Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Update on Occupy Wall St. library situation Previous entry: Yes, Katie, there is sexual harassment

Corrupt capitalism trumps First Amendment

Contrary to the claims of conservatives, our Constitution does not guarantee the right to unfettered, utterly corrupt capitalism to allow the top 1% of our society to suck up all the wealth created by the working people of this country, leaving the rest of us to live paycheck to paycheck, constantly worrying about homelessness or bankruptcy (if we're lucky enough to have mere worries and not actualities).  What the Constitution does guarantee, and which pains our wealthy ruling class so much, is the rights of the 99% to vote, to speak out, and to organize. And these rights have been under attack in an unprecedented way in the past year. Republicans have spent the past year using all the power they have to destroy the right of workers to organize and of large numbers of people to vote. Now Mayor Bloomberg, who likes to play at being the "good" Republican, has shown his true colors by escalating the assault on freedom of speech with last night's raid of Occupy Wall St. (If you're in NYC and want to go show support, they're reconvening in Foley Square by City Hall.) 

Bloomberg would have you believe that he's not attacking basic First Amendment rights. His press release says:

No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibilities. The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out – but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others – nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law. There is no ambiguity in the law here – the First Amendment protects speech – it does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space.

This is bullshit on its face---closing in on arguing that since print or digital media isn't "speech", it's not protected, since the tents are part of the necessary materials to speak---but even within this framework, Bloomberg is lying. The attacks on freedom of speech and press went well beyond evicting protesters and banning tents. Allison Kilkenny, writing for In These Times, explains how thorough the assault on speech and press was:

"Cleaning" is the city's favorite excuse to close down the protest, though the attempt at an innocent facade by the NYPD became all the more absurd when numerous reports began to trickle in of press being bullied and intimidated into leaving the area. Rosie Gray, a writer for the Village Voice tried to beg her way into gaining access to the plaza, which the police quickly quarantined during the raid, preventing media from seeing what was happening. "I'm press!" Gray reportedly exclaimed, to which a female officer replied, "not tonight."

Josh Harkinson from Mother Jones reported being "violently shoved" by police as he tried to photograph a man being placed into an ambulance on a stretcher, in addition to being removed from the park's area even when he told police he is press and has the "right to be here and observe what is going on." As the officer dragged him from the square, he told Harkinson if he stayed in the park he "could get hurt."

Additionally, Jared Malsin, the former chief English editor of Maan News Agency, was arrested alongside City Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez, who was reportedly bleeding from the head by the time he was arrested.

The obstruction of witnesses seemed a high priority for the NYPD, who in addition to blocking media access, also prevented residents near the park from leaving their building, and told doormen to "lock up," according to NBC New York reporter Melissa Russo.

According to the Tech Herald, the airspace over the area was also closed, forcing helicopters to land instead of getting pictures. many reporters on Twitter asserted that they'd been removed from covering the raid, and many were threatened with arrest and stripped of their press passes. In addition to Mother Jones and the Village Voice, the NY Observer was blocked, and Tech Herald is also claiming that the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, NBC, CBS, and Reuters were denied access. There are AP pictures, but because of all this, the pictures of the raid are pretty thin. Even without direct reports from reporters being denied access (or arrested), the timing of the raid makes clear Bloomberg's media blackout intentions. They clearly hoped that by doing this work while most reporters are in bed, they would gain an advantage over the press and prevent them from getting there on time. 

Then there's the destruction of the library, which I suspect was on the top of the list of things the NYPD and Bloomberg did not want reporters getting pictures of. Media Bistro is reporting that the NYPD destroyed over 5,000 books that have been amassed in the OWS library over the past two months. The young protesters who were volunteering as librarians tweeted the ordeal of watching what has come to be, historically speaking, the symbol of authoritarian governments oppressing its citizens. 

Protesters locked arms and tried to keep the dumpsters full of books and tents from leaving, but obviously to no avail. Personally, I donated about a dozen books to OWS, mostly about feminism in response to requests for more feminist discourse and history. Some of them weren't exactly books you can just saunter into a local library branch or Barnes & Noble to find, either, such as the radical feminism reader. So this image of the books being tossed into the trash is just adding to the emotional distress of this situation. 

So don't believe the lies. If this was just about a clean park, there would have been no need to go over the fucking top in the asssaults on speech and press that included threatening journalists (and arresting one), squelching witnesses, and destroying over 5,000 books that were provided, free of charge, by supporters who want to assist protesters' desire to educate themselves and, frankly, give them something to do during their downtime. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:07 AM • (185) Comments

So, peaceful protest =/= speech, but

Money in the form of bribes, I mean, “Campaign contributions” = speech.

Owning almost all of the media = totally legitimate use of speech
Destroying books =/= shutting down speech at all.

Glad to see everyone’s on the same page here.  I wouldn’t want things to be uneven.  I mean, the law in its infinite wisdom prevents the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.  That’s fair, right?

Comment #1: Antigone  on  11/15  at  10:16 AM

And cleaning the park trumps the Constitution.

I love America. I wonder where we put it…

Comment #2: Scott  on  11/15  at  10:27 AM

I don’t even have words to express how mad this makes me.  Furthermore, it amazes me that so many right wingers are okay with it, not seeing how easily it could be them being silenced.

Comment #3: progrocker  on  11/15  at  10:31 AM

Alas, I just read about this in the BBC website before I came here and they are reporting it there as a straight eviction with park cleaning.  Mentions 70 people arrested but not a great deal else.  Certainly nothing about press restrictions and destruction of books.  Now, the BBC are very cautious about what they report without confirmation, but still, it seems likely that most people won’t get the full story.

Comment #4: Katherine  on  11/15  at  10:36 AM

Shutting out media is always the hallmark of gross injustice, whether in Syria, occupied Palestinian territory, or New York. Police and government have learned the lessons of Tienanmen and Birmingham. It is imperative that those with access get images and video out.

Comment #5: JonE  on  11/15  at  10:39 AM

Books being destroyed?? What what what?!!  I am really disturbed by this.  Thanks as always for the information, and I vow to do my part to share it.

Comment #6: Radicalhw  on  11/15  at  10:40 AM

Salon‘s Justin Elliott, via Greenwald:
  A military style raid on peaceful protesters camped out in the shadow of Wall Street, ordered by a cold ruthless billionaire who bought his way into the mayor’s office.

Comment #7: ganews_  on  11/15  at  10:43 AM

As Digby has been saying, “If you build a Police State, they will use it.”

I guess this, and the Oakland clusterfuck, have proven how unwise it was to allow post 9/11 panic to drive Americans into the mindless pursuit of perfect safety, eagerly trading hard-won freedoms for the fool’s gold of ultimate security.

I guess the next time a bunch of historical stalwarts bequeath us a democratic republic, we’ll know better…

Comment #8: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  10:47 AM

Kathering@4:

NPR’s coverage was pretty much the same.  I wake up to Morning Edition and they basically said that OWS were evicted so that the park could be cleaned (same for Oakland and Salt Lake City) and that some people were arrested.  They then played clips of people, supposedly protesters, saying that they weren’t sure what the point of the whole OWS thing was anymore anyway.  There were a couple of hints that it was perhaps more violent than they were letting on, but overall it was downplayed quite a lot.

Comment #9: ks  on  11/15  at  10:47 AM

And I apparently can’t type this morning.  Sorry Katherine.

Comment #10: ks  on  11/15  at  10:48 AM

Really, I feel a little embarrassed saying this, but this whole thing has been frustrating me on about the same level as the stealth cancellation of “Community.” Which isn’t to say they don’t frustrate me, because THEY DO. In both cases, it seems like the message from the status quo is “Culture, politics, the economy, and entertainment are all filthy pits of despair, hopelessness, and aggressive ignorance? We don’t care. Have another cop show spinoff.”

Comment #11: Scott  on  11/15  at  10:55 AM

(I’ve been re-reading Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”—I try to every few years. And it’s kind of amazing how *relevant* it is right now. The Scrooge in Stave I is every inch the faux-Galtian teabagger, And the “Ignorance and Want” scene with Christmas Present felt like a goddamn revelation this time…)

Comment #12: Scott  on  11/15  at  10:59 AM

I guess it would be a godwin violation to say that at least the destruction of the books wasn’t carried out publicly.

Comment #13: paul  on  11/15  at  11:04 AM

So let me see if I understand this:

Protected by the Bill of Rights
The right of corporations to give politicians large “campaign contributions” under the table
Bullying gay kids because of “religious convictions”

Not Protected
The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

Makes sense. It’s not like those last two are written, word-for-word, in the bill of rights or anything.

Comment #14: DataSnake  on  11/15  at  11:05 AM

Every now and again I wonder if I’m going over the top in loathing where America is going.

And then stories like this come along, and I think “nope”.

I read a comment recently about how we see the degeneration of the German republic and the rise to power of They Who Shall Not Be Named through historical compression, knowing where it ended up.  To the people living it, it was just one damned thing after another, and the trend was difficult to recognise from inside it.

There’s a stink of Weimar around America these days.

Comment #15: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/15  at  11:20 AM

The young protesters who were volunteering as librarians tweeted the ordeal of watching what has come to be, historically speaking, the symbol of authoritarian governments oppressing its citizens.

Excuse me while I go cry.

Comment #16: bomberE  on  11/15  at  11:23 AM

I really have to wonder about a prominent politician who isn’t afraid to be seen destroying books. Surely Bloomberg knows what that connotes? Or is he just trying that hard to bait his opponents into Godwinning themselves?

He’s reached the point, though, where it’s not even a Godwin anymore, it’s a relevant comparison.

Comment #17: Alyson Miers  on  11/15  at  11:26 AM

The right to assemble, at least, is being protected.  OWS now has a court order allowing them to return to the park.

Comment #18: BABH  on  11/15  at  11:27 AM

This day will go down in infamy for the NYPD and their billionaire boss.

Occupy LA is marching to demonstrate solidarity with OWS, it isn’t over yet, folks.

Comment #19: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/15  at  11:31 AM

Excuse me while I go cry

Ditto.

I also like the touch of LOCKING PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES.

Go ask the fire marshall how that couldn’t possibly be a bad idea. It seems nothing tragic happened, but what the hell!

Comment #20: LC  on  11/15  at  11:32 AM

“There’s a stink of Weimar around America these days.”

...and while the Franklin Roosevelt who stopped America’s slide into fascism is no where to be found, there are plenty of sweet-talking opportunists who see gold in America’s financial and political problems and are doing everything possible to gain even more advantage from them than they already have…

Comment #21: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  11:34 AM

I guess it would be a godwin violation to say that at least the destruction of the books wasn’t carried out publicly.

Give it time.

Comment #22: schism  on  11/15  at  11:43 AM

The right to peacefully assemble is a treasured one deep within the constitution.  No anti-tent ordinance has the right to trump the first amendment.  It’s such a strange concept that when people actually show up to redress the government and don’t do it in suits they suddenly want to sweep it all under the rug.  The whole movement reminds me of the Hooverville in DC in the 1930s.  People are trying to take a stand and yet they’re being swept away by corporate garbage.  I can only pray that 2012 sweeps in more liberal candidates and that OWS stands tall.

I saw earlier an injunction let them back into the park momentarily, hopefully the judge will give OWS indefinite right to stay.

