>> ^ChaosEngine:

@laura and @Sagemind, I'm not sure you understand what the word "protest" means.
"to give manifest expression to objection or disapproval; remonstrate."
If you do it silently and without causing a fuss, you're doing it wrong.


What you are describing is called civil disobedience. That can be good too, but it has a time and place. Most importantly, everyone involved should know that arrest is among the risks they are taking on, and be prepared for that eventuality. I've argued other places that this action would have been fine if the headline read "two dozen willing to be arrested to voice discontent over Citi's handling of student loans." Instead the headline read "mean old cops wouldn't let us shut down a business." Do you see how one can garner support and the other makes you look either clueless or manipulative.

I'd disagree. Most people doing protests for civil rights didn't have a draft of the Civil Rights Act in mind. They wanted "equality", which is pretty vague. They did have a pretty long and specific list of grievances that illustrated what kinds of equality they were looking for.

Same is true here. People want "fairness", which is pretty vague. But they also have a pretty long and specific list of grievances which illustrate what kind of fairness they're looking for.

I think the real issue they've got right now is that the civil disobedience they're engaging in isn't demonstrating the injustice they're fighting against.

>> ^rottenseed:

Concise point. Now you'd have to agree that all of those protests and movements that got us somewhere had a precise focus that everybody could agree upon. They were marching, picketing, and protesting one specific cause, not a vague "boogie-man". I fail to see that aim within this "movement". In fact, I think the vagueness of it is why there are such numbers. I think if there were a specific aim, that some people might not agree with, they'd lose some strength in numbers. It's easy to just yell and shout that you're being fucked, but it's another thing to march organized towards one goal. That's all I'm saying, no focus, no work will get done.

You have the right to conduct peaceful assembly. You want to protest, protest all you want. But when you start causing disruptions to others daily life you are, as netrunner said, - conducting civil disobedience.
I'm not saying that police officers don't overstep their bounds. They do it all the time. But there's a big difference between a woman getting wrongfully arrested, stripped naked and being forced to clothe herself in toilet paper and what's going on here. There's an even bigger difference between this and any Arab uprising. As soon as I see an OWS protester shoot video of a government sniper right before the sniper kills him - I'll change my mind. But if you're sitting in the street with out a permit and a police officer tells you to move and you don't move - You get arrested. Shocking!

The girl at 4:30 made me laugh. You're being detained for failure to comply - My guess is the officer told her and she didn't listen. You don't need your rights read to you because you are not under arrest. She'd be taken to the station and be arrested there or put into detention to cool down. At which point they would read her her rights. Most likely she got a ticket with a notice to appear and sent on her way. Sounds pretty harsh to me.

I'm not sure what to make of this video, really. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

In Syria, Bahrain, Libya, and Iran, the mere act of protesting was declared illegal. IIRC, in all four of those countries, violence was the only police response to protests, and in all four countries it escalated to police/military/paramilitary forces firing bullets at protesters.

That's not happening here.

In Egypt, the police didn't really crack down on the protests themselves. There were attempts to use agents provocateur to provoke violence to give the police some cause to shut down the protests, but that never worked. There were some touch and go moments when it seemed that the police were going to try to storm Tahrir square to forcibly end the protest, but that never happened (largely because the military stepped in and made sure that didn't happen). The result of the protests and accompanying strikes ended up toppling the Mubarak regime.

In America, things are a bit different. People who want to uphold the status quo want the protests ignored, and they know that violence and arrests will only help the protesters in the long run. So the OWS people have had to resort to a little provocation of their own. It's noble and self-sacrificing that they're doing so, and it does make the police look bad when they arrest people for innocuous sounding things (like directly protesting in on the steps of the NYSE itself, or blocking a bridge), but they're intentionally doing so to draw attention. It's called civil disobedience.

So really, I'm left a bit confused by the video. The title of the video is "I'm not moving", but spends a ton of time highlighting police violence at the protests here and abroad (and it's mostly abroad). When they finally show the guy who says he's not moving, they don't show him getting arrested or beaten, they just hear him begging to get arrested, and seemingly being ignored.

So is the point "I have a point to make that I'm willing to get arrested for" (i.e. "I'm Not Moving") or is the point "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are hypocritical tyrants because the police arrest me when I intentionally try to get arrested to make a point."

