My God, you are an idiot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Right -- it did start that way. I forgot that post.

Would you complain if riot police broke up the Fantastix? Or Cats?

I am astonished that the Ghost of TS Eliot hasn't hunted down and killed every damn actor to ever appear in Cats.

I would still not let the police pepper spray them all, but would have no objection if the police stood by while the Writer's Guild went all Atticus on them with police batons.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Are you basing that on actually seeing the protests, or on seeing news coverage of them?

Back when the first Iraq war broke out, I was in a number of protests. These were huge marches -- I was in one that started at Justin Hermann plaza and reached Civic Center plaza; Civic Center plaza and Market Street were completely packed, and there were still many people in Justin Herman plaza.

And yet, the news coverage of these protests was all about the "anarchists" doing stupid shit. In reporting on one march, with many tens of thousands of people, the TV news showed the same 3 guys running around and knocking over newspaper boxes. Undoubtedly there were people doing stuff like that -- but the fact that they had to follow these three guys, and no one else, was a pretty good sign that it was very minimal and rare.

I stopped watching TV news after, and specifically because of, this idiotic coverage. So I can't say if it was that biased in the run-up to the more recent war on Iraq. But i would not be surprised -- the country was more gung-ho for W's war than for Bush I's, the news has gotten ever-more biased, and perhaps you were watching FOX?

The big IMF/World Bank protests in DC (2001? 2002?) were the same way. There were a few "anarchists," who could be easily identified by their clothes, who got a lot of attention and may have been looking for opportunities for vandalism. But there were also thousands of other well-intentioned, if largely poorly informed, others who were sincere in urging "more world, less bank."

I used to circumnavigate the massive set of barriers the police set up that closed off most of central DC to check out what the protester were up to. The "anarchists" were far from representative, but were frequently featured in the news.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This all started with me saying I've got nothing against cops peacefully arresting someone who is peacefully protesting. As long as that protestor is breaking the law.

In Boston, there is a court process underway to establish the extent of their free speech rights. Only after a court approves it will the city be free to remove them. The city has used force to limit the encampment to a particular area, and within that space has enforced laws against those breaking them, but not attempted some kind of broad clearance.

Seems reasonable.

A never ending protest would be pretty damn tedious, but, then, so was the Fantastix. We've got a couple of them around here, though - don't you?

In Houston, the area in front of City Hall was donated by someone who apparently stipulated that people couldn't be arrested for sleeping on that land. The validity of the stipulation on the bequest has been disputed, but the city attorney said no arrests could be made for sleeping there. The city made a deal with the Occupy folk that they could have another park next door (because the area in front of City Hall is used for a lot of non-Occupy stuff). There are probably 60 people there most of the time, and it's not in an area that's used too much. I suspect that nothing will happen to them, because it's just not that big of a deal here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

In Houston, the area in front of City Hall was donated by someone who apparently stipulated that people couldn't be arrested for sleeping on that land. The validity of the stipulation on the bequest has been disputed, but the city attorney said no arrests could be made for sleeping there. The city made a deal with the Occupy folk that they could have another park next door (because the area in front of City Hall is used for a lot of non-Occupy stuff). There are probably 60 people there most of the time, and it's not in an area that's used too much. I suspect that nothing will happen to them, because it's just not that big of a deal here.

I drove by over the weekend, and Boston's occupy had a sizable crowd of tourists around a drum circle, a couple of cops chatting up occupettes, and two stray hairy guys holding signs no one was paying attention to. The sidewalks were all clear and it was a carnival like atmosphere. The drum circle wasn't bad at all.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

What's the law here? And why is it something other than "we don't want you to protest that way?"

Don't you need a permit for assembly like this?

What diseases were spreading through the camp? Which of them risked spill over outside the camp?

None and none?

These are idiotic question. Not to purposely channel Hank, but you obviously no nothing about science.

Since when are you so credulous of government? Is it just because they're just cracking down on dirty hippies (I'm sorry, "hooligans and derelicts")?

Since I've read the various reports of what's going on at these sites. Human waste, violence (including rape), etc.

To protest in the park in front of city hall? I really can't square the notion that you need permit for that with the concept of the first amendment at all (but you might be right that the supreme court can).

But was there a violation of a permit here? I've not seen any mention of permitting issues in the press coverage.

Seriously? People with signs, drum circles and meetings have nothing to do with free speech? That's completely irrational.

Of course, because no one could possibly be sincerely anti-war.

But even if you're right, anarchists have free speech rights too.

