Occupy Broadwayworld — Page 13

Winston, you only cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when in fact there is no fire.

The quote only applies to created a false sense of panic or risk - not actually warning of a real and present threat.

So, your point is pretty nonsensical in terms of a First Amendment argument and political speech.

When you talk about accountability - where is your demand that our elected officials, police, and corporations be held accountable for the actions and conduct? Why do you hold the OWS collectively accountable for the acts of all and not to the same for others? Why is it OK for the police to direct the mentally ill, known criminals and drug users to OWS locations, and then act surprised that there is crime and drug use at such locations? Why is it OK for the police to use excessive force and mace and beat peaceful protesters? Clearly, the entire police force must be responsible if you hold the OWS to that standard.

And Namo, damn, you write beautifully. That you for taking the time to respond.

"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".

I do think that the Occupy movement does need to pivot a bit.

I think occupying a park or city hall is symbolic, but now that there is a discussion about income inequality actually taking place, and some of the issues raised by the OWS movement are getting air time, the message needs to expand its focus and move into more direct action.

The hardest part is usually getting infrastructure in place - with social media, and the work done these past two months, they now have the means (and money) to organize, plan and communicate not just locally, but nationally.

Youwantitwhen,

With regards to holding people accountable for their actions, you forgot the fact that I never said in my original post that the people that occupy wall street are fighting against are in the right either. I just don't like the fact that, because the businessmen are wrong that the protesters feel that that justifies them to do things that are wrong as well. So no, I don't have to hold both sides accountable when both sides are in the wrong

Furthermore, there weren't any stories from any legit news sources that said that cops brought people into the park for the sake of being able to have the ability to arrest people. That is just crazy conspiracy talk. The only stories of arrests that I have read (and make more sense to me ) are that the cops told the protestors that if they did X,Y and Z then they will arrest them. And, because the protesters are young and idealistic they do that which the cops explicitly tell them not to do because they feel that it brings more to their cause if they do get arrested like a martyr.
Namo,

I have been down to the area of the protests. I say area because it's kind of hard to get near the park because the police have a good portion of it blocked off. I have heard the noise and smelled the god awful smells. As much as that area of Manhattan is used for business and work, it is also a part of the city where people live as well. I understand that you were talking about how music is a thing that brings people together? The thing is is that if you are living in the area, or going to work, or just walking by and not associated with the protests in any form don't you have the ability to walk down the street or be in the area without their music bothering you?

And, with regards to the noise cannons and the big lights that were used the other night when they cleaned out the park, well, I can't say that I feel too sorry for them there. The people in the park were told by the city that they need to clean up the mess that is going on in there. The city went so far as to even say to them "look, the place is a dump, if you guys leave for a little bit so we can clean it up we are willing to let you back in." And, that was the city saying that in desperation to get the place cleaned up. However, the protesters didn't do any of that so the police had to take it over by force. Do I think that the whole doing it at 2 in the morning thing was the best idea in the world? No, I don't, but at the same time the protesters would have been just as angry if it happened at 2 in the afternoon. It is the simple fact that it happened at all that bothered them.

Also, going back to the area that they are in being a place where people work and live. There was a news story on one of the local news channels here in New York City. The story spoke about how there were small business owners who had to close up shop because of the the folks in the park. That potential customers didn't want to be in one person's coffee shop for example because there were road blocks up because of the protesters in the park. And, those who could get through simply didn't want to because it meant being near the park and near the protesters. When they asked the protesters if they felt responsible that there were a few small businesses that had to close as a result of them being there, they said that they empathize with the owners but don't feel sorry or responsible. Taking accountability that those things happened because you (figurative) were sitting in the park is something that needs to happen. Yes, these people may have been victimized by big business and the fact that the economy is in the toilet. However, just because that is the case you can't use that as a way to get away with doing things. It would be like someone who is black playing the race card and using the whole "white man is keeping me down "defense to get away with whatever they want to do.

And, I have moved beyond the fact that until now I was always under the impression (as were most people) that when people join together in a protest, there generally is a common goal that people want to have happen as an end result. And, that isn't happening with this group. But, I do find it funny that Occupy Wall Street has taken up residence in the atrium of the Deutsche Bank building. For a group that claims to be unified, they sure don't come off that way. For example, There was a story in the NY Times that spoke about how officials from the city were meeting with members of OWS to see what it was that they wanted. The three or four members of the group were offended that the city would think that there was only a couple of people or one person in charge of the movement. And yet, there are only a select few who are able to use the facilities in the office building and who make the decisions for the rest of the people there. And, there is a social gap between people living in the park as well. So, this whole thing is very much divided.

