Mr. X said:
The system is broken yes. Does that mean that this protest should be exempt from the law? No.
If they want to protest, they can. But they need to do so in a legal manner, unless they want to give the 1% a way to downplay the movement. The media coverage from them breaking various laws? Thats run by the 1%. Want to stop that? Stop giving the 1% ammo to use then.
I work with the police a lot. And people seem to have a misunderstanding by what a public place is. Not everywhere you think is a public space is indeed public. Even a park can be closed come night time. At when it is closed it you can, and hopefully will, get arrested for tresspassing. Even a street can be closed.
I don't understand why your allegiances to the law supersede the rights of the people they were made for to express their views and to peacefully assemble in an area that is, yes, intended for public use.
The "human microphone" that these occupy protests use is due to them not being granted the permission to get a megaphone. The fact that Zucotti park was evicted was because Mayor Bloomberg decided to disregard a judge's injunction which specifically stated that he could NOT do that. Injunctions have been successfully granted in several other protests, which means they cannot be evicted by the police until they have a hearing.
Now think what this means. You mean a judge thought the protesters should be able to stay, pending a hearing? You mean the NY mayor disregarded this and evicted Zucotti Park anyway? Do you read no disdain for the occupy movement into this at all? Do you think Bloomberg did so in the name of discouraging tresspassing?
You can argue that you agree with what these protesters are saying and that what these protesters are doing is unlawful, but I will contend that your legal objections lend timid, disingenuous support to these protesters. This isn't just some special interest protest. This is literally the most important thing you could be protesting in this country at this time. Do you really think that these accusations of "breaking the law" are REALLY about the littering, or are REALLY about the tresspassing? Do you think Bloomberg REALLY was concerned about Zucotti Park being cleaned when he wanted to evict the protesters? When a people are in desperation, have voted time and again and see no change, when all they have left in this country is the ability to physically occupy space, and your government wants to infringe upon you your ability to do
even that, I find myself alarmed that there are people who are not alarmed by this.
Consider an old law against wearing masks that led to some arrests, for example. This was the legal thrust the police were working with initially at Zucotti park, and tells me that these "lawbreaking" arguments are as much a distraction as the fabrications about littering, drug use, and RAPE that have been cried by those whose real problems are with that of the Occupy movement itself.
I would rather have a discussion about income inequality, a deregulated Wall Street, corporate money in politics, and all the effects this has on us, than I would about whether or not the people trying to bring light to this issue should be allowed to occupy a public space. It's mostly because I find saying no to that a stupid argument to make, one that is only made by somebody who either isn't aware of the context for which such accusations are being made, or somebody who would rather avert their eyes from the context and wish not to think that the law is being used here as a convenient way to quash a genuine, well-intentioned protest.
jpp8 said:
Just pointing out that while we're being portrayed as a bunch of goalless, lawbreaking bums, our first amendment rights to a free press are being violated.
Not to mention the first amendment rights of free speech and peaceful assembly, which seems to be held in equal disdain.
But to get to what I really want to talk about here: income inequality, Wall Street's deregulation, and corporate money in politics.
Ah hell. I'm too tired now and I'm sure you've all heard it before.
