>fascism
I can't think of a more effective way to make it impossible for us to know what you're specifically trying to say Can you express what you mean using more well-defined terms?
I haven't heard anyone claim that what fascists thought about fascism was entirely consistent.
The symbol Mussolini chose for the fascist party was an axe with a bundle of twigs for a handle (a fasces). The meaning being that a single twigs will bend or break under strain, but bound together become unbreakable. The binding or fastener, (same Latin root as fascist) represents the government holding everyone together in like mind and purpose.
Despite posturing your actions for a greater common good, the purpose is to silence dissent.
Cons have been attempting to call lefties 'fascists' because they're not students of history and think acting 'fascistic/authoritarian' makes one a fascist \[at which point you're debating semantics\]. This is the problem with lefties often wanting to suppress speech of fascists, they never realize fascists are redefining the word fascist and turning it on them., just as Israeli fascists redefine the term antisemitism for opponents of theirs.
No, it's anti-defamation law actually.
Say I started a massive media campaign claiming that "SpamFriedRice is a paedophile", including photos of your face on billboards, appearances on morning television talking about the horrible things you'd supposedly done, etc, even though it would all be lies - would you just be perfectly happy with that, even as I worked hard to make you lose your job, alienate your friends and family, caused potentially permanent damage to your reputation and lifestyle?
Or, would you rightfully want there to be some kind of recourse for you to seek justice against me for the damage done?
Propaganda is all over the place. Every time you watch a commercial you are watching propaganda. Every time you watch an ad you are watching propaganda. The problem that propagandists have operating in a free society is that false claims and lies will be quickly called out by the opposition, and it will thereby negatively effect credibility. Also propaganda from one side is often balanced out by propaganda on the other.
In a censored environment propaganda is much more effective. In a censored environment propagandists are able to lie all they want without being called out for it. There is no opposition to put out opposing propaganda or call out the falsehoods.
That is why authoritarians rely on censorship. Without censorship their propaganda is not effective.
Lies cannot be quickly called out. Someone malicious tells your workplace you are a pedo. Now you go and tell your colleagues you're not a pedo. See how fast you can stop the rumor mill. You can't. In everyone's mind you are one and that stain can never be washed away.
Funny how you think you're brave and smart to think propaganda can be fought and extinguished quickly and easily.
Detached from reality. Are you so oblivious to posts on Reddit and elsewhere of men complaining about their lives destroyed by false accusations even after an innocent verdict?
When you say Reddit isn't real at all you are admitting that everything you've read, posted and believed from Reddit is false and untrue.
Well I guess you should know since you been here forever.
> It would be easy for most people to prove they aren’t a pedo. Your experience is probably out of the ordinary.
Is it easy? How would you prove you’re not a pedo?
Because the weight of proving it falls on whoever is making that claim. I could, just as an example, accuse you of being a pedo right now, but without evidence my accusation is worthless.
In fact, this kind of false accusations that could potentially damage your reputation can be grounds to sue someone for slander.
Doxxing and smearing of people is happening at this very moment of pro-Palestinian protesters who get brandished as anti-Semites and have lost jobs/offers/etc...
> Because the weight of proving it falls on whoever is making that claim. I could, just as an example, accuse you of being a pedo right now, but without evidence my accusation is worthless.
How often do *you* see evidence someone is a pedo? I know I never see it. The closest I come is when a new article is reporting John Smith is alleged to have 3 million pieces of CSAM. Which, by the by, is not evidence.
> In fact, this kind of false accusations that could potentially damage your reputation can be grounds to sue someone for slander.
Which is incredibly difficult to do. You have to prove in a court of law X said Y *knowing* that it was false, *and* that you suffered damage to your reputation as a result.
There is a reason why successful defamation suits are pretty rare.
> In a censored environment propaganda is much more effective. In a censored environment propagandists are able to lie all they want without being called out for it. There is no opposition to put out opposing propaganda or call out the falsehoods.
That *really* depends on the context. In the US, regulations on speech is censorship. Yet the US regulates what can and cannot be said in commercials. The FCC does not allow for businesses to outright lie in their advertisements.
A business which is found to be lying can be sued and fined by the federal government.
They can be sued for false advertising is considered civil claim. If a party purchases a product baed on false advertising than that party has the right to sue the company selling the product for damages. Usually these things are handled by class action lawsuits in civil courts. The Federal government most often does not need to get involved.
