Carolyn Marvin, 78, said she is exercising her First Amendment right to protest — and will do it again.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53250107

Police confirmed they had responded to a report of “criminal mischief involving a robot” on the 1200 block of Filbert Street around 1:16 p.m. on Wednesday. A woman on the scene ignored “multiple commands” to move, they said, resulting in a criminal violation notice for disorderly conduct.

Uber declined to comment.

Marvin, who plans to contest the charge on the grounds of her First Amendment right to protest, has been undeterred by the arrest. She plans to continue blocking Uber Eats robots and chatting with curious passersby who ask what she’s doing.

“It allows me to talk to people about what’s going on,” she said. “It’s always very interesting conversations that we have, and I think it’s good to have those kinds of conversations in public space.”

    • XiJinpingStanAccount@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      14 hours ago

      Well according to this article the cops don’t really give a fuck about what is or isn’t legally protected so why should anyone else?

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      1 day ago

      Your rights are being slowly pulled tighter around your neck, and the legal system is not your friend anymore.

      When communicating online, like we are right now, is longer considered a legally protected activity, do you roll over like a good puppy and stop communicating with others online in information free forums?

      It was legal to kill Jews. Does that mean it was okay, since that was a legally protected activity? Does that mean living as a Jew, no longer being a legally protected activity, requires that you turn yourself in because you are no longer allowed to exist where you are?

    • olejellylegs@lemmy.zipEnglish
      201·
      2 days ago

      That’s irrelevant.

      There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels … upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!
      — Mario Savio

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      Almost no activity is a legally protected activity in a society and government hellbent on control.

      The law did actually use to mean something, as it was, to some degree, written and enforced with care and consideration.

      The law means considerably less now that it has been captured and written by those in power without consideration and simply as a tool to selectively enforce their power and target undesirable sub cultures.

      Just like flock cameras, no one cares if someone goes and spray-paints or vandalizes some wandering piece of corporate equipment from corporations that are abusing their power and cuddling up to the current regime. It being a legally protected activity or not doesn’t matter, because what is considered a legally protected activity no longer matters. The law is no longer something that applies based off the will of the people, but instead is something that applies and is built based off the will of a select few (many of whom are loyal and funded by the same corporations).

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      2 days ago

      Not sure this will be either. Just because we agree with it doesn’t mean that intentionally stopping a service provided by a company won’t make you liable in court if they sued them. “People have increased doubts about ordering products on our platform because they were intentionally stopping the products from arriving”

      I can’t see a reasonable judge not finding them liable and therby any damages the company can prove plus court fees would be on this person.