I'm no Con Law scholar, but has the S.Ct. done away with time, method and manner?

I now picture you with a flat top and a cardigan. When's the last time you yelled at some kids to get off your lawn?

Ha! You have me all wrong. I actually do not think the 1st amendment has many limits, but I do think the right to assemble needs to be balanced with other interests.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dangerous? How? Have you been to the protest site?

What other dangerous elements do you support locking up for their political activities?



What's it about then? They are really just rival suburban business men who are trying to reduce competition from the downtown industries they are "killing?"

Dude, you live in Minnesota. My high school had a larger population than your entire state. You've got know clue what goes on in a big city.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

A friend of mine goes down to feed breakfast to the protestors every now and then. He never said anything about it being unsanitary there, though I never thought to ask. I'll ask, the next time I talk to him.

He said the riot police on Sunday were very nice.

Would be interested to know his take.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is LA different?

From what I've heard/read about LA, SF and Oakland, they are killing the mom and pop businesses - defecating on walls, scaring away commerce, etc.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Are you basing that on actually seeing the protests, or on seeing news coverage of them?

Back when the first Iraq war broke out, I was in a number of protests. These were huge marches -- I was in one that started at Justin Hermann plaza and reached Civic Center plaza; Civic Center plaza and Market Street were completely packed, and there were still many people in Justin Herman plaza.

And yet, the news coverage of these protests was all about the "anarchists" doing stupid shit. In reporting on one march, with many tens of thousands of people, the TV news showed the same 3 guys running around and knocking over newspaper boxes. Undoubtedly there were people doing stuff like that -- but the fact that they had to follow these three guys, and no one else, was a pretty good sign that it was very minimal and rare.

I stopped watching TV news after, and specifically because of, this idiotic coverage. So I can't say if it was that biased in the run-up to the more recent war on Iraq. But i would not be surprised -- the country was more gung-ho for W's war than for Bush I's, the news has gotten ever-more biased, and perhaps you were watching FOX?

Yes, I was in the financial district during that time and witnessed it with my own eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I drove by over the weekend, and Boston's occupy had a sizable crowd of tourists around a drum circle, a couple of cops chatting up occupettes, and two stray hairy guys holding signs no one was paying attention to. The sidewalks were all clear and it was a carnival like atmosphere. The drum circle wasn't bad at all.

Sounds like Venice Beach.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yes, people work downtown - it's actually had a pretty successful revival since the Staples Center went up.

I'm downtown about once a week. LA Live accelerated the revival process, I think.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

From what I've heard/read about LA, SF and Oakland, they are killing the mom and pop businesses - defecating on walls, scaring away commerce, etc.

I really hate it when people go defecating on walls and scaring away the commerce.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Don't you need a permit for assembly like this?

Depends on the local law. Absent one that specifically says you do, no.

These are idiotic question. Not to purposely channel Hank, but you obviously no nothing about science.

I will take this as an admission that you are aware of no specific public health threat posed by this particular protest, but you are confident that one is possible thus it's fine with you to remove them.

I'm no Con Law scholar, but has the S.Ct. done away with time, method and manner?

You mean time place and manner, but no, and that's why I said the court would likely agree with you.

Then again, anyone whose thought about for a few seconds can see how easily time place and manner (especially when grounded in bogus "public health" concerns) can be and are used to suppress legitimate speech.

Ha! You have me all wrong. I actually do not think the 1st amendment has many limits, but I do think the right to assemble needs to be balanced with other interests.

Agreed. What I'm struggling with is what those other interest are here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Dude, you live in Minnesota. My high school had a larger population than your entire state. You've got know clue what goes on in a big city.

Yeah, I've never lived, worked or visited in a "real" big city like LA.

Again, I will take this as you not knowing of any particular danger posed by these protests, but a capable of imaging many possible dangers (do we know if any of them of Muslins?).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

From what I've heard/read about LA, SF and Oakland, they are killing the mom and pop businesses - defecating on walls, scaring away commerce, etc.

Just out of curiosity, where did you read this? Do you think the answer to that question matters?

ETA: From what I've seen in Minneapolis and New York with my own eyes, and seen and read elsewhere about those places and DC, people seem draw to see what the hype is all about.

Maybe Californians are different, or maybe the protests there are more seedy or something, but I really don't buy that many people who would otherwise go downtown are avoiding it because they are afraid of the protesters.

That is I don't buy it until the Oakland police demonstrated how it because physically dangerous if the police decide to make it that way.