Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[stilicho]

....

My wife and I both lost our jobs two years ago.

....

Will probably have to continue this on a less virulent thread somewhere and some time. Our own anecdotal experiences are probably not that interesting to anyone (Wall Street or Occupy Thereof).

I can guarantee you, though, that the various "Occupy" installations are going nowhere fast. Reasons: great slogan--no pursuit, inconsistency of goals, poor media relations, etc.

Simple questions, RandFan: Do these people actually speak to you? Do they compel you to take to the streets with them? Do they have a consistent message that speaks to you and your friends and family? Do they have a plan to which you, your friends, and your family would eagerly subscribe? Are they hiring and for how much? (Last is a joke--please ignore.)

 

[JihadJane]

'Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones':

"Before gas goes into a crowd shield bearers have to be making no progress moving a crowd or crowd must be assaulting the line. Not with sticks and stones but a no ******** assault. 3 warnings must be given to the crowd in a manner they can hear that force is about to be used. Shield bearers take a knee and CS gas is released in grenade form first to fog out your lines because you have gas masks. You then kick the canisters along in front of your lines. Projectile gas is not used except for longer ranged engagement or trying to steer the crowd ( by steering a crowd I mean firing gas to block a street off ). You also have shotguns with beanbags and various less than lethal rounds for your launchers. These are the rules for a WARZONE!!

How did a cop who is supposed to have training on his weapon system accidentally SHOOT someone in the head with a 40mm gas canister? Simple. He was aiming at him."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And these events--or anecdotes, as you've also called them--aren't being presented without context. They're being presented within the context of OWS. Wherever we find OWS gatherings, we find these events. We find failures of sanitation. we find allegations of theft and battery and rape and statutory rape.

Dishonest use of plurals.

We find safety hazards. We find violent clashes with the police.

No, we don't find "violent clashes", we find the police violently attacking non-violent protestors.

We find a disregard for permits and other elements of the due process our society has already agreed upon.

We find permits being used to undermine the constitution.

 

[JihadJane]

And these events--or anecdotes, as you've also called them--aren't being presented without context. They're being presented within the context of OWS. Wherever we find OWS gatherings, we find these events. We find failures of sanitation. we find allegations of theft and battery and rape and statutory rape.

Dishonest use of plurals.

We find safety hazards. We find violent clashes with the police.

No, we don't find "violent clashes", we find the police violently attacking non-violent protestors.

We find a disregard for permits and other elements of the due process our society has already agreed upon.

We find permits being used to undermine the constitution.

 

[Virus]

We find permits being used to undermine the constitution.

Naomi Wolf is a Truther.

 

[leftysergeant]

Naomi Wolf is a Truther.

You are raising bizzarre points that have no rational connection with the matters being discussed. Ask Hannity or the Rushblob to pull some new lines out of their butts for you.

 

[leftysergeant]

'Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones':

"Before gas goes into a crowd shield bearers have to be making no progress moving a crowd or crowd must be assaulting the line. Not with sticks and stones but a no ******** assault. 3 warnings must be given to the crowd in a manner they can hear that force is about to be used. Shield bearers take a knee and CS gas is released in grenade form first to fog out your lines because you have gas masks. You then kick the canisters along in front of your lines. Projectile gas is not used except for longer ranged engagement or trying to steer the crowd ( by steering a crowd I mean firing gas to block a street off ). You also have shotguns with beanbags and various less than lethal rounds for your launchers. These are the rules for a WARZONE!!

How did a cop who is supposed to have training on his weapon system accidentally SHOOT someone in the head with a 40mm gas canister? Simple. He was aiming at him.

I have worked in force protection training as a role player. Anybody who pulled that crap would have been yanked out of formation for a field-grade ass-chewing.

No, we don't find "violent clashes", we find the police violently attacking non-violent protestors.

No. We find idiots firing "non-lethal" munitions as though they were harmless annoyances at peaceful protestors who pose no threat to the lives of the cops.


That's ********** up like polio.

 

[WildCat]

BTW: The First Amendment applies to govt but that doesn't mean the concept only applies to govt.

Actually, it does apply only to government.

Anyone who uses their power to silence Americans is acting contrary to the purpose of the first Amendment.

No, it doesn't. 100% wrong.

What good is the 1st Amendment if corporations can silence you through other means.

The purpopse of the 1st Amendment is to keep government from restricting speech. It has squat to do with your employer, who certainly can restrict your speech. You can call the POTUS a stupid pandering fool, try telling your boss the same thing.

 

[WildCat]

Wrong about what? I didn't say her employer violated her first Amendment rights. I said her employer acted contrary to the concept.