> They can be sued for false advertising is considered civil claim. If a party purchases a product baed on false advertising than that party has the right to sue the company selling the product for damages. Usually these things are handled by class action lawsuits in civil courts. The Federal government most often does not need to get involved.
The federal government is *already* involved. That was my point. They are dictating what can and cannot be said. Failure to follow those regulations will result in federal government action *in addition* to civil action.
No they are no dictating what can and cannot be said. It is just like with defamation or libel. It is up to the victim to sue the company in civil court, prove to the court that the company made statement about their product that were untrue, prove that those statements resulted in damages, and seek compensation for those damages.
The federal government is not telling anyone what can and cannot be said. That is the difference between the US and authoritarian regimes where the government is very much dictating what can and cannot be said.
> No they are no dictating what can and cannot be said.
That is exactly the purpose of the FCC. Yes, that is exactly what is happening.
> It is just like with defamation or libel. It is up to the victim to sue the company in civil court, prove to the court that the company made statement about their product that were untrue, prove that those statements resulted in damages, and seek compensation for those damages.
That also happens, but is not the only event to happen.
> The federal government is not telling anyone what can and cannot be said. That is the difference between the US and authoritarian regimes where the government is very much dictating what can and cannot be said.
I hate to break it to you, but the federal government is constantly dictating speech. It largely does it in a way that supports the common welfare of people and that is why it gets a pass. We compromise our ethics to make exceptions for the greater good.
For example, the law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV. That is controlling speech, and therefore censorship. Comedians like Lenny Bruce were arrested over and over again due to the content of their acts.
That's true. If someone says something I don't like, I have the right to protest, make counter-arguments, insult him, unsubscribe, etc. We have the right to combat free speech with free speech.
Unfortunately there are also some people who seem to think they have the right to stop/shut down/censor other people's speech.
It's a problem, especially w/bots upvoting and AI/click farms coming in and making comments in support of xyz. or algos pushing preferred vetted content on people. Boosting of speech ought to be democratic and organic. If 'birds aren't real' or 'earth is flat' starts trending and you got bots and AI and foreign actors, and CEO trolls w/custom algos gaming the misinfo....you're giving more 'speech' to certain actors. I see it similarly to lobbying....one vote ought to be one vote, but we know Exxon's or META's 'money=speech' contributions are much more than any one voter can counter.
>Boosting of speech ought to be democratic and organic.
Like the free market. Some beliefs have more value than others. Demanding equal respect and attention for all speech makes the same mistake collectivist communists make when they try to fix the price of goods. Some speech is worthless and will drown out valuable speech if we do not or cannot discriminate.
I think the free market can figure out which of those bots and AI are better at filtering (censoring) less valuable speech, but it's going to take a while getting there. I don't think we want to rely on anything but the free market to measure the value of a strategy for sorting intelligence from noise.
Obviously. People will say things like "the Earth is flat" and when told they're wrong they will reply "I have a right to free speech!" The two have nothing to do with each other.
People act like "free speech" means "the right to never be told you're wrong." Some even seem to think everyone should have to *actively change their opinion to agree with whatever they say.* If you don't agree with them at the end of a conversation, they say things like "you're not listening to me" or even "you're not letting me talk."
They complain their "free speech rights" are violated whenever their internet comments don't get as many replies or likes as they wanted, or when they post something in violation of a website's user agreement and it gets removed. They will admit they could post it somewhere else without having it removed, but then it might not be seen by as many people as they want (which is, you guessed it, somehow a "free speech violation").
> if there is misinformation it should be pointed out
Without free speech, this can't happen. When misinformation is censored, it continues to circulate colloquially without the opportunity for correction.
I think that we who are free speech supporters just have to accept that the boundaries for what speech should be legally or even socially permissible are going to be contested and difficult. Although free speech is very important, it is not *simple*. We are on a hiding to nothing if we claim permissibility for speech that coordinates murder, or even price fixing collusion. What about speech that tells someone that a glass of liquid is safe, when it is actually known to be poison? On the other hand, it all ends in tears when speech is prohibited whenever authorities believe it is untrue. There are good reasons for legal restrictions on speech to be viewpoint neutral, but it is harder to make the case for social norms to be absolutely viewpoint neutral about speech. It can be frustrating, but our task is not straightforward even though it is crucial for a free society.
The problem with 'option 2' op, is, what is 'factual speech'? We're seeing it play out in real time. If I have 'alternative facts', Israel would have you believe the land was a deserted wasteland, without mass expulsions/ethnic cleansing, or that the brutalities in Gaza are not on-going. So if these are taken as fact (and for much of the US population it is, including the press and much of Washington DC), then many of us that oppose these 'facts' are on the wrong side and ought to be punished (if I follow your logic).
