the first place.

Hell she's god damn lucky the police haven't been called on her.

Thinking that the court doesn't have the right to do this is like thinking the court shouldn't be allowed to ban your neighbor from coming onto your property and berating you every morning because they don't like the car you bought.

Private property is private property. People do not have a right to enter private property. There were people in my town protesting KXL pipeline, but they did so in front of the town hall. That is public property, naturally that is fine.

People getting upset about this type of ruling is obnoxious, because it is generally hypocritical. I am sure plenty of people appalled by this would be perfectly happy if a judge banned anti-abortion activists from protesting in front of a privately owned health care facility.

More like... INSIDE a privately owned health care facility.  Where they can shout at the abortion doctors while they're working.

Since the whole issue was that she was specifically going on their property.

If she was protesting on the public areas adjacnet to the land, that would of been fine.

Alright, you shouldn't be able to go on private property, I'll give you that. Yes, it should apply to more than just homes, and include businesses. The reason I think it's so controversial, and why I jumped to first amendment right to assembly, was that some of the places had nothing to do with the protests, and it just seemed like a war on peaceful protesting. I recognize she's rather vocal and obnoxious, but as far as I can tell she's been doing what would be considered peaceful protests. Tresspassing, yes, but the protesting part is legal. Some of the places she's barred from may be privately owned, but they're still public spaces. The lake shore for example. It just feels like an abuse of power to bar someone from a lake shore because they entered a business unwelcome. Or the hospital. How the hell does the company that handles the fracking own a hospital? Fine, whatever, apparently they do. But this means in an emergency, she could die because she was barred from the closest hospital. Some of these places don't seem like much of a stretch to bar her from, but others it just seems like an abuse of power to make her life miserable. Protecting private property? Sure. Refusing her money at a restaurant where she probably wouldn't be doing any protests anyway since it's in no way associated with the fracking business? Seem like they're just being dicks there. Perhaps 1st amendment rights isn't what's being harmed here, since again, the places causing the controversy aren't even the places she's protesting, but it still seems like they're doing everything they can to shut her up, which bothers me. No one likes what the Westboro Baptist Church has to say, but they have a right to say it. Denying them from accessing funeral homes seems reasonable, commen sense even, as you say, but if you were to deny them from hospitals just to make their lives miserable in hopes of getting them to stop, I'd say you were going too far. As much as I'd love them to spontaneously fall over dead, I don't think we should manipulate the law to make their lives miserable to fight back against them.I bring them up just as an example that it has nothing to do with fracking, but purely the principle of the thing. In the case of the fracking, I actually do agree that it's common sense that they should be able to kick her out of a place where they do business, if that business is one of the businesses she's disrupting. Barring her from an oil refinery, that makes sense. Barring her from a drilling sit, that makes sense. Barring her from a recycling center won't change how much she protests, it'll just make less recycling happen, it makes no sense and is just a dick move. Barring her from a restaurant won't change how much she protests, it'll mean less money for the restaurant, no sense, a dick move. Barring her from a supermarket will make life very inconvenient for her, but it won't change how much she protests. Makes no sense. Just a dick move. She's not disrupting those businesses, she shouldn't be discriminated against there. I wouldn't support that kind of discrimination no matter how disgusting the people are, again, even if they were the Westboro Baptist Church. There's a reason this is news, and it isn't that people think we should have no right to privacy. It's that these people are using their money to bully someone. Sure, that someone is pretty obnoxious, and probably just makes the anti-fracking movement look really, really bad, but that doesn't mean you should be able to make her life miserable. She didn't have proper representation in court, either, so that wasn't fair.

The whole thing just smells of corruption. It might be defendable by the law, but that doesn't make it right. A lot of people, that might otherwise support her cause, think she deserves this because she's not a very nice person, but to me it just seems corrupt, doesn't matter who it inconveniences. What if this were a protester of a cause you support, or at the very least were indifferent to? Let's say you were prolife (or prochoice), and a company that profited from abortions (or, I dunno, more births) barred a person from not just abortion clinics (hospitals? whatever you get the point), but also random services the protester used all throughout their hometown? Whether you support their cause or not, letting corporations get away with bullying a protester like that just feels wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, fracking might be viable, but there's too much conflicting information right now and it seems like it could potentially be dangerous. I know there's sources that say it isn't, but there are also sources that say it is, and the sources that say it isn't tend to be associated with the companies that are fracking, and the sources that say it is tend to be associated with their opponents, so it just seems like a mess, and I think it would be irresponsible to just jump into fracking without further research. The gas isn't going anywhere, but if there's merit to the health concerns or environmental concerns, the damage could be irreversible. I'm not satisfied with the current amount of research done. I normally like less red tape on things, but I consider public health and the environment to both be matters of public interest and therefore something the government has a place in regulating.