You can't really have it both ways.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Martin Luther King managed to create protests and a movement that DIDN'T get in people's faces or disrupting the business of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with what you're protesting. He did it with a positive, uplifting, inspirational message that people of good sense could not help but agree with. These yahoos are doing the exact opposite. They couldn't be driving people AWAY from their cause any better if they were trying.


wrong wrong WRONG!
martin luther king jr knew full well the only way a peaceful protest would be effective was by interfering with business.
any protest that was even moderately successful interfered with business and the everyday machinery of government.
now we have "free speech zones"(see:RNC 2008 st paul MN) which are many times far distances from the very thing being protested.....how convenient.
this is where the protesters can be marginalized and ignored but get in the way of everyday business and NOW you will get noticed.
and the government will send its goons in to strong arm and intimidate because the business class scream bloody murder.
there will be arrests.
there will be macings.
there will be violence and yes,even sometimes murders.
all of which can now be clandestinely videotaped from a phone exposing the strong arm tactics of the government all in the name of "keeping the peace".

this aint rocket science.it is effective and it works.
your obedient slave solution just leaves the protester flaccid and ineffective.
you have the RIGHT of redress.
you have the RIGHT to assemble.
and the police are within their powers to cite or detain you for civil disobedience.
they are NOT within their powers to:maim,torture,brutalize and disregard the laws in which they were sworn to uphold.
this is about challenging power and authority and the only way to do that properly is to disrupt the machinations of power and authority.

Theoretically, you're correct. In America social change can occur by movements - like queer rights, gender equality, etc. But, we're no longer in the 60's - the right has dampered/tampered with every facet of our society to the point where when people are protesting on Wall Street they are not protesting for social change they are protesting for governmental change because the people on Wall Street and all of those corporations own the government. They will not stand for little peons whining about financial inequality because they own the news, they own the jobs, they own everything with a "let them eat cake" attitude; they will never let up with their class warfare.

I'd love to see a huge movement occur because then people would realize how serious they are in order to continue with the status quo. You'd end up seeing microwave technology used on the masses involved. I mean I've seen it before but only on smaller scales.

>> ^Yogi:

Anyone who says we can't change the government through social change, education, or civil disobedience is simply ignorant of history. It's not their fault though because we're instructed that the 60's were the "Time of Troubles" where we had drugs and free love and a war no one liked and nothing significant happened that wasn't brought about by learned great people. The change that occurred was massive and there have been other social changes as well. We threw off slavery in the US before we did that it was thought to be completely impossible...then we fought and African Americans got their just rights as well and that didn't take a civil war.

Anyone who says we can't change the government through social change, education, or civil disobedience is simply ignorant of history. It's not their fault though because we're instructed that the 60's were the "Time of Troubles" where we had drugs and free love and a war no one liked and nothing significant happened that wasn't brought about by learned great people. The change that occurred was massive and there have been other social changes as well. We threw off slavery in the US before we did that it was thought to be completely impossible...then we fought and African Americans got their just rights as well and that didn't take a civil war.

I think it's appropriate to be jaded. Mass protests only seem to work once in each country. After that, police learn not to use water hoses, and the public regards the whole thing with a "been there done that" attitude. I can't think of any major policy change brought about by street protests in the US since the civil rights movement.

On the other hand, using force to bring change to a democracy is trampling on the rights of the majority that supports the system. Even if you believe they are misguided to do so, people do elect the government that we have. They have the right to be governed by the laws written by their elected representatives.

>> ^shagen454:

I love it but I've been completely jaded by our government. I applaud everyone who is out there but this will not solve or inspire any change. Unfortunately, -in my opinion- the only way for change to occur is not through social means, civil disobedience or anything but brutal force.

I love it but I've been completely jaded by our government. I applaud everyone who is out there but this will not solve or inspire any change. Unfortunately, -in my opinion- the only way for change to occur is not through social means, civil disobedience or anything but brutal force.

I fully support what they did. Disrupting a speech is a perfectly legitimate form of protest and given Israel's continued policies in the Gaza strip it is certainly warranted, in my opinion.

I do not support them trying to get the charges dropped, though. The whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law peacefully and to go to jail for what you believe. If they feel that strongly about the issue they should do whatever jail-time they're given with pride--and be willing to do it again if necessary.