Comment #23: Xeranar  on  11/15  at  11:46 AM

Ok I’m gonna break out my devil’s advocate/concern troll gear here. I see what they’re saying about how it’s a public park, and as much as OWS says they represent 99% of the American people, they aren’t literally. It seems to me that they’re not being allowed to sleep in the park overnight, in the winter who the hell wants to? Assuming they have options that is.

Why is this catastrophic? Can’t they just come back in the morning?

I know this does sound concern trolly but I genuinely want the movement to continue and be successful, I just don’t see why the movement has to be some kind of tent city encampment.

Comment #24: typist  on  11/15  at  11:50 AM

The whole movement reminds me of the Hooverville in DC in the 1930s.

The Hooverville parallels have struck me as well.

Comment #25: LC  on  11/15  at  11:53 AM

typist @24: “I just don’t see why the movement has to be some kind of tent city encampment.”

Because the form of the protest is part of the political message (c.f. Hoovervilles).  Just as flag burning is political speech protected by the 1st Amendment, so is camping in the park.

Comment #26: BABH  on  11/15  at  11:55 AM

I see it less Hooverville, more Patton sending in a full military assault on the bonus marchers.

Comment #27: Jimmy  on  11/15  at  12:02 PM

“Just as flag burning is political speech protected by the 1st Amendment, so is camping in the park.”

Really? So the right to free speech and assembly is absolute? Meaning anywhere and anytime?

I absolutely believe flag burning is political speech…if I own the flag. If it’s the flag flying outside the Post Office it becomes vandalism.

I also absolutely believe public property is for the public, and OWS is part of the public, but I also think OWS should share it. Sleeping there overnight seems to me more like they’re claiming it as their personal property.

Comment #28: typist  on  11/15  at  12:05 PM

I’ve seen both comparisons being discussed lately.

Comment #29: bomberE  on  11/15  at  12:06 PM

Because creating a mini community helps give form to the desires and needs of the 99%.

Comment #30: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/15  at  12:07 PM

“Really? So the right to free speech and assembly is absolute?”

Not absolute, perhaps, but a New York judge seems to think that it covers this case.

Comment #31: BABH  on  11/15  at  12:09 PM

PiaToR, et al - I’d suggest instead of merely looking at Weimar you also peruse the history of the collapse of the Roman Republic (pre-Ceasar.)  The party of the rich, the Optimates, was opposed by the party of the people, the Populares…but the members of both parties were the wealthy aristocrats (the Senatorial class or Patricians) who often switched allegiances to harness either the money of the wealthy class or the unrest of the Plebs to gather more political power…

Then, as now, the wealthy had plenty of supporters amongst the Plebs, especially those who wished to identify themselves as part of that aristocracy, and those Plebs who gravitated towards the Populares were often disappointed when the Senator who claimed to speak for them switched sides once in power.

Again, while looking at Weimar is a good first comparison, consider the position of the Roman Republic around 75-50 BC - a Republic, grown too large for the Plebs’ voices to be heard, entangled in foreign wars and foreign possessions which served to enrich the aristocratic class (through acquisition of land or industry), facing ever-growing inequality of wealth, with the aristocratic class repeatedly claiming to represent an older, “purer” form of Roman virtue (self-sufficiency, sacrifice for the Republic, and moral certitude - including keeping one’s uppity wives and daughters properly in line) all while eroding the power of the popular will in order to gain political power and personal wealth.

Mind you, it’s not an exact parallel (historical comparisons seldom are) but I’m increasingly convinced we’re the late Roman Republic with the addition of the Kardashians and Krispy Kremes.

Comment #32: tannenburg  on  11/15  at  12:10 PM

On the logistical side, maintaining a full-time encampment allows the protestors to keep their stuff (kitchens, library, medical services, etc.) in roughly the same place. If they had to pack that up every night and carry it back out the next morning, it would take a lot of momentum away from the movement. Which I’m sure is a feature, not a bug, of trying to kick them out.

Comment #33: Alyson Miers  on  11/15  at  12:11 PM

“we’re the late Roman Republic with the addition of the Kardashians and Krispy Kremes.”

[Fried] bread and circuses!

Comment #34: BABH  on  11/15  at  12:13 PM

Whoops, it was MacArthur who led the assault on the bonus marchers, but Patton led the tank assault.

Comment #35: Jimmy  on  11/15  at  12:14 PM

Not surprised. I’ve figured for a couple of weeks that Bloomberg was going to use the mostly police-instigated violence at various Occupy protests as an excuse to crack down on the largely peaceful Occupy Wall Street encampment.

And however sarcastically typist says it, I don’t see what’s odd about the idea that freedom of speech and assembly should be absolute.

Comment #36: Hershele Ostropoler  on  11/15  at  12:16 PM

Excuse me while I go cry.

had exactly the same reaction *sigh* there really is something about books that pisses off authoritarians, isn’t there.


and I totally missed the part where they locked people in their own homes on first reading. holy fuck.

(also, sorry for the second account, but i totally forgot what password and e-mail i’m using on here, and this is a new netbook)

Comment #37: jadehawk again  on  11/15  at  12:17 PM

So, the updated version of the message orginally delivered by SCOTUS (courtesy of Mayor Bloomberg) is that not only are corporations people. They are the only people that matter and have rights.

This message brought to you by [INSERT PAYING SPONSOR HERE]

Comment #38: Dan2108  on  11/15  at  12:27 PM

“And however sarcastically typist says it, I don’t see what’s odd about the idea that freedom of speech and assembly should be absolute.”

Some restrictions of time, manner, and place are a good thing.  It’s OK for it to be illegal to provoke someone to violence, for example, or (on a larger scale) to incite a riot in which people are killed.  It’s even OK for it to be illegal to slander or libel someone.

Comment #39: BABH  on  11/15  at  12:31 PM

Thanks Amanda and Pandagonians for a fabulous post and comments.  Sickening how the MSM is missing and misstating this story.  It’s all just riffraff, dirty hippies, “cleaning,” aren’t we all bored with OWS anyway, security, move along here, no need for pictures, books what books?, nothing to see.

Comment #40: Unree  on  11/15  at  12:31 PM

I guess this, and the Oakland clusterfuck, have proven how unwise it was to allow post 9/11 panic to drive Americans into the mindless pursuit of perfect safety, eagerly trading hard-won freedoms for the fool’s gold of ultimate security.

That’s been obvious for a long time, but yes, if we continue down that path, it will be our undoing. Do conservatives even remember the Benjamin Franklin quote about trading a little liberty for a little security anymore?

Comment #41: Triplanetary  on  11/15  at  12:32 PM

I am not sure the NYPD and Bloomberg could have provided a better example of the reason for the OWS movement, or done much more to fuel the movement. This is going to just bring more attention and outrage.

Comment #42: benjaminsa  on  11/15  at  12:38 PM

So is there anything that can be done to help rebuild the OWS library?

Comment #43: Scott  on  11/15  at  12:43 PM

@42

I’d like to think so. I’m not sure how many Americans still remember why police states are a bad thing, though. I haven’t seen a lot of support from the people around me for OWS - mostly just grousing about how they’re a bunch of whiners looking for a handout - but granted, I do live in the Deep South.

Comment #44: Triplanetary  on  11/15  at  12:45 PM

Hey all.

Your friendly neighborhood OWS librarian here.  Yes, the books are all gone, along with everything else that was in the park.  They carted it all away in dump trucks last night/early this morning.  Supposedly we can reclaim things from NYC Sanitation, but I have my doubts.  Currently we’ve got some friendly allies trying that out for us.  Even if we can get them back, I’m sure many have been ruined from being treated so poorly.  Library plans to send the city a fine notice for overdue books. 

I hit the ground there at 2am, an hour after shit started going down, and I couldn’t get within two blocks of the park.  No one could.  Some of the librarians in Queens couldn’t even get into Manhattan, but I didn’t have any trouble from Brooklyn.  Folks who tried to hold down the fort were all gassed and then arrested.  Or at least that’s the assumption, as the two librarians who stayed till the bitter end have yet to be heard from.  The rest of the live-in librarians made it out, taking a few things with them— the poetry anthology and some signs and other documents, as well as their personal belongings.  We also had some books in storage, so we’re not completely without material. 

Yes, there was an injunction this morning to allow us back in, with a hearing at 11:30, which means it’s happening as I type.  But the cops didn’t let anyone in, despite having the paperwork shoved under their noses.  Our legal team is fabulous.  The city/cops could be held in contempt of court for it, but I’m not holding my breath. 

Books to reconstitute the library may be sent to the general address, which is available on the GA’s website and on the library’s blog.

Comment #45: rowmyboat  on  11/15  at  12:45 PM

In a just world, he’d be getting dragged out of Gracie Mansion by an angry mob for ordering something like this.

Comment #46: witless chum  on  11/15  at  12:47 PM

@46—dude chooses not to live in Gracie Mansion, prefers the fancier house that he owns nearby.  From there he can slip away to his Bermuda house easily on the weekends, leaving no contact or scheduling information.

Comment #47: Unree  on  11/15  at  12:52 PM

thanks for the update rowmyboat.


fuck, this sucks so much. i do hope that OWS will survive the winter. it is so very necessary!

Comment #48: jadehawk again  on  11/15  at  12:52 PM

I am *always* annoyed by this claim that “with every right comes responsibilities.”  Thanks Hershele Ostropoler and BABH for exposing this for the bullshit it is.

There are limits to rights which are based on others’ rights, but there’s no reason anyone has to be “responsible” about using their rights.  They are rights, not privileges given to you for promising to be good about using them and that can be taken away for “misbehavior.”  If you want to use your right to free speech to recite Justin Bieber lyrics or claim people will go to hell for being gay, that’s your right.

Comment #49: oldfeminist  on  11/15  at  12:54 PM

Despite my contrarianness above, I agree that destroying people’s books/other personal items is horrendous.

Comment #50: typist  on  11/15  at  12:54 PM

@45: “Library plans to send the city a fine notice for overdue books.”

!!?!  That’s cute, but why not sue them for unreasonable seizure of your property, and hold wall-to-wall press conferences about how the Bloomberg administration is now in the business of destroying books.  This is a tremendous P.R. opportunity for you, if you exploit it properly.  It’s time for the movement to step up and start fighting some real fights.

Comment #51: BABH  on  11/15  at  12:54 PM

and on that note, i should probably finally get twitter. it seems that real news only ever comes from crowdsourcing now, and facebook alone is insufficient for that purpose.

Comment #52: jadehawk again  on  11/15  at  12:55 PM

rowmyboat: Any preferences for books? I’ve got a good used bookstore here in town, and I’d be pleased to pick up a few extras this weekend to ship out to y’all.

Comment #53: Scott  on  11/15  at  12:57 PM

@45: “Library plans to send the city a fine notice for overdue books.”
!!?!  That’s cute, but why not sue them for unreasonable seizure of your property, and hold wall-to-wall press conferences about how the Bloomberg administration is now in the business of destroying books.  This is a tremendous P.R. opportunity for you, if you exploit it properly.  It’s time for the movement to step up and start fighting some real fights.

This is a both/and movement.  We’re not just going to send them fine notices, obviously.

@53—Non-fiction preferred. Politics, economics, history—the things that back up what we’re about.  Also, stuff by and about women, queers, people of color, etc.

Comment #54: rowmyboat  on  11/15  at  01:08 PM

rowmyboat, give us a destination to ship books to, I have some cultural and historical books that I think would be useful to replace whatever you lost.