How did her employer act contrary to the concept of the government being unable to restrict free speech?

 

[RandFan]

I can guarantee you...

Not impressed. I never cared for prognostications. You can play the John Edwards card regardless of what happens. I have no idea what will be the result. Perhaps a little. Perhaps things will have to get worse and there will have to be more and more confrontations. I hope not. I hope this translates to votes and the politicians take notice.

Simple questions, RandFan: Do these people actually speak to you?

I'm neither ideologue or idealist. I tend to be dispassionate when it comes to rhetoric and ideology. I tend to value principles more. Having read The Case For Democracy by Natan Shransky I champion any popular movements and find the kind of minimizing and belittling of them as I have in this thread disgusting and that I am passionate about. I guess I'm moved more by the contempt for the expression of speech of citizens more than anything else. Call me Tom Joad I guess. It really baffles me that people feel a need to marginalize people who are simply exercising their most fundamental of rights. I honestly think it's a religious like need to protect and defend the status quo against what they percieve as the dregs of society. Rush Limbaugh refers to them as "wandering shreds of human debris". Having studied psychology and understanding the ability to manipulate and mold the message I ought not be surprised.

In any event, I seriously want change. We have fundamental and systemic problems in America. The sky isn't falling and the ship will eventually right itself IMO but the suffering is largely unnecessary. We can do something about it. We just need to motivate our leaders to do something about it.

 

[RandFan]

How did her employer act contrary to the concept of the government being unable to restrict free speech?

The govt isn't the only means to silence people. There is a concept in the law called the "spirit of the law". The purpose of the 1st Amendment re speech isn't simply to protect people from the govt. It is to advance free speech. Speech is fundamental to a free society. If the powers that be can find a means other than govt to silence people then we will have lost free speech.

I hate to break the news to people but the govt isn't the only entity that can infringe on your freedom. If someone from blackwater forces you to put up their soldiers (contractors) for the night, the fact that it isn't the govt doing it doesn't mean that your rights haven't been violated.

Not sure why that's so difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, it does apply only to government.

Actually no, speech is important not simply protection from the govt. It was the value of speech that the founders included it.

No, it doesn't. 100% wrong.

Argument ad assertion. And you are wrong.

The purpopse of the 1st Amendment is to keep government from restricting speech.

The purpose is to advance the cause of speech. It's limited in scope but speech is the salient point.

It has squat to do with your employer, who certainly can restrict your speech. You can call the POTUS a stupid pandering fool, try telling your boss the same thing.

Laws, ethics, justice, these are not black and white. We often find conflict and dilemma as we do in this case. The needs of commerce outweigh the rights of speech when it comes to reporting and the news.

That said, my employer can't tell me what to do on my own time in most circumstances. Now, he can give me a contract to sign that restricts my speech but if there is no legitimate reason for him to restrict my speech the contract is unconscionable and unenforceable. And THAT is what you don't get. A judge would not be required to hold me in breach for speaking on my own time if the speech has no direct bearing on the company.

BTW: If you were speaking in a public forum and someone tried to stop you the govt could intercede on your behalf. Threats made to journalists and reporters or pundits are taken very seriously because we do value speech. It's not treated simply as a threat but as a threat to liberty.

Loss of liberty by a force other than govt is still a loss of liberty. It doesn't mitigate the loss that the force isn't govt.

Look, I don't give a rats ass if you agree with OWS or not. I really don't. I only want a fair hearing and discussion. I'm not here to win some argument about revolution. But please, understand the principle of free speech. This visceral dogmatic response that holds that the first Amendment is simply about limiting the control of govt in our lives and otherwise has nothing at all to do with the free exercise of speech is absurd.

 

[RandFan]

Their main page. Under the logo of a raised fist. Big red letters:

"The only solution is World Revolution".

What sort of people talk about solving problems with world revolution? I don't know. I can't think of anyone who might talk that way. Could be anyone.

http://occupywallst.org/

If anyone is interested, here's some more pics of Occupy SF. Mostly just pics of garbage and oddball slogans written on walls. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/28/the-right-to-poo-and-van-jones-skepticism/

How is that an answer? I'm not sure why you are not getting this. These are the opinions of some perhaps many. Perhaps they're right. I don't think they are when it comes to world revolution but then I don't leave my brain on autopilot. I'm not controlled by political dogma that some dead person implemented and some rich fat ass tells me I must swallow whole. I have the ability to think for myself.

Perhaps we should discuss it rather than knee-jerk reject it. Isn't THAT what the theists do? Perhaps you need a refresher course on free speech and the importance of the dialectic.