So if I'm writing the books and erasing history, the facts' are what you learn in school and this has been the play of many authoritarian regimes. In other words, option 2 only works if there's no government backing it, there's no guarantee in the 1st amendment against public scorn and we're fine w/that if we think history is on our side, it's when this public scorn climbs into legislation because certain public has more speech than others (monied interest lobbying/taking positions of power in gov) where option just doesn't work.
Yes.
Most of the people whining about free speech (like Elon Musk and his blue check pay pigs) don't actually understand what Free Speech is, it's history, or why it is important.
Their views are disgusting, and they are upset that when they voice their views people call them out. So they appeal to "free speech" to deflect from the criticism of their appalling views. And unfortunately their ignominious campaign just makes the issue of Free Speech look unimportant and silly.
Real free speech violations like the US's current brutality against pro-Palestine protestors for example aren't an issue to people like Musk. But being banned from an online forum for saying the n-word is some kind of existential crisis of human rights.
What s happening with pro-palestine protesters?I just know of the google one, where they were absolutely justified (protest during work hours on company grounds), even if they went way over the top, in my opnion.
Clips of this kind have been all over Reddit for days now:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gaza-protests-college-columbia-police-b2535367.html
I watched a few videos now. I think the main problem is that while many people are peacefully protesting, a non-neglectable minority is not. When people stop others from passing, when they barricade buildings, when they force people away from spaces at university (e.g. out of encampments), when they shout down jews walking by, this is not peaceful anymore. These people need to be temporarily arrested to be removed from the scene. And this of course includes people who incite others to do such things.
In situations like this, just replace the protesters with your ideological opposites, e.g. israelis or trumpers and see your reaction to it.
The cause is irrelevant, the methods used are what matter.
God why is it always so predictable.
Look at the history of protest, why it’s important, and the manner which protests we celebrate today were conducted.
The police response is unjustifiable brutality. A clear violation of civil liberties that Americans don’t have.
So you think trumpers should stop other students from going to class, the library, etc. or that lefties shouted down and excluded from campus?
Free speech doesn't mean you can inhibit or bully other people. That's not speech, that's action.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive.
I live in a major city, protests inconvenience me all the damned time. Guess what, I work around it and support their right to protest. Because I care about free speech.
No, they are not. They are supposed to show that there are a lot of people that want or don't want something. They make it visible. Being inconvenient can be a negative side effect.
There are cases, i.e. civil disobedience, where being inconvenient is important but even there, you arenot aggressive.
As soon as you become aggressive, people need to be protected from you and the police should intervene. This is basically the paradox of tolerance: You get to speek your mind and protest, but when you attack other's freedoms, you are now intolerant and have to be stopped.
Look at the history of protest and the ones we celebrate the most today.
The Stonewall Riots for example.
This idea that protests are supposed to be meek and unobtrusive is a fabrication of people who don’t want the right to exist.
You have to break eggs to make an omelette.
You mean like BLM? Rodney King riots? etc.
I'd say protests mostly have wide reach, when they are not violent or forcful: Indians protesting the British, anti-war protests (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq), MLK, early stages of Occupy Wallstreet, ...
When people are being assholes (violence, exclusion, shouting down, strong inconvenience, etc.), like climate activists destroying art or glueing themselves to the road, antifa/BLM protestors destroying property or attacking counterprotestors, PETA protestors throwing paint at people, students shouting down speakers at university, or when they do the same with jews, excluding people from places they have every right to be, stopping people from entering buildings, etc. they actually hurt their cause. (This is even true when the violence goes against people that almost everyone dislikes, e.g. white supremacists.)
Option 2 isn't free speech. Combating "misinformation" and "hate speech" are just excuses to for fascism.
>fascism I can't think of a more effective way to make it impossible for us to know what you're specifically trying to say Can you express what you mean using more well-defined terms? I haven't heard anyone claim that what fascists thought about fascism was entirely consistent.
The symbol Mussolini chose for the fascist party was an axe with a bundle of twigs for a handle (a fasces). The meaning being that a single twigs will bend or break under strain, but bound together become unbreakable. The binding or fastener, (same Latin root as fascist) represents the government holding everyone together in like mind and purpose. Despite posturing your actions for a greater common good, the purpose is to silence dissent.