 

Comment #55: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/15  at  01:09 PM

Not only are the authorities stifling free speech but the cover story that protesters are being evicted for “cleaning” furthers the narrative of the OWS movement being dirty and unsavory.

Comment #56: DonnaDiva  on  11/15  at  01:12 PM

@53—Non-fiction preferred. Politics, economics, history—the things that back up what we’re about.  Also, stuff by and about women, queers, people of color, etc.

The store’s basement is crammed full of exactly those kinds of books. I’ll pick up a half-dozen.  smile

Comment #57: Scott  on  11/15  at  01:14 PM

hmmm…. would a copy or two of the spirit level be useful to y’all?

Comment #58: jadehawk again  on  11/15  at  01:16 PM

Dark Avenger: The address I found on the OWS Library site is:

The UPS Store
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Attn: The People’s Library
118A Fulton St. #205
New York, NY 10038

Hopefully, that one is still useable…

Comment #59: Scott  on  11/15  at  01:18 PM

They are rights, not privileges given to you for promising to be good about using them and that can be taken away for “misbehavior.”

Unfortunately, the 1% appears to believe that they’re graciously granting us the right not to live in a fascist police state, so long as we don’t make too much trouble for them.

Comment #60: Triplanetary  on  11/15  at  01:23 PM

@59—Yes, that address is still good.

Comment #61: rowmyboat  on  11/15  at  02:05 PM

Once again, Joe Strummer is prescient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeWSpB_7w4

You have the right to free speech… so long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it.

Comment #62: James  on  11/15  at  02:14 PM

Oh give me a break amanda! I agree with Bloomberg. These people stand outside playing drums and disturbing people. They remind me of left wing teabaggers, They have freedom of speech all they want but if they want to occupy a certain area of the land to protest then they have to get permits like everyone else. OMG what a stretch to claim that tents are part of the process of speech!  Quit frankly one has no clue how they want to go about changing anything. They just seem to be pissed and frustrated….well welcome to the rest of the American population? No one knows how they want to go about changing things.

Comment #63: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  02:25 PM

Oh, poor bean. Can’t understand that freedom of speech is not something that requires a political litmus test to demonstrate.

There is a really, really obnoxious libertarian group that likes to protest in the town where my husband works. They are there all the time in the public park outside of the city hall.  As much as I dislike them and their message, I recognize their right to protest.

Comment #64: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/15  at  02:29 PM

I agree with this poster who brought up a good point about sanitation and security:

“how much would the city have to pay when they got sued for having people getting sick because of improper sanitation conditions (Zuccotti Lung in NYC) or TB (in Atlanta)——or raped because of improper security? (Seattle, Denver, NYC) ... Lets ask THAT? ... Not to mention that these squatters have NO organized message. Everyone there wants something different. Tell them to organize for real, put forward an ACTUAL list of demands and bring that to Congress which is the place they REALLY need to be protesting.”

Comment #65: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  02:33 PM

mighty,
They have freedom of speech they just have to get permits to do it. This applies tp everybody. You dont get to use freedom of speech to avoid following the law. Regarding the libertarians (GAG-cant stand those people. The philosophy is so naive), they have freedom of public speech/assembly of protest so long as they get a permit. If they dont have a permit then they shouldnt be doing what theyre doing. Also, are the libertarians sleeping out overnight at the park? Are the libertarians banging drums and disturbing people/children/pets? Fighting for a cause doesnt give anyone the right to mindlessly and self-centerdly harrass other people. Theyre angry-wow, who the fuck isnt? All that banging of drums and occupation of public spaces and they dont even have a objective of how they want to fix the problem, so it seems like the disturbance will last forever unless a politician steps in. Check your drama.

Comment #66: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  02:40 PM

I’m sorry “prosecute the Wall Street financiers whose irresponsible and illegal financial schemes have caused millions of people to suffer” isn’t specific enough for you, Bean. I’ll be sure to forward your concerns to OWS.

Comment #67: Triplanetary  on  11/15  at  02:42 PM

(checks Constitution for permit requirement on First Amendment)

Comment #68: Scott  on  11/15  at  02:48 PM

There’s only one thing for everyone to do: Go to your General Assembly wherever. I was already planning to go tonight.

You can go early. You can go late. Something will be going on tonight everywhere.

Comment #69: Bacopa  on  11/15  at  02:50 PM

Heh, heh. Just noticed the “choads” tag. Unexpected, but entirely appropriate.

Comment #70: Bacopa  on  11/15  at  02:51 PM

No, Bean, because Permit Requirements are asking permission from the government to protest, and that’s 100% in opposition to what the first amendment is about. If it’s public property, you should be allowed to protest.

Comment #71: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/15  at  02:59 PM

For poor clueless Bean Slap and all the others who still don’t know what Occupy Wall Street is about: Have a look at http://www.wedontmakedemands.org .

If those aren’t specific enough for you, then you’re just being obtuse.

Comment #72: Amphigorey  on  11/15  at  03:02 PM

#28 typist,
Wow, good points. Also it is stupid for those that say that one can take up residence anywhere to protest. If I’m a feral anti-choice zealot, can I pull my car up on the side of your sidewalk, camp out in the car and in the morning wave fetus picks and call you a baby murderer as youre walking out the door to go to work? It has limits to establish public order and safety. These parks arent camping grounds. Nothing is keeping them from creating their own community, they just cant do it illegally at the publics expense. Those parks are for kids to go kite flying, people to go walking and maybe having a touch-football game-not housing areas. It also becomes a bigger safety hazard for women.

Comment #73: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:05 PM

#67 tripleplanetary,

Again triple, everyones pissed, they just dont break laws and harrass people because of something that finaciers and politicians did. I mean why is it that the random tenant who lives nearby has to be punished for something that a big wig did who lives in a nice large estate miles away? Why is it that this gives them the right to break laws? Isnt that being hypocritical? Are they not like the money grubbers who broke the laws and started the whole mess to begin with? Its like taking over a public area because they want something as broad as “world peace.” Its so naive and they have no steps or coherency about what they want or how they want to achieve it.

Comment #74: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:09 PM

Bean Slap, your opinions will be noted as worth considering when you learn to write coherently in the English language.

Comment #75: Tyro  on  11/15  at  03:12 PM

Scott@12

(I’ve been re-reading Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”—I try to every few years. And it’s kind of amazing how *relevant* it is right now.)

I hear you. Try reading “The Grapes of Wrath” right now…as I’m doing for the first time. Eerie levels of plus ça change freaking my shit right out.

Comment #76: Ranylt  on  11/15  at  03:16 PM

So, when are the NYPD going to deploy those snazzy shades-of-brown uniforms with those snappy black-n-red-n-white geometric insignias that they no doubt have socked away (since the end of WWII) for times like these?

After all, if New Yorkers (or rather their overlords) want Law and Order, why not go straight to one of the best examples of an orderly society in the last 100-years?

Comment #77: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  03:19 PM

#72 amphigorey,
Yeah, its still pretty unspecififc and when I clicked on the posters part it had some suggestions but it was amateurely done even linking to wikipedia. Clearly standing outside banging drums and pissing people off is not going to help them repeal corporate personhood, nor do I think theyve examined any of these things in fuller detail. This is what was on their opening page:

“Participants come to the movement for many reasons, prompted by deep frustration with the corruption, fraud, corporate crime, and obstructed democratic process that are endemic to US and global politics.We don’t think any of these individual ideas will solve everyone’s problems. We just want real, meaningful change.These posters were designed by participants at the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York City. They are in the public domain. You are welcome to print them out and post them in your own location. You’re also invited to make your own.”

Because they are asking people to write their own posters about what they are frustrated about it seems they arent coherent on what they want or how to go about it. No where on your site did I see steps or analysis regarding their viewpoints. The posters link was the most informative and that was cheaply covered. The fact that they acknowledge it wont solve everyones problems tells me that it is more emotion than well-thougt out sentiment. It seems like its alot of broad sentiment and black and whites and not much specifics. Just out of curiosity if these people were all “pro-life” protesters would you still think they had the right to bang drums, camp out and take over a public property that the city is paying for from taxes by the citizenry which is supposed to be used for outdoor activities and not slumber parties and camp-outs?

Comment #78: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:19 PM

If I’m a feral anti-choice zealot, can I pull my car up on the side of your sidewalk, camp out in the car and in the morning wave fetus picks and call you a baby murderer as youre walking out the door to go to work?

YES, god damn it.

Do you LIVE in the United States? Because people do this, exactly this, down to every last little detail you included, every goddamn day here. Yes, get it through your skull: FREE SPEECH AND PUBLIC PROTEST ARE PROTECTED RIGHTS EVEN FOR DOUCHEBAGS.

Comment #79: Well, what?  on  11/15  at  03:21 PM

Ranylt, ya know, I’ve never actually read “The Grapes of Wrath.” I’ll put it on my Must Obtain list.

Comment #80: Scott  on  11/15  at  03:22 PM

#75 tyro,
Give me a break. Thats just an excuse to avoid acknowledging any sentiment other than your own myopic view points. “Bad english” is just a cop-out.

Comment #81: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:22 PM

@66: Bean Slap. Currently it is Bloomberg and the NYPD who are not obeying the law by violating a judges order to allow protesters back into the park. Btw, if your free speech requires a government sanctioning permit then you do not have free speech.

The hippies with drums is such a straw man. Yes there are some hippies with drums. There are also college students who cannot get jobs and middle class people who have been thrown out of there homes because they lost theirs. If you are going to critique someone, at least take the time to find out who they actually are.

Comment #82: benjaminsa  on  11/15  at  03:23 PM

which is supposed to be used for outdoor activities and not . . .  camp-outs?

“This food is for eating, not for putting in your mouth, chewing, and digesting.”

Comment #83: Well, what?  on  11/15  at  03:24 PM

#79 well,what,
NOowhat the anti-choice zealot would be doing would be considered harassment and due to the precedent of anti’s terrorizing others it should be something you should be opposed to. It would be an example of stalking. So I guess if youre an estranged boyfriend who wants your old girlfriend back you have the right to camp out on her sidewalk with posters saying, “Jill is a whore,” “stop jilting your lovers Jill,” “take me back Jill,” or “I’m still your boyfriend?” Good to know you dont support pro-choicers or have their back. Why you post on feminist forums is anyones guess.

Comment #84: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:26 PM

#83 well, what,
That is simply a stupid analogy.

Comment #85: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:27 PM

Y’all feed not that which is not to be fed.

Comment #86: Scott  on  11/15  at  03:28 PM

#82 benjaminsa,
What the hell? I said nothing about hippies. I made no presumption about who they are and quite know they could be people from all walks of life. It still doesnt justify breaking laws, taking public property as your own or protesting without permits, especially on such a large scale.

Comment #87: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:29 PM

#86 scott,
So degenerate scott. Just because I dont agree with everyone else does not make me a troll. It does however demonstrate that you are a lemming and are challenged by anything that doesnt tow the line or by people who think for themselevs rather than having others do it for them.

Comment #88: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:32 PM

Shorter Bean Slap: Because I am angry, I want to change this country from a free one to an unfree one.  I want this because I want others to share my self-imposed suffering.

Even shorter Bean Slap: I am an American conservative.

