On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Howard Olson wrote:

> > Huh? The point of civil disobedience is not to get arrested. It is to
> > protest against something. Whenever protestors are arrested this has the
> > effect of shutting down the protest. Shutting them up so to speak. This
> > is a form of "persecution".
> >
> > Harry Veeder
>
>         I agree, Harry. Anti-war protest, in particular,should not be
> subject to arrest. I think the point was that you should be WILLING to be
> arrested for cividl disobedience not that one OUGHT to be arrested. It is
> clearly persxecution if you are arrested for demonstrating against the
> mass-murder of war.
>
>                         Howard
>

Why should ANY sort of protestor be willing to be subject to arrest?
Is arresting people a legitimate way, in a free and open society, of
dealing with the conflict between the protestor the those who are the
subject of prostest.

In the case of anti-war protests, the government is the subject
of protest so it would be very disturbing and antidemocratic for the
government to silience the protestors by arresting. But why should
protestors who are not directing their outrage at the government, but at
another group in society, be subject to arrest? In other words why should
private organizations be able have protestors arrested? There seems to be
a double standard here.

Harry