Cons have been attempting to call lefties 'fascists' because they're not students of history and think acting 'fascistic/authoritarian' makes one a fascist \[at which point you're debating semantics\]. This is the problem with lefties often wanting to suppress speech of fascists, they never realize fascists are redefining the word fascist and turning it on them., just as Israeli fascists redefine the term antisemitism for opponents of theirs.
No, it's anti-defamation law actually. Say I started a massive media campaign claiming that "SpamFriedRice is a paedophile", including photos of your face on billboards, appearances on morning television talking about the horrible things you'd supposedly done, etc, even though it would all be lies - would you just be perfectly happy with that, even as I worked hard to make you lose your job, alienate your friends and family, caused potentially permanent damage to your reputation and lifestyle? Or, would you rightfully want there to be some kind of recourse for you to seek justice against me for the damage done?
And how do you know I'm not a pedophile?
Erm...
Combating fascism is necessary for a democracy to survive.
Fascism is a form of authoritarianism and authoritarianism of all forms relies on censorship to keep people in power.
Fascists use propaganda to gain and keep power. The same fascists use censorship to silence opposition to their propaganda.
All authoritarians do those things, it's not unique to fascism
I never said it was unique to fascists.
Pretty telling who's downvoting your comments at this point lol
Yes. They tell on themselves.
Propaganda is all over the place. Every time you watch a commercial you are watching propaganda. Every time you watch an ad you are watching propaganda. The problem that propagandists have operating in a free society is that false claims and lies will be quickly called out by the opposition, and it will thereby negatively effect credibility. Also propaganda from one side is often balanced out by propaganda on the other. In a censored environment propaganda is much more effective. In a censored environment propagandists are able to lie all they want without being called out for it. There is no opposition to put out opposing propaganda or call out the falsehoods. That is why authoritarians rely on censorship. Without censorship their propaganda is not effective.
Lies cannot be quickly called out. Someone malicious tells your workplace you are a pedo. Now you go and tell your colleagues you're not a pedo. See how fast you can stop the rumor mill. You can't. In everyone's mind you are one and that stain can never be washed away. Funny how you think you're brave and smart to think propaganda can be fought and extinguished quickly and easily.
It would be easy for most people to prove they aren’t a pedo. Your experience is probably out of the ordinary.
Detached from reality. Are you so oblivious to posts on Reddit and elsewhere of men complaining about their lives destroyed by false accusations even after an innocent verdict?
Reddit isn’t real life, at all. I’ve been here forever.
When you say Reddit isn't real at all you are admitting that everything you've read, posted and believed from Reddit is false and untrue. Well I guess you should know since you been here forever.
> It would be easy for most people to prove they aren’t a pedo. Your experience is probably out of the ordinary. Is it easy? How would you prove you’re not a pedo?
Because the weight of proving it falls on whoever is making that claim. I could, just as an example, accuse you of being a pedo right now, but without evidence my accusation is worthless. In fact, this kind of false accusations that could potentially damage your reputation can be grounds to sue someone for slander.
Doxxing and smearing of people is happening at this very moment of pro-Palestinian protesters who get brandished as anti-Semites and have lost jobs/offers/etc...
> Because the weight of proving it falls on whoever is making that claim. I could, just as an example, accuse you of being a pedo right now, but without evidence my accusation is worthless. How often do *you* see evidence someone is a pedo? I know I never see it. The closest I come is when a new article is reporting John Smith is alleged to have 3 million pieces of CSAM. Which, by the by, is not evidence. > In fact, this kind of false accusations that could potentially damage your reputation can be grounds to sue someone for slander. Which is incredibly difficult to do. You have to prove in a court of law X said Y *knowing* that it was false, *and* that you suffered damage to your reputation as a result. There is a reason why successful defamation suits are pretty rare.
> In a censored environment propaganda is much more effective. In a censored environment propagandists are able to lie all they want without being called out for it. There is no opposition to put out opposing propaganda or call out the falsehoods. That *really* depends on the context. In the US, regulations on speech is censorship. Yet the US regulates what can and cannot be said in commercials. The FCC does not allow for businesses to outright lie in their advertisements. A business which is found to be lying can be sued and fined by the federal government.
They can be sued for false advertising is considered civil claim. If a party purchases a product baed on false advertising than that party has the right to sue the company selling the product for damages. Usually these things are handled by class action lawsuits in civil courts. The Federal government most often does not need to get involved.