Comment #89: Punditus Maximus  on  11/15  at  03:32 PM

Here is what Bean Slap sees as too unspecific and vague:

Bring Back the Glass-Steagall Act.

Audit Bailed-Out Banks.

Close the Enron Loophole.

Repeal Citizens United.

Regulate High-Frequency Trading.

Stop Keystone XL.

Enforce the Volcker Rule.

Et cetera.

Those are all VERY SPECIFIC and concrete suggestions. Really, how could they be more specific? These are suggestions that are achievable. They would create real change. You are lying outright when you insist that it’s still too vague. 

If you don’t know what the requests mean (which I suspect you don’t), then DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. It’s not that hard.

Comment #90: Amphigorey  on  11/15  at  03:33 PM

@Scott, The Poster Of Nearly Illegible Idiocy is sadly a regular here, and not always a troll, if I’m not mistaken. Often frustrating due to near-galactic levels of density, yes, but not a troll.

Comment #91: Well, what?  on  11/15  at  03:33 PM

#79 well, what,
Noise hazards are not free speech. That is why anti-choice zealots cant blow air horns outside of abortion clinics or reproductive health organizations. Its called noise ordinances. Noise isnt speech especially when it doesnt have a permit-its just harassment.

Comment #92: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:34 PM

Good to know you dont support pro-choicers or have their back.

Yeah that is why I am a volunteer at Planned Parenthood, because I don’t have pro-choicers’ back. It’s also why I know an epic fuckton more about the rights of anti-choice zealots than you do.

I think they’re evil, sadistic, pathetic ridiculous bastards, but they are also citizens and have the same rights as you and I.

If you have a problem with rights and so forth, I suggest moving to one of the globe’s many fine autocratic shitholes, rather than turning this formerly decent nation into one.

Comment #93: Well, what?  on  11/15  at  03:38 PM

#90,
HOW. HOW.HOW.HOW are they going to do that. BTW I mentioned these things you listed in my post and said they were not that specific about why this would work nor that they were accurate in their assessment that this would fix the problem. I wrote that it seemed quite amateurish the way that they composed these suggestions. I also dont hear any Occupy protesters talking about any of these things on tv, radio, protester signs, ect. I also wrote how the hell does banging drums and taking over public property help you achieve these goals?

Comment #94: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:38 PM

#93 well, what,
But yet you support anti-choice zealots right to blow air horns outside of these organizations and to harass pro-choice activists and doctors by camping out in front of their house?Free speech has limitations-again the whole ‘you cant yell fire in a crowded theatre’ example. Banging on drums does nothing to further the cause. It does nothing to take away corporate personhood (which btw is one of the thing neither political spectrum liked, ie, right nor left), it does nothing to change how economy is done and only harasses innocent bystanders who are trying to go about their day. Do these selfish people never think that if these people dont get sleep they may lose their job? Do they not think about how much irritation that causes the mother of a newborn to have to always tend to her baby who cant get sleep because some asshole is outside banging on drums like some stupid 5 year old? Quit making excuses for people whove crossed the line-and mind you it’s not the good kind of ‘crossing the line,’ but the douchy kind of ‘crossing the line’ like teabaggers do all the time.

Comment #95: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:45 PM

HOW. HOW.HOW.HOW are they going to do that. BTW I mentioned these things you listed in my post and said they were not that specific about why this would work nor that they were accurate in their assessment that this would fix the problem.

That you are too ignorant to know what their demands would mean for the economy is not their problem. And as for HOW, you may have heard of these things called the legal system and the legislative branch of government? Those two entities would pretty much be the ones to enact each and every one of those demands.

Seriously—I know you’re like 12 years old or whatever, and everyone probably tells you how precocious you are, but you have a lot of work to do before you are an informed observer of society. Get to the library.

Comment #96: Well, what?  on  11/15  at  03:46 PM

typist @ 28:

I also absolutely believe public property is for the public, and OWS is part of the public, but I also think OWS should share it. Sleeping there overnight seems to me more like they’re claiming it as their personal property.

Sorta like how parades, races, and presidential motorcades act like public space is their personal property? Actually, scratch that, since OWS isn’t preventing the public from going into the park, are they?

Comment #97: rain  on  11/15  at  03:46 PM

And by the way amphigorey I shouldnt have to do research. If they want their message heard than I should be able to read about it on the front page of the newspaper. I shouldnt have to research their cause for them. If they were more coherent then it would be well known. Teabaggers made their cause known and those people are witless, I dont know why these people cant.

Comment #98: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:48 PM

#97 rain,
Presidential motocades, races and parades are all for the wide public and are enjoyed by everyone. They dont take over the entire area for months at a time. A presidential morotcade is useful since the American public is voting on the respective candidate. A parade is usefull and provides activity for children and often gives to charities as do races. They invigorate the city and provide income when tourists come to see it. To try and compare the selfish take-over of some very over-dramatic and broad activists who for the most part have no clue what they are even after or how they are going to achieve it to organized parades, races and mortorcades is simply ridiculous.

Comment #99: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:52 PM

#87: Bean Slap

Ah you are right, you did not say hippie. I apologies, you just mentioned banging drums a lot, which confused me. You are right, who these people are doesn’t justify breaking the law.
Law is important, in fact I think it is the linch pin of a democratic society. Which is why it is particularly disturbing to see so many peaceful protesters being arrested, with such violence and brutality, while not a single wall street executive responsible for vast fraud and corruption is, nor any high government official responsible for violations of privacy and torture, and illegal wars. Curious isn’t it. The rich and powerful dynamite the very fabric of American society and nothing, yet some tents in a public park and humveys and helicopters, and automatic weapons descend.

Any comment on anything else I said?

Comment #100: benjaminsa  on  11/15  at  03:52 PM

#96 well what,
Well then why the fuck arent they at the legislative branches rather than camping out and harassing passer-bys in public parks? If they were so coherent and united then why the hell arent we seeing them in an organized manner in front of political assemblies?

Comment #101: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  03:54 PM

Freedom of speech definitely isn’t as absolute as some in this thread say it is. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence does hold that a city can enforce no sleeping ordinances against protesters, so long as the protesters are not singled out based on their message.

However, it sounds to me like what the Bloomberg administration actually DID goes far beyond enforcing a no camping ordiance, and there very well may have been egregious First Amendment violations here.

Comment #102: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  03:55 PM

Well then why the fuck arent they at the legislative branches

My guess would be because not everyone lives in/can live in/can get to Washington DC?

Also there is this thing called television and the internet which has informed Washington DC of their existence and their message. I’m not sure why they should have to be physically outside of Congress, though it would be great if they were.

Again. Library. Also possibly getting out of adolescence ASAP should be a priority for you.

Comment #103: Well, what?  on  11/15  at  04:00 PM

#100 benjaminsa,
Yes, it is incredibly frustrating (which is something the majority of Americans agree on) that corrupt conniving rich people get off without a scratch-at least for the most part, and we have to pay the bill. However it doesnt justify breaking laws, harassing others and taking over public property for yourself. Two wrongs dont make a right. Just because one kind of people break the law and get away with it doesnt mean its allowed for everyone. It just means that we have to get the people who broke the law and make them pay for it or else we become hypocrites, no? Also how these conniving rich get away with it seems very complex. It makes sense to understand these structures so we can address it in a more coherent, lucid and effective manner. Black and whites and broad angry sentiment doesnt exactly endear itself to understanding complex details.

Comment #104: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  04:01 PM

#103 well, what,
Regarding adolescence Well,What, youre are the one with the political naivety, not me. You clearly know more about adolescency than I do since I’m actiually an adult. I mean what adult goes around and calls people names and insults them because they dont agree with them? It takes one to know anything about childish behavior Well, What and clearly this is why you know so much about it. Now if only you’d learn to transcend it…...

Comment #105: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  04:04 PM

Well, gotta go. Persist in your circle jerk of mindless agreement. Didnt mean to ruffle the feathers of some of the more mindless among this blog (fingers crossed).

Comment #106: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  04:06 PM

I do since I’m actiually an adult.

Now *that* is sad. Someone somewhere down the line done you wrong, Bean Slap.

Comment #107: Well, what?  on  11/15  at  04:09 PM

OOOH and FYI yes not everyone can get to D.C. but more destitute and desperate have done it and they can always get activists who CAN get to D.C. if they wanted. After all they managed to get to New York   and since they live in NY they should be able to focus on the political issues there and their legislatures.Theres ample room for politicians to snatch up their angry sentiment and use it in elections, though that could be if only they were more lucid on what they wanted and how they wanted to achieve it.

Comment #108: Bean Slap  on  11/15  at  04:12 PM

#104: Bean Slap

I have to go out now, but finally we are getting somewhere. Exactly how do you make them pay, hold them to account when they have bought the laws, and the judges? What was the retro active telecoms immunity act but a way of circumventing any legitimate process to hold those who broke the law to account. When all legitimate avenues for change have been sealed and sold out, all that is left to the sane rational person is civil disobedience.

Comment #109: benjaminsa  on  11/15  at  04:14 PM

And by the way amphigorey I shouldnt have to do research. If they want their message heard than I should be able to read about it on the front page of the newspaper. I shouldnt have to research their cause for them. If they were more coherent then it would be well known. Teabaggers made their cause known and those people are witless, I dont know why these people cant.

How fucking dumb can one person be?

Like holy shit dude I really hope you’re lying about being an adult, ‘cause damn, that is some straight up stupid bullshit.

Comment #110: Toitle  on  11/15  at  04:15 PM

Bean Slap:

You are confusing several things:

1. Whether or not protesters may have technically violated some laws (they may have).

2. Whether or not the protesters were violent, harassing, or otherwise some form of threat to the public (they weren’t).

3. Whether or not the technical violation of anti-camping laws may have permitted New York to order them out of the park (possible, but we’d need to see the facts and evaluate it under the standard in the Clark case)

4. Whether the manner in which the protesters were removed from the park, as well as the other actions of the police such as seizing the contents of the library as trash, violated the protesters’ constitutional rights (they probably did).

These are four separate questions, and you seem to want to mash them together so that all we ever discuss is question 1, which is in many ways the least important of the four.

Comment #111: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  04:16 PM

Ezra and Yglesias think Bloomberg did OWS an unintentional favor by shutting it down now, since otherwise the occupation would have withered as temperatures dropped and the protesters became miserable sitting in wet socks and getting bronchitis in the cold.  That’s probably right.  The protesters can always come back in April when it’s warmer.
Meanwhile, in terms of solutions, I think one of the big things people should start thinking about is a constitutional amendment that might help get money out of politics, a draft of which can be found at getmoneyout.com .

Comment #112: Miguel Bloomfontosis  on  11/15  at  04:20 PM

Cvil disobedience offends Bean Slap’s precious little sensibilities because he thinks everyone should be a namby pampy incoherent wimp like he is.

Comment #113: Tyro  on  11/15  at  04:25 PM

Let’s not forget, so many of the anti “noise” and “camping” ordinances were put in place in the ‘70s because the powers-that-were-then were just as afraid of the political success of the Vietnam-era demonstrations, sit-ins, and other events as the powers-that-be-now are afraid of the 99% movement. Bean Slap’s unhinged keyboard rants are pretty much proof of how well OWS is scraping raw the nerves of those who prefer the status quo.

Comment #114: Vir Modestus  on  11/15  at  04:26 PM

“If they want their message heard than I should be able to read about it on the front page of the newspaper.”