Christopher Hitchens on free speech, pt 1 of 3

 

[WildCat]

Actually no, speech is important not simply protection from the govt. It was the value of speech that the founders included it.

Absolute nonsense. The founders were concerned solely with the government restricting free speech.

Argument ad assertion. And you are wrong.

My argument is 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong. That's why you cannot show a single court case sanctioning a non-government entity for violating free speech rights.

The purpose is to advance the cause of speech. It's limited in scope but speech is the salient point.

The 1st Amendment is quite clear: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Nothing there about private employers and free speech of their employees.

Laws, ethics, justice, these are not black and white. We often find conflict and dilemma as we do in this case. The needs of commerce outweigh the rights of speech when it comes to reporting and the news.

There is no conflict or dilemma here. Employers can fire you for speech they don't like.

That said, my employer can't tell me what to do on my own time in most circumstances. Now, he can give me a contract to sign that restricts my speech but if there is no legitimate reason for him to restrict my speech the contract is unconscionable and unenforceable.

Oh look, another evidence-free assertion!

And THAT is what you don't get. A judge would not be required to hold me in breach for speaking on my own time if the speech has no direct bearing on the company.

No, but your employer certainly can.

BTW: If you were speaking in a public forum and someone tried to stop you the govt could intercede on your behalf. Threats made to journalists and reporters or pundits are taken very seriously because we do value speech. It's not treated simply as a threat but as a threat to liberty.

Not what we're talking about. You're free to say anything you like in public which your employer doesn't approve of, and they cannot stop you. What they can do is fire you.

Loss of liberty by a force other than govt is still a loss of liberty. It doesn't mitigate the loss that the force isn't govt.

It also isn't unconstitutional.

Look, I don't give a rats ass if you agree with OWS or not. I really don't. I only want a fair hearing and discussion. I'm not here to win some argument about revolution. But please, understand the principle of free speech. This visceral dogmatic response that holds that the first Amendment is simply about limiting the control of govt in our lives and otherwise has nothing at all to do with the free exercise of speech is absurd.

That is what the 1st Amendment is all about. The only absurd thing is you thinking the 1st Amendment applies to anything but acts of government.

Remember that woman who gave an interview at an OWS Los Angeles protest when she went on an anti-semitic rant? She lost her job with the LA Board of Education because of it. Oops! I guess free speech doesn't apply to employer-employee relationships, even when that employer is the government. Perhaps you can help her get her job back using your flawless legal theory?

 

[WildCat]

The govt isn't the only means to silence people. There is a concept in the law called the "spirit of the law". The purpose of the 1st Amendment re speech isn't simply to protect people from the govt. It is to advance free speech. Speech is fundamental to a free society. If the powers that be can find a means other than govt to silence people then we will have lost free speech.

Evidence? Court cases? Didn't think so.

I hate to break the news to people but the govt isn't the only entity that can infringe on your freedom. If someone from blackwater forces you to put up their soldiers (contractors) for the night, the fact that it isn't the govt doing it doesn't mean that your rights haven't been violated.

It's not the Constitution that prevents Blackwater from quartering their employees in your house, but other laws.

Not sure why that's so difficult of a concept to grasp.

I grasp the concept, it's just that there is no legal basis for your assertions.

 

[RandFan]

Absolute nonsense. The founders were concerned solely with the government restricting free speech.

argument by assertion (and wrong)

My argument is 100% correct

argument by assertion

There is no conflict or dilemma here. Employers can fire you for speech they don't like.

Proof please? Please to show that any employer can fire any employee for what the employee says on his or her own time? You must have cause. And BTW, you are ignorant of the law. There is a concept in the law called wrongful termination. An employer cannot fire someone for any reason.

Terminated for Cause

Reasons an employee could be terminated for cause include, but are not limited to, stealing, lying, failing a drug or alcohol test, falsifying records, embezzlement, insubordination, deliberating violating company policy or rules, and other serious misconduct related to your employment. Conviction of a crime or breach of a contract you have with your employer may also be grounds for termination for cause.

Look, before you pretend to be an expert on something and hold forth to lecture, at least do a modicum of research.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If this continues much longer my forehead will have a permanent outline of my palm.

 

[RandFan]

Evidence? Court cases? Didn't think so.

My point had nothing whatsoever to do with court cases. It's a philosophical argument in favor of the principle of free speech.

It's not the Constitution that prevents Blackwater from quartering their employees in your house, but other laws.

I never said it WAS the constitution. The liberty would be in jeopardy regardless of the constitution.