Honestly, I don't see how they even have a case. As this article clearly explains, the Supreme Court has routinely ruled in favor of governments' (both local and federal) right to limit the time, manner, and place of speech so long as there is no infringement on content. Given that the speech-place will probably not be considered a "traditional public forum" (see the article) I don't think they have much of a legal chance of winning.

Related article: Woman tackled and arrested for disrupting Netanyahu's speech in front of U.S. Congress

Food for thought (from the article above):

And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, “This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia.” And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.

@zombieeater that is such bullshit. You want to eliminate all religions from the public sphere, fine, but don't try to hide it in your particular interpretation of the first amendment.

How does saying a one minute prayer at a public ceremony materially support christianity? I could see if some other non-christian students wanted to do something but were refused.

You know, if precedent really is against a friggin one minute prayer, then I would say civil disobedience is certainly called for, as the students in the video did. I guess this particular law will be like the 55MPH speed limit.

The kid that sued. What type of parents does he have to empart such a warped sense of priority? Hopefully he will go to college, broaden his horizons, and realize there are more important and interesting issues than a one minute frigging prayer.

Well, that's a bit brutal. Innocent doesn't apply to law enforcement? I guess the badge takes that innocence away? Who are these innocent people supposed to be then, since you specificall exclude all law enforcement?

Okay, so scenario. Female soldier goes overseas, and is raped by extremists. Now, in your opinion, paraphrased "boo fucking boo. He signed up for it. What did you expect?" That's sick. And no, that's not putting words in you mouth. That's applying your belief to a equal scenario, because "That's what they sign up for."

Does this mean *it does mean* any American citizen, who pays taxes and therefore directly contributes to the wars deserves to be blown up by planes? Because that's what we signed up for as American citizens who contribute willingly. Wow, Genji, that's vivid. So because one signs up for something it's nothing to be sad about?

You can try to manipulate what you said, but either A-it's full of hypocrisy, or B-it's completely insane. And my application fits. "That's what you signed up for." Wow. (Thoreau had some nice comments about taxes and civil disobedience. That's what I mean about willfully paying taxes.)

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw & @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 30th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/Psychologic">Psychologic
"You're comparing self defense with law enforcement. One is defensive. One is offensive. Apples and oranges." - Blankfist of the North Star
~~~
At lawdeedaw, the daily threat of death is what you sign up for when being a cop or soldier.
Boo fuckin' boo if you get killed. You signed up for it. What did you expect?
If seven good police officers have to die for every one innocent person saved from a wrongful death, so be it. IT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR.
It's not a noble profession if you can murder an old man whittling a piece of wood because you're too afraid to put yourself at risk for even a moment.
Risking your life daily is what gives those profession prestige.

See MaxWilder's question to me and my answer above.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bareboards2
Fer fuck's sake lady. Everytime you choose to whine about semantics instead of address the issue, I'll respond with "santorum stains". How 'bout that?
Why's it so hard to understand that I can't stop to get a statement before every question I ask you? [even if i did. you never give a straight answer anyway]
It's called making an inference from your past implications.
~~~
Anywho..
Like I said, the issue today is:
Why do you praise this video footage as public empowerment.. but view activists exercising civil disobedience as "dumb" or whatever exact set of words you used?
[I'd hate to infer put words in your mouth again]
I'm asking cause it's mind-boggling that you'd advocate "transparency" aka "waiting til some bad shit happens" first, over actively seeking a society in which something as simple as dancing would never be met with imprisonment or violence.

@bareboards2

Fer fuck's sake lady. Everytime you choose to whine about semantics instead of address the issue, I'll respond with "santorum stains". How 'bout that?

Why's it so hard to understand that I can't stop to get a statement before every question I ask you? [even if i did. you never give a straight answer anyway]

It's called making an inference from your past implications.
~~~
Anywho..

Like I said, the issue today is:

Why do you praise this video footage as public empowerment.. but view activists exercising civil disobedience as "dumb" or whatever exact set of words you used?
[I'd hate to infer put words in your mouth again]

I'm asking cause it's mind-boggling that you'd advocate "transparency" aka "waiting til some bad shit happens" first, over actively seeking a society in which something as simple as dancing would never be met with imprisonment or violence.