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.”

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I think this is just another corporations have more rights than people thing. If someone was blocking a delivery truck with a human driver to protest whatever company they worked for the cops would probably arrest them too.

    • aksdb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Why wouldn’t people have the same rights? I am pretty sure if someone keeps blocking me I could call the cops and they would show up (after some time).

      Question is rather why a robot would have the same rights. Or rather why a company has these rights for their robot.

    • Ech@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You really think somebody harassing and blocking somebody in a wheelchair wouldn’t end the same way or worse for the harasser?

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          The person they replied to is the one that introduced the comparison. You’d probably get smacked with a disorderly conduct or possibly even a kidnapping charge if you blocked even an able bodied person from walking in a public space. That doesn’t mean this lady isn’t based, but I don’t see how this scenario represents corporate property having more rights than people.

      • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yes, it would be worse for the harasser if they harassed another human being with rights instead of automated corporate property whose limited “rights” shouldn’t take precedence over a human’s.

        • Ech@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          So a robot doesn’t have more rights than a person. Glad we agree.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Agreed, and I say that as someone who fully supports what this lady is doing.

  • SpikedIguana@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    IDK if they can do stuff about pools being “attractive nuisances” I’m pretty sure fucking with a robot counts as well, Uber should do more to discourage it, maybe they should have to pay for a security escort?