If you own the press, then you get to put whatever you want on the front page.  All others usually get there because they paid a lot for the privilege directly or indirectly), or their appearance there supports one or more of the causes the owner of the paper favors.  See Murdoch, Rupert, who owns an awful lot of presses and electronic equivalents for recent examples.

If somebody makes accurate and cutting observations about the corrupt nature of Big Business and Finance in America, and the mutually-beneficial nature of the parasitic relationship between Big Business/Finance and American Politics, and no one hears them say it, did they make a sound?...

Comment #115: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  04:39 PM

Scrolling through, it seems that one poster’s issue with OWS is that many people are assembling in a space and discussing matters amongst themselves, when it would be more pleasing to him to be the only voice in a closed space and be the only one everyone else pays attention to.

Just going by the visual, looks like he’s taking up 98% or so of the dialogue, or trying to.

Can’t for the life of me place the name of the poster. Something to do with dip, I think. Well, can’t be bothered if he won’t go to the trouble to be memorable.

So anyway. What do you suppose Mayor Bookburn’s next moves will be?

Oh, I’m terrible with names.

Comment #116: Yamara  on  11/15  at  04:47 PM

Cvil disobedience offends Bean Slap’s precious little sensibilities because he thinks everyone should be a namby pampy incoherent wimp like he is.

Accidentally lost my post because I tried to post from my phone without being logged in, but this is basically the point I was going to make. I will extend it to point out that civil disobedience has been an essential element to historically successful protest movements.

This is especially true when it comes to assembly permits, protesting restrictions and “protest zones,” all of which are oligarchical efforts to contain speech. Not only should protest movements like OWS not have to concern themselves with such restrictions, they should actively disregard them at all times. Such laws are unjust and illegitimate.

Comment #117: grolby  on  11/15  at  04:48 PM

W/r/t Bean Slap, I love the idea that OWS has total control over what does and does not get printed in the newspapers and mainstream media and that they’re just too lazy and confused to get the message out.
Rather than, you know, corporate interests dictating what does and does not get printed in the newspapers and mainstream media…which sounds, to me, kind of like the sort of thing OWS is working against. But I guess no one can be expected to hear that over the drum circles?
I also love how disturbing the non-hierarchical aspects of OWS are to some people. Like, the idea that they acknowledge that different people may have different frustrations springing from common problems is just TOO MUCH TO ABSORB.
Also, that linking visitors to Wikipedia pages so that they might get an overview of a particular situation is offensive. And that people’s right to leisure time and nice stroll in the park is fundamentally more important than free speech and assembly.

So much “what the fuck” happening in my brain right now.

Comment #118: posedbymodels  on  11/15  at  04:51 PM

Well, gotta go. Persist in your circle jerk of mindless agreement. Didnt mean to ruffle the feathers of some of the more mindless among this blog (fingers crossed).
Comment #106: Bean Slap on 11/15 at 04:06 PM

Comment #108: Bean Slap on 11/15 at 04:12 PM

D’awwwwww, did someone’s flounce fail to launch?

Comment #119: themmases  on  11/15  at  04:56 PM

Mayors give a fuck about clean parks the way congressional Republicans give a fuck about the deficit.

Comment #120: Dan  on  11/15  at  05:08 PM

Ezra and Yglesias think Bloomberg did OWS an unintentional favor by shutting it down now, since otherwise the occupation would have withered as temperatures dropped and the protesters became miserable sitting in wet socks and getting bronchitis in the cold.  That’s probably right.  The protesters can always come back in April when it’s warmer.

Ezra and Yglesias unsurprisingly think everyone else is as much of a useless vacillating cowardly sack of meat as they are.

 

Comment #121: Dan  on  11/15  at  05:11 PM

This is especially true when it comes to assembly permits, protesting restrictions and “protest zones,” all of which are oligarchical efforts to contain speech. Not only should protest movements like OWS not have to concern themselves with such restrictions, they should actively disregard them at all times. Such laws are unjust and illegitimate.

The world doesn’t work this way.

First, bear in mind that part of civil disobedience IS getting arrested. Martin Luther King, when he did his protests, EXPECTED to get arrested. I find it a little weird when people advocate civil disobedience and then claim that any police action at all against the protesters must violate the First Amendment. No, it doesn’t. For instance, those people at the sit-ins in the 1960’s WERE trespassing. They WANTED to get arrested, because by getting arrested they called public attention to their plight.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the authorities can arrest a protester for any reason, or that the authorities SHOULD arrest protesters even when they have cause to do so. On the first issue, the authorities have to have a valid legal cause and they cannot single out protesters because of their message. And on the second issue, sometimes the smartest thing to do is wait out a protest or negotiating with protesters rather than causing a conflict with an enforcement action.

Second, there is a role for permits and protest zones—and I say this as someone who has worked on cases challenging permitting and protest zone ordinances in the past.

For instance, one place where there happens to be protest zones these days is in front of abortion clinics. Some of these zones are overbroad and have been struck down by the courts. But the basic principle that the protests can’t block women and medical staff from getting in and out of the clinic is unarguable. Similarly, there are rules against protesting in front of people’s houses, etc.

And sometimes, there are so many protesters that unless you come up with an orderly system for who gets to protest where, you’d have bedlam. This is often true at major political events.

Now, do protest zones get abused and become a reason to repress speech? Sure they do. At political conventions these days, the designated “protest zone” is often fenced off and a mile a way from the convention. The point of those “zones” is not to keep order, but to make sure the protesters are never seen or heard. But that’s not because the concept of protest zones at major events is wrong; it’s because in practice, they are used to suppress speech and courts need to stop this from happening.

And permits, as well, have their place. Streets and parks and other public areas have multiple uses. A good, fair permitting ordinance can ensure that everyone gets the right to use these areas. For instance, I generally consider it a good thing that cities require a permit to hold a parade or street march. The alternative would be that any group of people could shut down any street at any time, which would make city living a lot more difficult.

Again, like protest zones, permitting processes get abused. But as long as any group that wants a permit can get one, and the process is used to keep order at protests rather than to discriminate against protesters with a disfavored message, the concept of a permit does not offend free speech.

Comment #122: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  05:11 PM

I just don’t see why the movement has to be some kind of tent city encampment.

Among other things, it is obviously extremely successful, as a mode of protest, at making coddled, corrupt wealthy assholes like Bloomberg shit their pants in rage.

Comment #123: Dan  on  11/15  at  05:15 PM

GAWD, why do people have to protest in a way that makes me like, NOTICE them ‘n’ shit.

I’m not saying I’m against free speech, I’d just prefer the police to make people do it in a way where I don’t ever have to hear any of it.

Comment #124: Dan  on  11/15  at  05:19 PM

From the pictures I’ve seen, Zuccotti Park is not particularly conducive to kite flying (what with all the pretty yellow-leaved trees) or flag football games (trees again, and the concrete paving would probably hurt a bit to fall on).  So that part of the “preventing the public from using the park” is fail from the start.

Also, how are the OWS occupiers not part of “the public?”  Don’t they have a right to use the park as well?

“However it doesnt justify breaking laws, harassing others and taking over public property for yourself.”

So much for the March on Washington and “I Have A Dream.”

“Quit frankly one has no clue how they want to go about changing anything. They just seem to be pissed and frustrated….well welcome to the rest of the American population? No one knows how they want to go about changing things.”

It would seem to me that one possible answer would be to try to get the attention of the leadership via an extended protest; and since the leadership is almost completely disconnected from the citizenry at large, doing so might require inflicting enough anguish on the citizens to get through to them.

Comment #125: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  05:20 PM

First, bear in mind that part of civil disobedience IS getting arrested. Martin Luther King, when he did his protests, EXPECTED to get arrested. I find it a little weird when people advocate civil disobedience and then claim that any police action at all against the protesters must violate the First Amendment.

Uh, bear in mind that part of civil disobedience is getting arrested… to make the cops look like assholes for arresting you and violating your rights.

Getting arrested is part of civil disobedience. Protesting that arrest and calling it a violation of your rights is also part of civil disobedience.

This is all very simple, and in no way difficult to understand at all.

Comment #126: Dan  on  11/15  at  05:22 PM

“bear in mind that part of civil disobedience IS getting arrested.”

And pepper-sprayed, and choked, and beaten…

“For instance, one place where there happens to be protest zones these days is in front of abortion clinics.”

That’s because those protests are aimed at specific individuals, not government.

“But as long as any group that wants a permit can get one”

That’s where the system breaks down.  Do you seriously believe that OWS would have been able to get a permit to occupy Zuccotti Park for an indefinite period of time?  Because that’s what they wanted to do.  If you come back and say “well they can’t be there indefinitely” then you are ipso facto restricting their right to assemble there.

Comment #127: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  05:26 PM

Oh hey, Russian television is covering it.

Inspiring.

Comment #128: Yamara  on  11/15  at  05:27 PM

You know, being a broke ass black woman means I already didn’t like cops.  Now, I’m going to do an “I Told You So” dance for all those people still silly enough to think the cops exist to protect and service the public, as opposed to why they really exist: to lick rich white man ass and brutualize citizens who don’t have billions of dollars to buy elections. 

Fuck the NYPD.  Hereo no longer, jack-booted, mindless, worthless fascist thugs forever.

Comment #129: Rare Vos  on  11/15  at  05:27 PM

Uh, bear in mind that part of civil disobedience is getting arrested… to make the cops look like assholes for arresting you and violating your rights.

Getting arrested is part of civil disobedience. Protesting that arrest and calling it a violation of your rights is also part of civil disobedience.

But getting arrested and calling it a violation of your rights as a strategy is a different question from whether it actually violates your rights.

There looks to me like there were plenty of rights violations last night, but the tone of this discussion, i.e., “they were protesting, ergo, any medium of protest they choose is protected by the First Amendment and the police can’t do anything to stop them and any rule, no matter how generally applicable, that would tend to impose a restriction on the protest violates free speech rights” isn’t well thought out.

Comment #130: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  05:28 PM

That’s because those protests are aimed at specific individuals, not government.

This is wrong on so many levels:

1. There isn’t a First Amendment exception for protests against specific individuals. If a local bishop tolerated child molestation, you can certainly protest against him in front of the Cathedral.

2. The public’s rights with respect to ingress and egress are just as important when it’s a government office as when it is an abortion clinic.

3. And this is a doozy. The last I checked, Occupy Wall Street is a protest, at least in part, against WALL STREET. I.e., private individuals and corporations!

Comment #131: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  05:31 PM

That’s where the system breaks down.  Do you seriously believe that OWS would have been able to get a permit to occupy Zuccotti Park for an indefinite period of time?  Because that’s what they wanted to do.  If you come back and say “well they can’t be there indefinitely” then you are ipso facto restricting their right to assemble there.

Whether they would be entitled to a permit for an indefinite period of time would depend on whether someone else wanted to use the park for something else.

If nobody wants to use the park, sure, they should be able to get a permit to protest there for an indefinite period of time. If there are other competing users, then the permit scheme has to allocate who gets to use what when.

Comment #132: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  05:33 PM

Dilan, I applaud your efforts here. I’ve basically just ctrl fd your name. I assume you have a j.d?

Comment #133: John Joel Glanton  on  11/15  at  05:38 PM

First, bear in mind that part of civil disobedience IS getting arrested.

