Blocking the highway is free speech? And what the hell does it mean to "verbally hurt" someone? I guess this juror would support me burning down her house as a protest of the jury system. I mean, no one got physically or verbally hurt, right?

Weizenberg said she was sympathetic to the protesters' political objectives, so she tried to imagine if the Ku Klux Klan had engaged in the same kind of protest. "Certainly, I might find the message odious," she said. "But I would protect their right to do it as an act of free speech. Sure, it caused an inconvenience and a disruption, but it didn't physically or verbally hurt someone, so I couldn't imagine punishing them for it. It seemed to me to be a pretty cut and dry First Amendment situation."

Blocking a highway, preventing drivers (and passengers) from moving on that highway, is a shrewd protest tactic, based on Weizenberg's reasoning.

If, for example, the drivers and passengers who were inconvenienced and disrupted by this protest wanted to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech and protest against the people who blocked them, they could attempt to inconvenience and disrupt the lives of the traffic-blockers in some way. They could, for example, block one of them from leaving a coffee shop but, because the traffic-blocker wouldn't be driving a car so they could shove on ahead and push past the pedestrian-blockers.. Another option would be for the drivers and passengers to prevent this ability to shove-on-ahead by preventing a traffic blocker from leaving his/her house or apartment by, say, nailing 2x4s across the doors and windows. But this would be on private property so they couldn't get away with that. The protesters on the highway were on public property and they knew full well that all drivers would not -- could not -- shove-on-ahead because to do so would almost certainly cause harm to one or more of the protesters and the the driver would then be charged with assault.

Well-played, traffic blockers!

12A.12.015 - Pedestrian interference.
A.The following definitions apply in this section:
1."Aggressively beg" means to beg with the intent to intimidate another person into giving money or goods.
2.
"Intimidate" means to engage in conduct which would make a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled.
3."Beg" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words, bodily gestures, signs, or other means.
4."Obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic" means to walk, stand, sit, lie, or place an object in such a manner as to block passage by another person or a vehicle, or to require another person or a driver of a vehicle to take evasive action to avoid physical contact. Acts authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest, and acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Street Use Ordinance, Chapters 15.02 through 15.50 of the Seattle Municipal Code, shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
5."Public place" means an area generally visible to public view and includes alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, sidewalks and streets open to the general public, including those that serve food or drink or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them.
B.A person is guilty of pedestrian interference if, in a public place, he or she intentionally:
1.Obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or
2.Aggressively begs.
C.Pedestrian interference is a misdemeanor.

Sure sounds like they were guilty to me. Why even have laws on the books if we don't enforce them? I agree with the protesters message but they purposely broke the law ("civil disobedience") and they should absolutely be prosecuted and convicted of their crime. That was the point. As for penalties? Well a few hours of community service should more than suffice.

Whew. Well. Good thing all our emergency responders utilize teleportation these days and not roads.

Thanks 3&4 I think they are guilty of endangering the public by blocking the road. The prosecution should have sought the whole year in jail and maximum fine. Free speech my ass, shame on the jury!

B. A person is guilty of pedestrian interference if, in a public place, he or she intentionally:
1.Obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic;

No exception there saying that a person is not guilty of pedestrian interference as long as they don't -- in the words of Weizenberg -- "physically or verbally hurt someone."

If someone got out of their car and beat the crap out of one of these self important asshats, I'd vote to acquit.

a glorious day indeed

If someone got out of their car and beat the crap out of one of these self important asshats, I'd vote to acquit.

If drivers and passengers did decide to get our of their vehicles in a situation like this and attempt to move the traffic-blockers aside -- something that a traffic-blocker would certainly do if a gang of drivers and passengers blocked him/her from leaving a coffee shop or walking along the sidewalk -- I wonder what the cops would do? I presume they wouldn't allow any physical contact.

@3 and others -- Read the whole damn law. The last sentence in item number 4 is pertinent and you all are ignoring it. "Acts authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest, and acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Street Use Ordinance, Chapters 15.02 through 15.50 of the Seattle Municipal Code, shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic."

@10:

Oh, you and your pesky facts - THEY WUZ GUILTY I TELLS YA'! NOW GIT OFF'N MAH FREEWAY!

10/wendolen, "Acts authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest . . . shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic."

Thanks. So there is an exemption after all. So if a group of drivers and passengers found one of the traffic-blockers and blocked them (and other people) from leaving a coffee shop or walking down the sidewalk, as an exercise of their constitutional right to picket or to legally protest (protest the traffic-blockers preventing them from moving forward in their vehicles) -- that would be perfectly legal. And it actually wouldn't have to be just the drivers and passengers who had been affected by the traffic-blocking. Anyone could exercise their constitutional right to legally protest by blocking a traffic-blocker. That's good to know.

@12 are you crying?

13, Not anymore. Now I'm masticating.

Unless they were trying to smash car windows or other such actions, I doubt I would have convicted them either.

Don't like free speech?

Move back to the South.

