YHK - yet another hacker news clone

I am not a lawyer but I don't know if the first amendment allows you to block access from others to things. Some things similar to this are covered in this ACLU blog post: https://www.aclu-il.org/news/when-else-can-government-regula....

Picket lines that actually block other people from crossing instead of trying to persuade them not to? Yes. Use of threats, physically blocking, or just general impediment? Yes.

Not only does it violate state law (e.g. obstruction of free movement, interference with a business open to the public, false imprisonment, and assault are all offenses here in California depending on the facts), but it also violates NLRA rules.

(e.g. a recent labor case found repeated 1 to 4 minute "inadvertent" blockages unlawful -- https://www.laborrelationslawinsider.com/2018/02/the-nlrb-si...)

The Moscone Act that recognizes picketing federally also makes clear that this is not OK.

> It is not the intent of this section to permit conduct that is unlawful including breach of the peace, disorderly conduct, the unlawful blocking of access or egress to premises where a labor dispute exists, or other similar unlawful activity.

Regardless there is a stark difference between medication, which is necessary, and hot prepared meals, which are a luxury.

Prescription medications are controlled. If this robot is damaged or destroyed, the patient may not get their insulin at all without further authorization from their doctor or their insurance company. Those logistical issues are much thornier than a retired professor blocking a delivery robot.

If you truly cared that much about Amazon and truly felt library participation was so heinous that it ought be obstructed, I think a lot of people would be very skeptical and a lot of people would disagree with that perspective, but yes, those of us who believed you were acting earnestly would indeed appreciate you standing up for your principles in a way that was impactful but not violent.

There's less skepticism of sincerity here and more agreement with the fundamental concern here, but the respect for principle and action covers both, yes.

That doesn't mean that I agree with your right to obstruct entry into the library, nor does it mean that I agree with your reasons for blocking entry to the library. I also suspect that the courts would reject your reasoning.

If you ask me that thing is an autonomous motor vehicle, and as such belongs on the road and its use of the sidewalk is illegal. Just like it would be if its larger Waymo cousin tried to drive there.

Besides, that robot is also blocking and refusing to go out of the way of the human. There are no laws regulating who has to yield on a sidewalk, so good luck figuring our which one is in the wrong.

The "social question" to explore is about how so many people collectively came to see leaving the house, interacting with others humans, and setting aside work or idle distractions as bad things to be bought off with cash that we had to work to earn.

We know that people like delivery and we know that people don't like the alternatives I mention above, but that wasn't always the case and it's probably worth slowing down to think about what change and whether that might correlate with other concerns.

I think autonomous cars will also cause problems because currently if nobody is driving it, it has to stay parked. When it becomes autonomous, you can send it on errands or even to just drive around and try to grab a better parking spot etc. It will mean more humanless cars filling up roads, leading to a feeling of an inhuman ghost town.