Uh, yeah, we know.  Duh.  Which is why we have serious conversations about who can afford to be arrested, under what circumstances that might be worth it, and what to do when it happens, as well as having a working group called Jail Support.

Comment #134: rowmyboat  on  11/15  at  05:39 PM

Dilan, I applaud your efforts here. I’ve basically just ctrl fd your name. I assume you have a j.d?

Yeah, and 16 years experience working on civil liberties cases.

Uh, yeah, we know.  Duh.  Which is why we have serious conversations about who can afford to be arrested, under what circumstances that might be worth it, and what to do when it happens, as well as having a working group called Jail Support.

Which every serious protest movement should be doing. The point I was making is that the attitude “you can’t arrest us! We’re doing civil disobedience” is a modern attitude that really does violence to the actual notion of civil disobedience. Risking an arrest and sometimes getting arrested is part of the concept.

Comment #135: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  05:43 PM

Dilan @132, you are also wrong on so many levels.

“There isn’t a First Amendment exception for protests against specific individuals. If a local bishop tolerated child molestation, you can certainly protest against him in front of the Cathedral.”

Not if it’s on private property; and I don’t think the bishop owns the church, the Church does.  You can be on the sidewalk outside because that’s public, but you can’t block the doors to the church.

“The public’s rights with respect to ingress and egress are just as important when it’s a government office as when it is an abortion clinic.”

As far as I know no one was interfering with ingress and egress at Zuccotti Park until the police erected barricades.

“The last I checked, Occupy Wall Street is a protest, at least in part, against WALL STREET. I.e., private individuals and corporations!”

Occupying Zuccotti Park does not inhibit Wall Street’s operations in any meaningful way.  And it is also in part (I’d say a large part) a protest against government inaction in addressing the problems created by the individuals and corporations of Wall Street.

@133 you neatly dodged my question:  do you seriously think they would have gotten such a permit?  Even if no one else wanted to use the park?  You seem not to realize that it doesn’t matter whether they should be able to get a permit; I say such a permit would never be issued, regardless of the circumstances.

Comment #136: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  05:50 PM

“16 years experience working on civil liberties cases.”

On what side, one wonders…

Comment #137: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  05:51 PM

I love the way the conservative critique of OWS morphs during every debate.  It starts out with, “dirty over-privileged hippies don’t have any actual demands and therefore must disperse”.  Then abundant evidence to the contrary is supplied, and the goalposts move down the field, out of the stadium, over the river, and across the state line until they’re left with, “you dumb hippies will fail because these tactics are not an effective way to change things—if you were smart, you’d do it this other way!”

The concern that conservatives show for this movement is truly touching.

Anyway, you know you’re on the right track when they start giving unsolicited advice on how to save your doomed movement.

Comment #138: ZenPoseur  on  11/15  at  05:58 PM

Not if it’s on private property; and I don’t think the bishop owns the church, the Church does.  You can be on the sidewalk outside because that’s public, but you can’t block the doors to the church.

Correct. To be clear, the abortion clinic protests I was referencing occur on public sidewalks. They block the ingress and egress of the clinics.

Blocking the ingress or egress of anything, on public or private property, is not a First Amendment right. And there are other places you can’t protest, like on the sidewalks in front of a private home. Hence, protest zones—at least in CONCEPT, are constitutional. Where they go wrong is by exiling protesters and discriminatorily enforcing the law.

As far as I know no one was interfering with ingress and egress at Zuccotti Park until the police erected barricades.

Sometimes following the thread is helpful before popping off. I was responding to claims that all protest zones and buffer zones and permitting laws were unconstitutional. They are not. That doesn’t mean the government had the authority to do what it did last night. Separate question.

Occupying Zuccotti Park does not inhibit Wall Street’s operations in any meaningful way.  And it is also in part (I’d say a large part) a protest against government inaction in addressing the problems created by the individuals and corporations of Wall Street.

Again, following the thread would be helpful. OWS protesters have whatever constitutional rights they have REGARDLESS of whether the target of their protest is government, the private sector, or both.

do you seriously think they would have gotten such a permit?  Even if no one else wanted to use the park?  You seem not to realize that it doesn’t matter whether they should be able to get a permit; I say such a permit would never be issued, regardless of the circumstances.

I don’t know. But I do know that the difference between a constitutional permitting ordinance and an unconstitutional one turns on whether the permitting scheme is used for legitimate non-content-based purposes such as ensuring that competing users can have access to a public space and not for illegitimate purposes such as to shut down protests against Wall Street.

On what side, one wonders…

The civil libertarian side. I’ve paid my dues on this issue, and, as I noted above, I generally suspect that the constitutional claims of these protesters are valid given what Bloomberg actually seems to have ordered.

But there definitely is some idiocy on the left on this issue, which I am pushing back against.

Comment #139: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  05:59 PM

“The point I was making is that the attitude “you can’t arrest us! We’re doing civil disobedience” is a modern attitude that really does violence to the actual notion of civil disobedience. Risking an arrest and sometimes getting arrested is part of the concept.”

I know of no one denying this.  (Getting pepper-sprayed, zapped with LRADs, and beaten with batons is not part of the concept.  It is, however, part of the reality.)  But breaking up a peaceful demonstration in a public space is tyranny any way you look at it; and doing so in the face of a court ordered stay is unlawful.

Comment #140: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  06:04 PM

I know of no one denying this.  (Getting pepper-sprayed, zapped with LRADs, and beaten with batons is not part of the concept.  It is, however, part of the reality.)  But breaking up a peaceful demonstration in a public space is tyranny any way you look at it; and doing so in the face of a court ordered stay is unlawful.

Your last point (about the stay) is correct.

But the rest of it is wrong.

If the government has legal cause to break up a peaceful protest (for instance, because it occurs outside of a lawful protest zone or is not permitted or went beyond the terms of a lawful permit), the police can, in fact, break it up. Now, 99 percent of the time, they SHOULDN’T. But they can, in fact, break it up. Just like the police can shoo praying, sign-waving fundamentalist Christians away from the front door of an abortion clinic that faces a public sidewalk.

And IF the police can lawfully break up a protest, and the protesters refuse to move, the police can use sufficient force to dissipate the protesters as well. Again, probably closer to 99.999 percent of the time, I’d say they shouldn’t. But is it “tyranny”? Not really. It’s just the monopoly the police has on the use of force, which is a rather uncontroversial concept among anyone who isn’t a libertarian anarchist.

I don’t buy, based on the facts that I am aware of, that in fact the government either had the legal cause to do what it did or used proportionate force in doing so (and it also appears the government impinged on property rights as well). But the idea that the government can never clear a protest, no matter what the legal justification for doing so, is just wrong.

Comment #141: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  06:12 PM

“I was responding to claims that all protest zones and buffer zones and permitting laws were unconstitutional.”

I didn’t see anyone making that specific claim.  Mighty Ponygirl@79 was responding to Bean Dip@66, who asserted that protest in a public space is dependent on receiving a permit to do so.  If that were the case, then the First Amendment would be a joke; because as I stated, in some jurisdictions permits for (let’s call it) disfavored speech would not issue regardless of the legal standing of the petitioner.

Comment #142: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  06:16 PM

#134 is clearly Dilan’s sock-puppet. Nobody is actually that toadying to another random commenter.

Comment #143: Amphigorey  on  11/15  at  06:19 PM

“I don’t buy, based on the facts that I am aware of, that in fact the government either had the legal cause to do what it did or used proportionate force in doing so (and it also appears the government impinged on property rights as well). But the idea that the government can never clear a protest, no matter what the legal justification for doing so, is just wrong.”

So you’re doing what here, exactly?  Pre-emptive concern trolling?  Because again I didn’t see anyone assert that government can never clear a protest.

Comment #144: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  06:20 PM

Actually I’m not. I’m a fellow attorney who is desperately sick of the total misunderstanding of the first amendment. I’m especially frustrated to see so much of it here.

Comment #145: John Joel Glanton  on  11/15  at  06:25 PM

Excuse me, Ponygirl was @71 not 79.

Comment #146: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  06:25 PM

Well, let’s take a look at that First Amendment then:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It doesn’t say anything there about needing a permit to peaceably assemble.  “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people to peaceably assemble” seems pretty clear to me.  Now, there may have been a horde of “yeah buts” added on over the years, but my understanding of how the law works is that “Congress shall make no law” means exactly that.

Or is it only the right wing that gets to assert original intent?

Comment #147: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  06:32 PM

#134 is clearly Dilan’s sock-puppet. Nobody is actually that toadying to another random commenter.

I don’t sock-puppet.

Comment #148: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  06:37 PM

It doesn’t say anything there about needing a permit to peaceably assemble.  “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people to peaceably assemble” seems pretty clear to me.  Now, there may have been a horde of “yeah buts” added on over the years, but my understanding of how the law works is that “Congress shall make no law” means exactly that. Or is it only the right wing that gets to assert original intent?

You just said a couple of comments ago that you didn’t see anyone saying the government never has the right to require a permit, and here you are making this argument. Which is it?

Having said that, the problem with First Amendment absolutism is that it proves too much. “Fire in a crowded theater” is a tired analogy, so again, I’ll go back to “200 people blocking the front door to an abortion clinic”.

There are debates among people who care about originalism (which I really don’t) about exactly what the original understanding of the scope of the First Amendment was (some people, like Robert Bork, think it was very narrow; others, like Clarence Thomas, think it was pretty broad), but nobody I know of thinks that the seemingly absolutist language in the First Amendment meant that the government could never impose any sort of a speech restriction. Hugo Black thought that way (although Hugo Black would have also said that camping is “conduct”, not speech—he didn’t believe in the symbolic speech doctrine) and maybe William O. Douglas, but they weren’t originalists.

But as a pragmatic matter, as I said, the legitimate reason for permits is because there are competing uses of public property. If your construction of the First Amendment is that permitting processes are never allowed, then you are going to have a lot of situations where competing users come into conflict with each other. And that actually can defeat the purpose of the First Amendment, both because these conflicts can get violent and also because the loudest voices will be able to shout down everyone else (this is called the “heckler’s veto” in First Amendment law).

As I said, permitting processes get abused. They are actually subject to some pretty strict First Amendment restrictions (including content neutrality and procedural protections) for that reason. But they have their place.

Comment #149: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  06:57 PM

So after going back and re-reading the thread, I find this from grolby@117:

“This is especially true when it comes to assembly permits, protesting restrictions and “protest zones,” all of which are oligarchical efforts to contain speech. Not only should protest movements like OWS not have to concern themselves with such restrictions, they should actively disregard them at all times. Such laws are unjust and illegitimate.”

This is what I guess kicked off Dilan’s concern that we don’t understand what the First Amendment’s freedom of speech/assembly clause really means.  Except that it couldn’t have, because he brought up Clark @102.

Speaking of the Clark case and Dilan’s concern, this page talks about some of the “yeah buts” added to the law over the years to restrict the First Amendment.  It also says “the government must offer “compelling” reasons for regulating highly valued forms of expression, such as political speech.”

Comment #150: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  07:01 PM

“You just said a couple of comments ago that you didn’t see anyone saying the government never has the right to require a permit, and here you are making this argument. Which is it?”