I still think these protests were incredibly arrogant and sloppy. Blocking traffic, blocking trains, blocking pedestrians, protesting a christmas tree lighting ceremony even. Interrupting people eating brunch at restaurants. What the fuck? These random citizens aren't the ones who've been killing black suspects. That would be the police. By targeting random citizens you're making the asshole assumption that EVERYONE (oh, but not you) is the problem, thus needs to be targeted. That is the arrogance. Interrupting emergency vehicles is serious. Making people late to work and fucking with people's delivery roots is serious because losing a job these days can be so rough on some people, can ruin people's lives believe it or not. You can't just make the assumption that those you're blocking are minorly inconvenienced. How would you know?! I also don't understand the point of these protests because it's not like these cop killings were being ignored. They were in the mainstream news media all the time! And most of this country WAS outraged. These protests were lousy and probably harmed the cause more than hurt it. I'm anti-racist, have protested a bunch in the past but I'm not arrogant enough to block some stranger in public and tell them I'm not allowing them freedom of movement just because I am outraged about our wars in the middle east, or because I'm fed up with global warming or any other serious issue that most Americans are already pissed / concerned about. Whether they agree with me or not. Even right wingers don't protest like this

@17 True right wingers prefer to blow up buildings and shoot up churches.

@12:

A bunch of people impeding one or two individuals might be taken somewhat differently, since it would be very difficult for them to claim they were engaging in Constitutionally-protected political speech, as opposed to, say, harassment. The protesters blocking the freeway weren't singling out specific drivers and they didn't engage in any threatening or intimidating activities, so who actually would they have been harassing?

@15:

Abortion protesters are already barred by the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act from using intimidation or physical force to directly block access to clinics, so your example has already been dealt with, and this local verdict would have no effect on federal statute.

@17:

What's that old saying? "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem?" My guess is that would apply to approximately 99% of the "random citizens" inconvenienced by a typical protest. And seriously, those are some nice strawmen you're knocking down there. WAS an emergency vehicle prevented from moving during the protest? DID anyone actually lose their jobs as a result of the blockage? I'm sure we would have heard something if either of those had occurred, because there are always people around to complain about it.

There has been a shift. Many politicians are still working the "public safety" saw, but they are missing that the citizens have changed. People just aren't buying the old fears anymore. Another jury just a month ago, did the same thing, and fast too for one defendant. The jury recognized how weak the police story was and the prosecutor could get no contrived sympathy for her case. Speed of decision is so tell tale. People aren't just getting cynical; they are getting angry, disgusted and aren't putting up with the old pass they have given the institutions. Done.

@21 said it best. Say as many hypotheticals as you want. The jury was dealing with realty.

@21, how does blocking 99 actually make police brutality relevant to white folk in north Seattle? How, specifically, does blocking 99 make them more aware or sympathetic or willing to enact change, if massive media reporting hasn't already shifted their thinking? @19, your argument is if you aren't chained with us, you're aligned against us?

Protest like this are just masturbatory. All the privileged nice white folk feel really good with their fantasy, but in the end nothing changes.

What would make an *effective* protest? Showing up at police disciplinary review meetings and shouting down the police cabal protecting bad cops. Locking themselves together in the federal courtroom during hearings on the SPD reform progress. Surrounding police stations in solidarity with those injured and killed by police brutality. Hell, start a protest on the front lawn of bad cops.

Chaining yourself on 99 to shit randomly on thousands of people's day merely demonstrates that the "protest" is all about your needs to feel good, and not about materially improving black lives.

19/Comte, OK then, in order to avoid a charge of harassment, our gang of drivers and passengers wouldn't surround an individual traffic-blocker on the sidewalk. Instead, they would pick some random group of people on the sidewalk, or in a a park, and block them from going anywhere.

Stopping traffic probably doesnt get fence sitters and opponents to come around to your cause, no. But it sends a clear message- even a very small group of courageous (foolhardy?) people can put a huge wrench in the gears, regardless of how complacent or complicit the majority is. Bluntly put, the hearts and minds campaign has already been waged. If we are willing to act up, we can make it impossible for the fence sitters and white supremacists to continue. We can bring them (you) to the table and make them (you) bargain with us, even if they (you) would rather not.

21/wendolen, I agree that if people stood up en masse and demanded that police brutality stop, it would -- or at least may -- "stop pretty fucking fast." There are a lot of things that might change "pretty fucking fast" if people stood up en masse and demanded change.

The question is: how do you motivate people to demand change? The protesters -- and obviously you -- believe that stopping people from going anywhere in their vehicles is an effective tactic to motivate people. I don't. I see it as magical thinking, like praying to God to make it rain.

If restricted to a polite whisper on the streets, political speech is a wealthy privilege, not a right. Our law is clearly on the side of the protesters. Thank you, @10, @19, and @20! Yes.

"Acts authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest, and acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Street Use Ordinance, Chapters 15.02 through 15.50 of the Seattle Municipal Code, shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic."

Acts authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest . . . shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

I'm in favor of the legalization of pot, voted for the initiative and am glad that it passed. But it seems that if a bunch of conservatives decided to protest pot being legal by blocking people from entering Neumo's, or any other club, they would be exercising their constitutional right, so their act would not constitute obstruction of pedestrian traffic.