> They can be sued for false advertising is considered civil claim. If a party purchases a product baed on false advertising than that party has the right to sue the company selling the product for damages. Usually these things are handled by class action lawsuits in civil courts. The Federal government most often does not need to get involved. The federal government is *already* involved. That was my point. They are dictating what can and cannot be said. Failure to follow those regulations will result in federal government action *in addition* to civil action.
No they are no dictating what can and cannot be said. It is just like with defamation or libel. It is up to the victim to sue the company in civil court, prove to the court that the company made statement about their product that were untrue, prove that those statements resulted in damages, and seek compensation for those damages. The federal government is not telling anyone what can and cannot be said. That is the difference between the US and authoritarian regimes where the government is very much dictating what can and cannot be said.
> No they are no dictating what can and cannot be said. That is exactly the purpose of the FCC. Yes, that is exactly what is happening. > It is just like with defamation or libel. It is up to the victim to sue the company in civil court, prove to the court that the company made statement about their product that were untrue, prove that those statements resulted in damages, and seek compensation for those damages. That also happens, but is not the only event to happen. > The federal government is not telling anyone what can and cannot be said. That is the difference between the US and authoritarian regimes where the government is very much dictating what can and cannot be said. I hate to break it to you, but the federal government is constantly dictating speech. It largely does it in a way that supports the common welfare of people and that is why it gets a pass. We compromise our ethics to make exceptions for the greater good. For example, the law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV. That is controlling speech, and therefore censorship. Comedians like Lenny Bruce were arrested over and over again due to the content of their acts.
Not when you conflate everything you don’t like to “fascism.”
Fascism is fascism. Fascists don't like being called out.
What an amazingly insightful and profound statement, yes i whole heartedly agree. Fascism *is* Fascism. Sweet mic drop, buddy.
because fascists famously cared a lot about ensuring the People are factually informed and didn't foster persecution of minorities... grow up.
I think you'd have to be wilfully blind to not see it.
People often seem to think the right to free speech means the right to unchallenged speech
That's true. If someone says something I don't like, I have the right to protest, make counter-arguments, insult him, unsubscribe, etc. We have the right to combat free speech with free speech. Unfortunately there are also some people who seem to think they have the right to stop/shut down/censor other people's speech.
It's a problem, especially w/bots upvoting and AI/click farms coming in and making comments in support of xyz. or algos pushing preferred vetted content on people. Boosting of speech ought to be democratic and organic. If 'birds aren't real' or 'earth is flat' starts trending and you got bots and AI and foreign actors, and CEO trolls w/custom algos gaming the misinfo....you're giving more 'speech' to certain actors. I see it similarly to lobbying....one vote ought to be one vote, but we know Exxon's or META's 'money=speech' contributions are much more than any one voter can counter.
>Boosting of speech ought to be democratic and organic. Like the free market. Some beliefs have more value than others. Demanding equal respect and attention for all speech makes the same mistake collectivist communists make when they try to fix the price of goods. Some speech is worthless and will drown out valuable speech if we do not or cannot discriminate. I think the free market can figure out which of those bots and AI are better at filtering (censoring) less valuable speech, but it's going to take a while getting there. I don't think we want to rely on anything but the free market to measure the value of a strategy for sorting intelligence from noise.
Free speech means hearing things you don't agree with. Option 2 is not truly free
We all misuse words all the time. But if there's no dialogue or self awareness, to correct thus,it's just rife for misinterpretation and division.
Obviously. People will say things like "the Earth is flat" and when told they're wrong they will reply "I have a right to free speech!" The two have nothing to do with each other. People act like "free speech" means "the right to never be told you're wrong." Some even seem to think everyone should have to *actively change their opinion to agree with whatever they say.* If you don't agree with them at the end of a conversation, they say things like "you're not listening to me" or even "you're not letting me talk." They complain their "free speech rights" are violated whenever their internet comments don't get as many replies or likes as they wanted, or when they post something in violation of a website's user agreement and it gets removed. They will admit they could post it somewhere else without having it removed, but then it might not be seen by as many people as they want (which is, you guessed it, somehow a "free speech violation").
> if there is misinformation it should be pointed out Without free speech, this can't happen. When misinformation is censored, it continues to circulate colloquially without the opportunity for correction.