I said I had not seen anyone make the claim, not that I would refrain from making it…but I do agree that government can require permits under some circumstances.  I do not agree, current laws notwithstanding, that government should be permitted to require permits to peaceably protest in a public space.  And I do not agree that police should be empowered to use physical force to break up such gatherings.  Unruly, riotous gatherings, yes.  But not orderly peaceful ones.

Comment #151: liberalrob  on  11/15  at  07:12 PM

I do not agree, current laws notwithstanding, that government should be permitted to require permits to peaceably protest in a public space.  And I do not agree that police should be empowered to use physical force to break up such gatherings.

If you said this in a Con law class the professor would start peppering you with hypotheticals.

For instance, suppose there is a pro-life group that regularly protests in a public park across the street from an abortion clinic. They have 200 to 400 protesters there during the clinic’s business hours, every day. The park contains a flat green area alongside a natural bluff or hill, which has been used in the past by various musical groups to give free concerts, because the space takes the shape of a natural amphitheater.

The local high school wants to use the park on a Saturday afternoon for its band to perform in a pep rally for the big game against its bitter rival that night. The high school has used the park for this purpose three or four times over the past decade. The abortion clinic opens Saturdays.

The protesters assert they have the right to be in that park and to use the flat green area for their protests, because the flat green area is visible to the clinic so that the women and medical personnel entering and leaving can see their protest signs and hear their prayers.

In response to the conflict between the two groups, the City Council passes a permit scheme. Both groups apply for permits for that Saturday. In response, the Council decides to issue a permit for the high school for a four hour period on that Saturday for the flat green area, and issues a permit for the abortion protesters for the remainder of the month during the business hours of the clinic. The abortion protesters are also offered a permit for that Saturday in another portion of the park, less visible to the clinic.

The abortion protesters announce in advance of Saturday that their First Amendment rights are being violated and they will not move from the flat green area. The police shows up two hours before the start of the pep rally and orders them to disburse. The abortion protesters refuse to disburse. The police use force to disburse the abortion protesters.

Did the police’s action violate the First Amendment?

Comment #152: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  07:26 PM

But getting arrested and calling it a violation of your rights as a strategy is a different question from whether it actually violates your rights.

And your post, to which I was responding, was clearly and obviously addressing the former.

Do you frequently have this sort of difficulty recalling what you were talking about from one moment to the next?

Comment #153: Dan  on  11/15  at  07:29 PM

First, bear in mind that part of civil disobedience IS getting arrested. Martin Luther King, when he did his protests, EXPECTED to get arrested.

No shit Sherlock. Any particular reason that you think that this needed spelling out? When you’re done trying to impress everyone with how smart you think you are, do you have anything useful to add?

We’re aware of all these points. Heaven forfend that we don’t finish every statement with “...forceful political speech aside, we would like to acknowledge the reality of the nuanced, complicated role of state force and regulation in the lives of citizens, including situations where variations on the very laws that we feel are unjust in this case should be implemented (with wisdom and care) to protect the safety of citizens and allow them unfettered access to services. Furthermore, we would like to add that Dilan Esper is a smarty smart smartypants, and we don’t know how we would understand the complexities of free speech rights or, indeed, how to conduct a protest movement without his stewardship and guidance.”

If you said this in a Con law class the professor would start peppering you with hypotheticals.

For instance…
[Longwinded irrelevant hypothetical question having to do with meanie anti-abortion people and high schoolers]

Christ, what an asshole.

Comment #154: grolby  on  11/15  at  07:41 PM

Seemed pretty relevant and well argued to me Grolby, but you managed a rhetorical coup de grace when you called him an asshole.

Comment #155: typist  on  11/15  at  07:45 PM

“you can’t arrest us! We’re doing civil disobedience”

To be more clear, you reading my post as saying anything remotely resembling such a thought is basically pure invention. Civil disobedience was brought up in the context of occupying public spaces indefinitely. The whole point of making a stink is that it IS wrong to arrest people for protesting. Of course you expect resistance; when it happens, you don’t say “Ah-hah! As we had expected and hoped, we are all being arrested, hooray!” No, you point out that the arrests and crackdowns are fucked up. Everyone gets this; no one needed you to explain it for us.

Comment #156: grolby  on  11/15  at  07:48 PM

Re: the original post, that’s frightening, particularly the book destruction. I’ve only been able to show up at the London protests once, but just hearing this news makes me want to make the effort to show more support. I hope the OWS library can be rebuilt.

“Cvil disobedience offends Bean Slap’s precious little sensibilities because he thinks everyone should be a namby pampy incoherent wimp like he is.”

I honestly believe Bean Slap (who iirc is a woman) is a genuine liberal, just a rather obtuse and stubborn person who has a talent for missing the point. She’s come over concern-trolly on several other issues in the comments here before, and is very frustrating to try and debate with. Not a troll, but definitely a bore.

Comment #157: Treefinger  on  11/15  at  07:49 PM

Well, for one thing, Typist, having my words over interpreted and misread in an ungenerous way kinda pisses me off.

And for another, no, arguments over timed use of permitted space between abortion protestors and arty-farty high schoolers isn’t relevant.

It’s not even that Dilan Esper isn’t an ally and a thoughtful contributor. It’s that he, for some reason, felt it necessary to pull out his J.D. dick and try to show us how long it was.

And it’s not even that I have anything against people with law degrees either. But explaining civil disobedience and Protesting 101 to people who kinda fucking get how it works just doesn’t go over well.

Comment #158: grolby  on  11/15  at  07:56 PM

Grolby:

I don’t, fundamentally, think you know what the First Amendment means. It does not actually mean that you get to conduct civil disobedience without any police response, or that you get to occupy a park indefinitely, or that when you protest there won’t be consequences, or that any attempt to stop you from doing what you want to do is a form of state tyranny.

It very well may mean that what happened last night was illegal, but the reasons for it are somewhat less exciting than the romantic vision you seem to have of yourself.

And when you go out and overclaim, when you say that dangit the police have no right to enforce the laws against you, it discredits the protests. It makes it about you and your desire not to follow rules rather than about either our messed up economic disparities or the First Amendment rights that were likely violated last night.

You called me an asshole because I refuse to acknowlege your right to flout the rules. And, since OWS is all about you and your desire to do so, who cares about the law or anything else? You’re all that the protests are really about, after all.

Comment #159: Dilan Esper  on  11/15  at  08:07 PM

I honestly believe Bean Slap (who iirc is a woman) is a genuine liberal, just a rather obtuse and stubborn person who has a talent for missing the point. She’s come over concern-trolly on several other issues in the comments here before, and is very frustrating to try and debate with. Not a troll, but definitely a bore.

I don’t think she’s a troll or a non-liberal, just a certain strain of liberal upset that not all of politicians involves having a civilized intellectual discussion about policy while you honorably stand tall and proud while the right wing walks all over you. OWS offends that strain of liberal’s desire to be the “reasonable, honorable loser.”

Comment #160: Tyro  on  11/15  at  08:07 PM

“And when you go out and overclaim, when you say that dangit the police have no right to enforce the laws against you, it discredits the protests.”

...in the eyes of the Unthinking Reichwing 27% and our 1% Overlords, the protests were never “credited” to begin with.  And they haven’t been saying anything that many of us on the Left haven’t already been saying for years.

The difference is that they went out and did something which was too difficult for the MSM to ignore completely — so attention was brought to bear on our concerns because those people were willing to violate social norms, if not actual laws. 

Protest like this is one of the only two things that the powerless have available to address their problems.  The other is terrorism which is almost certainly far, far worse…

Comment #161: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  09:06 PM

I honestly believe Bean Slap (who iirc is a woman) is a genuine liberal, just a rather obtuse and stubborn person who has a talent for missing the point.

At some point the distinction between troll and determinedly obtuse basically fades to meaninglessness.

When you’re coughing up nuggets like “These people stand outside playing drums and disturbing people. They remind me of left wing teabaggers” you’re pretty much just trollin’ regardless of how hard you try to kid yourself that you’re expressing anything sincere.

 

Comment #162: Dan  on  11/15  at  09:28 PM

When Bean Slap started with the “If OWS were serious, I’d see them on the front page” riff, I assumed s/he was fucking with us. That is some weapons-grade clueless right there.

Comment #163: Alyson Miers  on  11/15  at  09:33 PM

Bean Slap @ 99

#97 rain,
Presidential motocades, races and parades are all for the wide public and are enjoyed by everyone.

LOL.  Gord, do I fucking hate parades.  Closed streets for a race are simply a nuisance.  And you didn’t even glance at the motorcade link, didja?

Comment #164: rain  on  11/15  at  09:36 PM

Presidential motorcades are for EVERYONE.

Public protests which are open to everyone in which people are protesting issues that affect everyone are closed, exclusive affairs!

Comment #165: Dan  on  11/15  at  09:46 PM

#27:  HISTORY:  I’d lay the blame on the Bonus Army more on MacArthur than Patton.  YMMV.

Comment #166: Eric_RoM  on  11/15  at  09:46 PM

Presidential motorcades are for EVERYONE.

Also economic summits, like the G20, G8, and APEC.

Comment #167: rain  on  11/15  at  11:14 PM

that any attempt to stop you from doing what you want to do is a form of state tyranny.

It very well may mean that what happened last night was illegal,

this might be a slight misquoting at that particular point, but ultimately this really is what I’m getting out of Dilan’s argument: that if it’s not illegal, it’s not tyrannical. O.o

Comment #168: jadehawk  on  11/16  at  12:05 AM

When Bean Slap started with the “If OWS were serious, I’d see them on the front page” riff, I assumed s/he was fucking with us.

Well, why the hell should I have to do any research or educate myself about anything? Anything worth knowing can be communicated in a five-second soundbite. If teabaggers can figure that out, why can’t everyone appreciate that logic?

Comment #169: junk science  on  11/16  at  01:56 AM

#49 oldfeminist,
Sorry but that is so stupid. Yes free speech does come with responsibilities which is why you cant yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. Its a right with stipulations and its written in law. They allow you the platform and you are not supposed to abuse it. You have to pay attention to the effect you have on others. Rachel Maddow cant come on the air tomorrow and say, “ladies and gentleman….another terrorist attack is about to happen in 5 minutes in downtown Los Angeles. Grab your kids and head out…quickly…now” wait for a panic and then go “aggghhh, got you, hahahaha!” She would be brought to court. You guys are starting to sound as stupid as teabaggers. Reminds me why I left the blog ass sniffing and always agree world.

Comment #170: Bean Slap  on  11/16  at  05:03 AM

Gawd, you guys are so scared of anyone who dissents from your myopic world view arent you?


And exactly junk science #170. Also doesnt have to be a sound byte, but homosexual rights, womens rights, ect are distilled to sound bites and they get places.

Comment #171: Bean Slap  on  11/16  at  05:05 AM

#166
So Dan because I dont agree with you, you think I’m a troll. Wow, how mature. OMG even at number 166 people are still talking about me! Did it break your heads open to hear someone not towing the lemming line? Mustve really shook up your world.

Comment #172: Bean Slap  on  11/16  at  05:09 AM

#89 ounidtus,
Actually if I was an American conservative I’d be supporting the behavior.Check the recent polls; the teabaggers support Occupy! Occupy also align majoritively with teabaggers on their views of the corporate world and government. Nope, seems its you who is the conservative my delusional friend.