@24:

So, you're adding goal-post moving to your repertoire? Okay I'll bite. What precisely is the Constitutionally-protected political speech involved in this action? "Some other people protested about this thing a while back that we don't give a shit about, and it made us mad, so we're protesting their protest"? I seriously doubt you're going to get the same level of consideration from a jury when you get arrested, hauled off to jail, and put on trial for that one.

But hey, give it a shot - and do let us know how things turn out for you, um'kay?

@28:

The issue wouldn't be the protest per se, but the owner of the club in question might have grounds to sue protesters for restriction of trade, for example, because again, you're singling out a specific business and preventing patrons from entering and exiting. The difference between this and protesters blocking a freeway is simply that in the latter instance there's no discrimination - everyone is equally inconvenienced by the action - and no specific individual, business, or organization is being targeted.

What precisely is the Constitutionally-protected political speech involved in this action?

Comte, the law states: Acts authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest

It doesn't state: Acts authorized as an exercise of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest that Comte approves of

If the owner of the club would have grounds to sue the pedestrian-blocking protesters for restriction of trade then the owner of the highway, the State of Washington (representing the people of Washington) should have grounds to sue the vehicle-blocking protesters for restriction of movement.

Protesters blocking a highway are targeting a specific group of people: drivers and passengers.

Discrimination: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people.

the State of Washington (representing the people of Washington) should have grounds to sue the vehicle-blocking protesters for restriction of movement.

Oh, and any business that had a vehicle blocked -- and there were probably a lot of them -- should have grounds to sue the vehicle-blocking protesters for restriction of trade.

19/Comte: What's that old saying? "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem?"

Yeah, that's the saying. (That's essentially what George W. Bush said about invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam.)

And now I've got a saying for you: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." (Oliver Wendell Holmes)

I have no problem with people, including impassioned and angry protesters, swinging their fists. All of us, from flaming liberal to arch-conservative, have the right to do that. But, as Holmes pointed out, that's not an unrestricted right.

Staging a "Black Lives Matter" protest at Westlake Park is swinging your fist. Having a "Black Lives Matter" march on Pike St, is swinging your fist. Blocking traffic on a highway, preventing everyone from moving, is swinging your fist and hitting a person's nose (actually, the noses of thousands of people.)

OK, fine, but from now on, every time anybody takes a shot at Chris Christie for closing some freeway lanes, you have to say, "Sure, it caused an inconvenience and a disruption, but it didn't physically or verbally hurt someone, so I couldn't imagine punishing them for it."

"Christie '16!"

@23, protesters recently tried that very tactic in Seattle, protesting Shell. They were forced out of the meeting by SPD. When one politely targets the administrative bodies with their ire, the police are called in to put a stop to it. What would you have people do? Assault the police?

@32:

No, what GWB said was, "you're either with us or against us", which, while the two phrases may have similar connotations to you, don't to many others, including myself.

Be that as it may, now you're really grasping at strawmen, to mix my metaphors. Does it really require pointing out that the protesters themselves are taxpayers, and therefore also "owners" of said freeway? Based on your "logic", they could just as easily argue they're protesting on their own property, which in essence, is one of the reasons their case was adjudicated the way it was; because we recognize the inherent right of citizens to present grievances to their government in the public sphere, of which a public right-of-way, happens to be one. It doesn't matter whether I, or you for that matter, approve of the protest; all that matters is that they have a right TO protest, and to do so in the manner they did, and the jury acquitted them based on that fundamental principal. If you want to dispute that, get yourself on the list for jury duty and maybe someday you'll have the opportunity to present your side of things in a forum where it actually matters.

But, since you seem to be going round in circles, getting hung up in your attempt to split hairs, let me repeat: by blocking an individual business, protesters are not engaging in the public sphere, but have crossed into engaging with a specific private entity, and the law clearly says impeding entrance and egress is illegal, whether it's an abortion clinic, or a rock club. Blocking a freeway doesn't meet that criteria for the simple reason that no individual business is being engaged; whomever happens to be driving on the freeway at the time of the disruption are just random by-standers, because it's not like the protesters are waiting for a particular business' vehicle to be on the road at the time they commit their action, see the difference? Probably not.

Again, based on your "reasoning" people should be able to file lawsuits ANY time their mobility is restricted for any reason whatsoever: they could sue the owner of a disabled vehicle, or the parties in a traffic accident, or a construction company erecting a building, or heck, even State or County road crews for that matter, because all of those activities cause delays to the free movement of vehicular traffic in one way or another. But, strangely, that doesn't happen, now why do you think that might be?

I love to read the blogs so that I can remind myself of the ignorant hatred towards conservatives and the right. These are people that broke the law and are getting away with it. Some people voice their opinion that they think it is wrong to block the roads because of public safety, or that it only punishes the hard working people of the city. The response is always bigot, go back tot he South, or some trash filled hatred. I understand the Stranger is a left publication. I personally don't think you should have an opinion unless you consider all possibilities, therefore I read the stranger. The baseless hatred is hard to chew at times. Is it ok to consider other peoples opinions? Is it wrong to say that the protests are really for the protesters to feel good and not their cause? Is it wrong to say that true activists would show up daily or find a way to reach people without causing harm to the city?