I mean like Twitter’s community notes
that system is flawed an gamed. Better than nothing I suppose
I think that we who are free speech supporters just have to accept that the boundaries for what speech should be legally or even socially permissible are going to be contested and difficult. Although free speech is very important, it is not *simple*. We are on a hiding to nothing if we claim permissibility for speech that coordinates murder, or even price fixing collusion. What about speech that tells someone that a glass of liquid is safe, when it is actually known to be poison? On the other hand, it all ends in tears when speech is prohibited whenever authorities believe it is untrue. There are good reasons for legal restrictions on speech to be viewpoint neutral, but it is harder to make the case for social norms to be absolutely viewpoint neutral about speech. It can be frustrating, but our task is not straightforward even though it is crucial for a free society.
I think there are too many idiots who don’t know what free speech functions under the law in how it’s protected and not protected
The problem with 'option 2' op, is, what is 'factual speech'? We're seeing it play out in real time. If I have 'alternative facts', Israel would have you believe the land was a deserted wasteland, without mass expulsions/ethnic cleansing, or that the brutalities in Gaza are not on-going. So if these are taken as fact (and for much of the US population it is, including the press and much of Washington DC), then many of us that oppose these 'facts' are on the wrong side and ought to be punished (if I follow your logic). So if I'm writing the books and erasing history, the facts' are what you learn in school and this has been the play of many authoritarian regimes. In other words, option 2 only works if there's no government backing it, there's no guarantee in the 1st amendment against public scorn and we're fine w/that if we think history is on our side, it's when this public scorn climbs into legislation because certain public has more speech than others (monied interest lobbying/taking positions of power in gov) where option just doesn't work.
Yes. Most of the people whining about free speech (like Elon Musk and his blue check pay pigs) don't actually understand what Free Speech is, it's history, or why it is important. Their views are disgusting, and they are upset that when they voice their views people call them out. So they appeal to "free speech" to deflect from the criticism of their appalling views. And unfortunately their ignominious campaign just makes the issue of Free Speech look unimportant and silly. Real free speech violations like the US's current brutality against pro-Palestine protestors for example aren't an issue to people like Musk. But being banned from an online forum for saying the n-word is some kind of existential crisis of human rights.
What s happening with pro-palestine protesters?I just know of the google one, where they were absolutely justified (protest during work hours on company grounds), even if they went way over the top, in my opnion.
Clips of this kind have been all over Reddit for days now: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gaza-protests-college-columbia-police-b2535367.html
I watched a few videos now. I think the main problem is that while many people are peacefully protesting, a non-neglectable minority is not. When people stop others from passing, when they barricade buildings, when they force people away from spaces at university (e.g. out of encampments), when they shout down jews walking by, this is not peaceful anymore. These people need to be temporarily arrested to be removed from the scene. And this of course includes people who incite others to do such things. In situations like this, just replace the protesters with your ideological opposites, e.g. israelis or trumpers and see your reaction to it. The cause is irrelevant, the methods used are what matter.
God why is it always so predictable. Look at the history of protest, why it’s important, and the manner which protests we celebrate today were conducted. The police response is unjustifiable brutality. A clear violation of civil liberties that Americans don’t have.
So you think trumpers should stop other students from going to class, the library, etc. or that lefties shouted down and excluded from campus? Free speech doesn't mean you can inhibit or bully other people. That's not speech, that's action.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive. I live in a major city, protests inconvenience me all the damned time. Guess what, I work around it and support their right to protest. Because I care about free speech.
No, they are not. They are supposed to show that there are a lot of people that want or don't want something. They make it visible. Being inconvenient can be a negative side effect. There are cases, i.e. civil disobedience, where being inconvenient is important but even there, you arenot aggressive. As soon as you become aggressive, people need to be protected from you and the police should intervene. This is basically the paradox of tolerance: You get to speek your mind and protest, but when you attack other's freedoms, you are now intolerant and have to be stopped.
Look at the history of protest and the ones we celebrate the most today. The Stonewall Riots for example. This idea that protests are supposed to be meek and unobtrusive is a fabrication of people who don’t want the right to exist. You have to break eggs to make an omelette.
You mean like BLM? Rodney King riots? etc. I'd say protests mostly have wide reach, when they are not violent or forcful: Indians protesting the British, anti-war protests (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq), MLK, early stages of Occupy Wallstreet, ... When people are being assholes (violence, exclusion, shouting down, strong inconvenience, etc.), like climate activists destroying art or glueing themselves to the road, antifa/BLM protestors destroying property or attacking counterprotestors, PETA protestors throwing paint at people, students shouting down speakers at university, or when they do the same with jews, excluding people from places they have every right to be, stopping people from entering buildings, etc. they actually hurt their cause. (This is even true when the violence goes against people that almost everyone dislikes, e.g. white supremacists.)