Comment #173: Bean Slap  on  11/16  at  05:12 AM

#109 benjamin,
But all outlets havent been denied. They can still go to government and do something. They havent even tried to do this yet. They simply decided to bang drums, shit in public parks and feel entitled to take up public places for themselves. They arent changing anything and recent polls indicate that the public is starting to turn against them due to this behavior, so they arent even helping the issue. I also think that more detail needs to be given to what they are after and if it is good for the big picture.Detail needs to be given as to whether or not they even have an appropriate interpetation of the laws and how they affect people and the government. Both the teabaggers and Occupy seem very black and white, over-emotional, and dramatic. Those traits arent the best foundation for sane changes. I am not against their protests just the squatting, harassment and the lack of permits. There is no reason they need to become like that which they hate and break the law. Leftists arent teabaggers.

Comment #174: Bean Slap  on  11/16  at  05:20 AM

Whatever happen to building credibility, putting in time fighting for a cause and analyzing every inch of the issue rather than just squatting on public property because you havent got your way like some 5 year old child-and banging drums like one.

Comment #175: Bean Slap  on  11/16  at  05:22 AM

And exactly junk science #170. Also doesnt have to be a sound byte, but homosexual rights, womens rights, ect are distilled to sound bites and they get places.

Exactly. I could give a fuck about messages or content when it comes to political stances, since I’m just posing as a liberal to try to look cool. It’s all about the marketing campaign for me.

Comment #176: junk science  on  11/16  at  06:31 AM

They can still go to government and do something.

Apparently not, as elections showed. It wasn’t until OWS that the public and politicians started talking about income inequality. Before that, it was just whining about the deficit, all the time. Your weak-kneed desire to be a liberal loser failed to produce results, and you’re just angry that OWS did what you were too much of a coward to take part in.

putting in time fighting for a cause and analyzing every inch of the issue

Because you sit alone in a room while the right wing walks all over you because they know you’re too weak to ever make a stand for what you believe, and you’re so shy and afraid you’re unwilling to make anyone feel uncomfortable about their immoral right wing political beliefs. No one wants to be part of your “weakling liberal aesthetic.”

Comment #177: Tyro  on  11/16  at  07:37 AM

They allow you the platform and you are not supposed to abuse it.

actually, that’s precisely how rights do NOT work. “they” cannot allow or disallow something that is considered a right. You’re thinking of privileges.

You have to pay attention to the effect you have on others. Rachel Maddow cant come on the air tomorrow and say, “ladies and gentleman….another terrorist attack is about to happen in 5 minutes in downtown Los Angeles. Grab your kids and head out…quickly…now” wait for a panic and then go “aggghhh, got you, hahahaha!” She would be brought to court.

what an unlikely scenario.

And actually, most likely she’d simply be fired, and then maybe sued in civil court. Lying on TV is not a crime; ask Fox News about that.

Gawd, you guys are so scared of anyone who dissents from your myopic world view arent you?

“scared”? you’ve got an inflated sense of your importance.

And exactly junk science #170. Also doesnt have to be a sound byte, but homosexual rights, womens rights, ect are distilled to sound bites and they get places.

and they all of course managed to get on TV within 2 months of their movements forming.

are you really that stupid?

Occupy also align majoritively with teabaggers on their views of the corporate world and government.

ah, i see. you are that stupid. thanks for preemptively answering my question.
Silly facebook memes notwithstanding, the actual overlap in issues these two movements support is virtually nonexistent.

They can still go to government and do something. They havent even tried to do this yet.

erm. the whole reason the OWS movement exists is because “going to the government” has not worked for decades now.
I should also point out that a) there is an Occupy D.C., and b) OCW has already effected change in how members of government act, so they iare in fact doing what you whine they are not doing, you’re just being willfully ignorant.

shit in public parks

blatantly lying isn’t exactly helping you look any less like an idiot, just FYI

They arent changing anything

see above

I am not against their protests just the squatting, harassment and the lack of permits.

“I’m not against their protests, I’m just against the stuff that makes them effective”

you’re a very silly person.

Whatever happen to building credibility, putting in time fighting for a cause and analyzing every inch of the issue rather than just squatting on public property because you havent got your way like some 5 year old child-and banging drums like one.

that’s both a strawman and the fallacy of the excluded middle. oh, and ignorant of how progress has been historically achieved. bravo.

Comment #178: jadehawk  on  11/16  at  09:04 AM

“Gawd, you guys are so scared of anyone who dissents from your myopic world view arent you?”

Verdict is in:  Troll.

You don’t claim people are “scared” of your worthlessly stupid posts if you’re not a trool.  You don’t call liberalism a “myopic world view” if you’re not a troll.

Keep feeding it and it will keep wasting our time.

Comment #179: Rare Vos  on  11/16  at  10:42 AM

I was angered, but not surprised, that NYC evicted the OWS people.  NYC is, to a large extent, owned by the 1%, as have the politicians been for a very long time.  (Having Bloomberg as Mayor just cuts out the middle-man.)  And heavy-handed demonstrations of who’s boss are a centuries-old tradition here.

But I don’t see this as a serious setback.  Those of us who would like to take the USA (or whatever country they live in) back from the 1% have a long, long road ahead.  Squatting on a slab of concrete (that spot resembles what I would call a park the way I resemble Marilyn Monroe) and getting your picture in the papers and on blogs may be exciting, but it’s just the parade before the war.

The 1% didn’t take control because they have some magic potion or something.  They have control because the majority of citizens—that is, the majority of the 99%—gave it to them and keep giving it to them.

The majority of New York voters were willing to pull the lever for Bloomberg, and were willing to pull the lever for repealing term limits.  The majority of US voters voted for Bush II—twice.  The majority of adults in the USA are willing to buy into the idea that they are somehow richer and/or better off because rich thieves have more opportunities to skim off another few billion dollars.  Until these people start seeing the 1% as their exploiters instead of their future or their alter egos, all the tent cities in the world won’t make a difference.

It won’t be easy.  There’s a lot of propaganda out there that we are all like Donald Trump because we can buy a wide-screeen TV at Walmart—“on time”—or that Rupert Murdoch’s or “Citizens United”‘s freedom of speech translates into greater freedom for us peons.  The blue pill is a lot more seductive than the red pill.  But I don’t have a lot of hope for real change until people like my boss (a staunch pro-business Republican, though squarely in the middle of the 99%) realize that the people they’ve convinced themselves are saving them are in fact the ones who are screwing them over.

Comment #180: AMM  on  11/16  at  11:00 AM

“But I don’t see this as a serious setback.  Those of us who would like to take the USA (or whatever country they live in) back from the 1% have a long, long road ahead.”

100% co-signed (quoted section only).  I don’t see it as a major set back either.  In fact, now that more people have seen now totally not legal, ethical or constitutionally sound the 1%‘s behavior is - up to and including using cops (who, presumably are part of the 99%, when not wearing a white shirt) - against peaceful, unarmed, non-violent citizens, the more galvanize people are.

In my city, the police, the local government, etc. have been awesome to the OWS protestors camping right outside city hall.  But, since NYC, Oakland, etc. decided to devolve into fascist police state entities, more and more people have been showing up at the local OWS.

All Bloomberg really accomplished is making himself look like a big pile of festing dogshit and OWS like hereos.

Comment #181: Rare Vos  on  11/16  at  11:45 AM

I think Bean is more anti-OWS than I am (tho I’m skeptical that it’s nearly as “effective” as a lot of you guys seem to think, I’ll be on board when I see the major policy changes they effect) but yes there are limits to free speech of the fire in crowded theater variety.

If somebody says “Barack Obama should be shot in the head” that’s not speech, that’s a crime. Same goes for anyone in fact, advocating violence is not free speech. Similarly, I don’t think it’s free speech to interrupt/shout down someone else who is speaking, the way the Teabaggers did in Congressional town halls throughout the summer of 2009.

Comment #182: typist  on  11/16  at  02:37 PM

#178,
tyro you nitwit, what the fuck did I say? The Right wing and teabaggers support Occupy. They polled the Right and they majoritively SUPPORT what they are doing. You cant make comments about the right-wing walking all over Occupy when they majoritively support it. Again you did not make any comments about my post or my proposal you just ranted and went off the deep end about “not standing up,” ect. So you have to break laws that affect random innocent people to stand up against….law breaking? WTF? This is why I stopped blogging for 6 months…..too much stupid, partisan blindness and a circle jerk of agreement. Blogs dont give you a voice, theyre just for ignorant lemmings. You have lawyers try to explain to you order and beaurocracy and poli sci degree holders (myself) try to explain these things as well and predictably since it requires a few seconds of comprehension and understanding beyond ‘color in the lines’ you throw your feces at it. Very stupid and simpish tyro. But then again this is what makes up a majoritity of the blogworld.

Comment #183: Bean Slap  on  11/17  at  01:37 PM

#183 typist,
I have written post after post saying I dont necessarily disagree with what Occupy stand for but how they go about it. Do not make claims about things I did not say. You help the blog world steal and distort peoples voice when you dont take 5 seconds to read and remember things I written before you write about what I’ve said. I have literally written out that I dont necessarily disagree with what Occupy stands for just the other issues such as taking over public property and many posters views here that freedom of speech means you can do whatever the fuck you want regardless of the effect it has on others (so I guess anti-choice activists calling for an execution list of doctors if “freedom of speech?”). I am also not naive enough to not think that these protests really were all peace and love and not a little violent, law-breaking (aside from taking over public property) and harassing of innocent people living within the area.

Comment #184: Bean Slap  on  11/17  at  01:43 PM

#124 dan,
So you’d rather people pay attention to their feral behavior than their message and then have the public associate these people as radicals and therefore ignore or discredit anything they say? So for teabaggers you’d rather them riot and break laws rather than peacefully assemble and follow the law? For anti-choice protesters you’d rather have them bomb places (it draws attention doesnt it-and after all its buildings not people) and riot, harass and break the law rather than assemble peacefully, reasonably (at least as much as an anti can) and not act out simply for cheap attention from the media?

#141 librob,
If youre breaking the law is it really peaceful? Not to mention but in the papers it doesnt seem that they were really all that peaceful. I have read about people using the park to shit in and crimes happening such as rapes such as happened near my state. Peaceful assembly is only considered peaceful when its legal, especially on such a large scale as Occupy protests are doing it on. Also the I have a dream speech was legal, people didnt harass others, break the law and they did get permits. Quit comparing legal protests to those that arent legal. If these people are sleeping in Zuccotti Park then I’m sure its not all concrete. By talking about kite flying it was an example that you cant take over parks to squat in. Thats written in the laws that is why they keep the homeless from sleeping there. Switch flying kites to rollerblading, hiking, picnics, ect that you can do on concrete or in wooded areas (which cant be that wooded since they are able to erect camping areas there). I’m also wondering, did you really fucking say that its alright to abuse the citizenry to get leaders to listen to Occupy? What kind of perverted thinking could ever lead anyone to that conclusion and it certaintly makes you seem like a hypocritical asshole. The irony is that you talk about oppression but yet if you feel that its okay to do that then you are an oppressor.


and rare vos I didnt call liberalism a myopic view I called people who claim stalking is free speech and anyone who dissents with the opinion that it is okay to break laws, harass others and that police crackdown on breaking laws is “tyranny.” That is all simply drama and not well-thought out liberalism. You are just a hyperbolic exasperated fool who cant read or think for themselves.

Comment #185: Bean Slap  on  11/17  at  02:26 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.