Edit: TL;DR: I see your point about private property, and try to explain the connection I drew to the 1st amendment and why I still think the actions taken against her feel corrupt to me. I also clarify that this is less about the specific issue of fracking and more about the potential of corporations or other wealthy entities to silence protesters via what seems to me like bullying, and that this seems dangerous to the right to protest in general regardless of the issue in question. To prevent further assumptions about my stance on fracking, I clarify that as well.

Well, I was more referring to in the parking lot, which is still private property

Well first off.  This isn't news.  It was posted in a very small handful of papers, pretty much all either "Tabloid" news papers or green newspapers.

Secondly They aren't using their money to bully someone, they are using their money to stop somebody from tresspassing.  The restarining order they filed with the court only sought to ban her from drilling sites and access roads they own.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/business/fractivist-barred-from-cabot-sites-1.1572181

The hospital, mechanics etc... are just her and her lawyers interpretation of the court order.

So either

A) Her lawyer and her are basically making shit up to make a serial tresspasser who was endagering peoples lives look tragic.

B) She can't go to those places because of the court and how the law works, not distinguishing the buisnesses from the wells on the same plots of land.

Not the actual injunction filed by the company.

As that would be the legal issue that caused this presumibly.   It's that they've leased the Hospitals land rights for fracking and are drilling there.

Either way, it's rather hard to actually blame the company. 

For the record.  I'm Pro Choice.  And if a protestor i agreed or disagreed with broke the law dozens of times and tresspassed when they weren't supposed to... they've quite honestly made their own bed.

Otherwise the only option is they are granted free reign to harass the hell out of everybody on the excuse that if they did get any legal action taken against them it would harm them.

That's like running up and starting to hit you and telling you that you better not hit back because if you do they'd get hurt.

Just because it's a big corporation being injured doesn't mean that they should be forced to take it simply because the people willfully breaking the law are smaller.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not say she didn't trespass, nor am I contesting the simple fact that trespassers should be able to have legal action taken against them. I'm saying that it isn't trespassing to go to a supermarket who's business you aren't disrupting. If it is, then I see a serious danger to freedom of assembly. I'm not saying corporations shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, but they have a lot more power than one person. If a 3 year old comes up to you and starts hitting you, you as a professional body builder should not hit back. Picking the toddler up and putting him somewhere where he can't reach you is one thing, but actually hurting him is another. It's completely defensible to kick a trespasser off your land, but to try to stop protesting by deeply affecting the protesters life and livelihood is corrupt. I hear you say that it's her lawyers making this interpretation, but the fact is that for the interpretation to even be possible means that the risk is real and that there's a weakness in the legal system that allows for the abuse of power. It's not abuse to tell someone disrupting your drilling business to get off the land of that business, but it is abuse to say they can't go to a hospital. Apparently they're not saying that, but legally, she can't go to that hospital, her lawyers are right (oh wait, she had no lawyers for that case). It's still an issue that needs to be taken care of. If companies can play dirty and silence protesters by barring them from needed services, what's to stop more companies from doing this? It sets a bad precedent. I'm sure you'll say this was connected to her trespassing, and not every protester trespasses, but what's to stop something similar from happening to someone who didn't trespass, and was protesting completely within the protection of the law? A restraining order could still be taken out as a strategy to make the protester give up. It wouldn't directly forbid the protests, but it would make life miserable for the protester, pressuring them into stopping. It's a corrupt strategy and should be made legally impossible to use that strategy. If trespassing is so illegal, I don't see why they need a restraining order anyway. Like you said, they could have called the cops. Not saying there shouldn't be restraining orders, just that they shouldn't be abusable. You seem to think it's her overreacting with her interpretation and she can still go to the supermarket, but as far as I can see, the interpretation is correct, and therefore abusable. Even if there is no abuse happening as you claim, the ability to abuse should be taken care of. I mean really, what's the big deal? Just say that she can use the supermarket, hospital, and all those other things that aren't drilling sites. If you restrain her from going near the sites, but still let her go to the other places, what would either side have to complain about? It seems reasonable to me. If it's just an issue of interpretation of the law, get it clarified so that it doesn't cause a problem. Not asking for the moon here.

The fact that they weren't breaking the law.   I mean you may as well argue what's to stop that from randomly effecting you or me.... or for that matter any legal action taken against anybody for anything.   Better not put murders away because the law might be used randomly against me to throw me in jail.

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.

As for your example... the difference between a 3 year old and Scroggins is that Scroggins is an adult.

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.

Quite honestly, Cabot has shown remarkable restraint here... Cabot could of restricted her to a much smaller area... a prison cell for her tresspassing.  Which is why she herself didn't testify.  Because she would of totally incriminated herself.  (Well that and there are a ton of youtube videos showing her breaking the law...)

Also, they do mention her lawyer i guess you just didn't read the whole article.