 

[Stout]

I guess I'm moved more by the contempt for the expression of speech of citizens more than anything else. Call me Tom Joad I guess. It really baffles me that people feel a need to marginalize people who are simply exercising their most fundamental of rights. I honestly think it's a religious like need to protect and defend the status quo against what they percieve as the dregs of society. Rush Limbaugh refers to them as "wandering shreds of human debris". Having studied psychology and understanding the ability to manipulate and mold the message I ought not be surprised.

In any event, I seriously want change. We have fundamental and systemic problems in America. The sky isn't falling and the ship will eventually right itself IMO but the suffering is largely unnecessary. We can do something about it. We just need to motivate our leaders to do something about it.

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone trying to stifle the protesters by limiting their access to free speech. I'm opposing them for their lack of direction, their lack of focus which is deliberate and designed to increase the number of participants.

Sure, I can get on board with the whole "tax the rich" idea. But who is to be considered rich ? Di I get to make that determination based on my own perceptions or is it going to be based solely on the 15 and their 200 million dollar yachts. Then questions arise. Questions like like...Suppose the rich just take their money and leave. Seriously, when you're super rich it doesn't matter where you live. How's occupy Dubai coming along ?

Would the rich simply divert their charitable donations to paying those increased taxes ? Maybe, who knows ?

Tax the corporations ? sure. Pay increased cost for consumer goods to offset those taxes ? Might work, as long as the increased costs aren't visible. It would have the same effect as raining/introducing a sales tax and we all know how popular those are.

Regulate the financial industry ? No problems with that.

OWS and it's various global offshoots needs focus otherwise their doomed to obscurity in the next couple of weeks as the media looses interest in them.

 

[Neally]

I guess I'm moved more by the contempt for the expression of speech of citizens more than anything else.

Good thing then that that isn't happening in this thread as much as you pretend it is. No one is arguing against their right to peaceably assemble or speak their minds. It's how they are assembling and what they are saying that is under criticism.

Call me Tom Joad I guess. It really baffles me that people feel a need to marginalize people who are simply exercising their most fundamental of rights.

They are not being marginalized for exercising their rights, it's the content and context of what they are doing that is being looked at.

Look, before you pretend to be an expert on something and hold forth to lecture, at least do a modicum of research.

And you should as well. That quote is meaningless in terms of what an employee can be terminated for. Hell, it doesn't even mention that they can be fired because the business has slowed down and they are no longer needed. In most cases an employee can be terminated, just because, or no cause.

 

[RandFan]

All I can say is.

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone trying to stifle the protesters by limiting their access to free speech.

Yeah, you have a point. And to be sure not all of the politicians or even posters in this thread are only trying to belittle or demean the movement. I don't mind the discussion of problems caused by the protestors as they are real and I'm not unsympathetic to them. I don't mind people preferring that the protests not take place. I do mind the single mindedness of demeaning the movement without any willingness to consider if there is anything to talk about. But again, this isn't true of everyone who opposes the protests.

I'm opposing them for their lack of direction, their lack of focus which is deliberate and designed to increase the number of participants.

Understood. I don't know to what extent this is true but to the extent that it is, I agree it's problematic.

Sure, I can get on board with the whole "tax the rich" idea. But who is to be considered rich ?

There are different proposals. Some say everything for those making over $250,000 everything under $250,000 stays the same rate. So, if you make $350,000 the first $250,000 stays at the same rate. It's only everything above that which is taxed at a higher rate. Now, some are suggesting that starting amount should be $500,000. Some $1M. Anything would be a start.

Would the rich simply divert their charitable donations to paying those increased taxes ? Maybe, who knows ?

I think we've sufficient history to make some reasonable assumptions. Back when the tax rates were 91% we had tax incentives for charitable donations and investments into business that would benefit the community. It seems that it worked. We did one hell of a lot better then than we do now. Hell, we did a hell of a lot better under Clinton. Now, granted, it wasn't simply the tax rate. I know that. It's just that Bush lowered the tax rate 10 years ago and we've been in an economic mess. If lower tax rates isn't working and higher taxes have worked (Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, Clinton) then we ought to do something different than we are now.

Regulate the financial industry ? No problems with that.

Cool.

OWS and it's various global offshoots needs focus otherwise their doomed to obscurity in the next couple of weeks as the media looses interest in them.

A very real possibility and I suspect you are right. However, if people's lives don't improve they will be back. People who are suffering in a nation that is seeing unprecedented wealth for the rich but little for the middle class will only continue to breed discontent. There is precedent. If politicians want a stable society they should pay attention and actually listen to the citizens and work to effect change.

Great post. Thank you.