I guess I fall into a category called the 98 per cent. A phrase used by The Daily Show's John Oliver when talking about people who do agree with the protesters cause, but not with the protesters themselves.


John Oliver and the 98 per cent

---

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Winston.

I do think that you are falling back on big generalizations. The protesters are not all "young and idealistic" (as if being either of those things somehow diminishes their commitment in the first place) and they don't risk arrest to be martyrs. They risk arrest because they are engaged in civil disobedience. Getting arrested is what civil disobedience is about.

"For a group that claims to be unified, they sure don't come off that way." I think what they claim to be is outraged, and I do think they come off that way. They also know that such a diverse group of people has different ideas that bring them to the group and different ideas of what should happen next. In fact, it's this lack of "unification" that both puzzles and angers establishment people who want leaders and bullet points AND contributes to the movement gaining momentum. It is, as they say, a very big tent, and a fairly wide-ranging bunch of people.

"When they asked the protesters if they felt responsible that there were a few small businesses that had to close as a result of them being there, they said that ..."

I think it would probably be more accurate to say "when they asked SOME protesters... some of them said..." because this is a huge group of people and it's agreed upon that when participants give quotes they are speaking only for themselves, not in any official movement capacity. Many people who do speak on camera preface what they say with such a disclaimer.

You talk about how there has to be "accountability" about the disruption caused by protest, which by definition is disruptive. That's the point. What you didn't really deal with in your response to my long post was my question about your understanding of the First Amendment. As Naomi Klein has pointed out, there is an absolute guarantee of freedom of speech and assembly in the Constitution, even though you say it's not a "blanket," but that's exactly what it is. Klein also points out that the Constitution does NOT guarantee freedom from disruption or disturbance in citizens' lives when others are protesting. It was kind of the point of the amendment, to charge US citizens with raising a ruckus when the country goes off track.

I wasn't asking you to feel sorry about the fact that the police brought bright lights and noise cannons at 2 in the morning, I was pointing out and hoping you agreed that it was at the very least deliciously ironic that they would do things that are so disturbing to the neighborhood at such a terrible time of day because they feel the protesters are too noisy and disruptive.

Also, it was obvious from the beginning that the Bloomberg administration was throwing anything at the wall, (cleanliness, rowdiness, drumming) to influence public opinion and have an excuse to clear out the park and shut down the occupation. I mean, even on the face of it you can see that was the goal. All the things they seemed to care about stopping were just a bunch of lines, distractions to get people riled up. I mean who can forget Mr Roxy claiming occupiers were washing dishes in a bin under a tree a pigeon was sitting in!! Gasp!! Close ALL outdoor cafes in Manhattan!! (Also, it's true that pigeons never sit in trees, but by golly that's what Roxy "heard" and so it was truth to him and he just had to pass it on.)

Let's also not forget that the Bloomberg administration ignored the court order allowing Occupiers back in the park the other morning, the order was read to the police who would not respond (in direct violation of the court order) until a different judge was found to overturn that order. So, let's talk degrees of acting as if the law doesn't apply and see who comes out with the most egregious violations. Another example, people can NOT be allowed to camp in a park vs. all media is banned from the premises when the police go in in riot gear to STOP THE CAMPING!! Doesn't that bother you at least a little, banning and in some cases arresting the press? If nothing else, Occupy models transparency, which really seems to frighten the administration. Hell, the NY city counselor who was knocked down and arrested two blocks from the park while heading down to observe the eviction was detained for 17 hours without being given access to his attorney. Does that not seem very out of whack to you all over the cleanliness of a park? Is it not troublesome for you at all?

Still, all's well that ends well and what ended up happening after the clearing you thought should have happened much sooner was what happened whenever Bloomberg clamps down. He drives more of the 72% of New Yorkers who agree with Occupy Wall Street out in the streets, as the estimated 20-35,000 people who took part in Thursday's actions attests. It's not over by a long shot.

---

Ike Barinholtz Twitter:
Thought I was camping out for #OWS but turns out I was in line for the new goddamn Twilight movie, which, p.s., WAS AMAZING! #teambella
15 Nov

---

I don't understand it.

Alumni don't understand it.

It makes no sense.

Or guns.

That is SO great. I think Seething Silence is going to be the name of my new band.

---

Ha!

---

The Westboro church is protesting a funeral in Arkansas today of young football player who passed away. It had me thinking maybe OWS should move to funerals. I mean protesting funerals is frowned upon, but it always seems to be fine.

Please tell me this movement is also going after the U.S. healthcare system. Or is that a totally different fight? I'm just frustrated now after getting some news today and realizing how messed up things are.

---