Some questions for the "occupy" defenders:

[wdomburg]

Would you be as supportive if pro-life activists flooded into abortion clinics and shouted at workers and patients over bullhorns, led marches against the private homes of doctors and clinic workers, vandalized businesses thought to be sympathetic to pro-choice causes and hurled epithets at anyone who expressed disagreement with them

Comments

[zoethe]

1. I do not support vandalism, and do not defend the violent behaviors of the occupy people. And as vile as I find the anti-choice protesters just down the street from us, I have defended their right to be there.

2. I have been accused of being a right-wing nut for my defense of Fred Phelps right to protest.

3. Yes.

[wdomburg]

You're generally of a more reasonable cloth. Though my first question was deliberately inclusive of more than simply "violence", including behaviour that goes far beyond contemporary pro-life demonstrators.

The vandalism and violence are arguably fringe elements of the movement (though also arguably tolerated by the movement at large). However tactics like shutting down bank branches, offices and now shipping ports are clearly embraced by the core of the movement; indeed, publicly planned and voted on.

In other words, would your defense of the protesters down the streets hold if they entered and occupied the lobby of the clinic instead of demonstrating outside?

[zoethe]

No, and I don't think that the Occupy protesters should be doing that either.

[tangled_rhythms]

I was born a flower child and have remained a hippie at heart throughout my life. I believe in peaceful demonstrations, not occupations. I believe in the rights of all people to speak how they feel and to feel that they can do so without reprisal from government officials, the police, or the neighbor down the street. I do not believe that anyone has the right to go into a place of business and disrupt them, thus robbing them of their civil rights.

I hate Fred Phelps and all that they stand for, but as long as they silently and peacefully demonstrate, they have the right to do so. They protest at the price of the blood of those whose military funerals they use as a focal point.

Would and do I defend them and others like them? As much as it galls me, yes. I would stand and defend their right to peaceful assembly, just as I would anyone else's. Would and do I condemn those in the occupy movement who push the boundaries and the larger mass that allows the fringe elements to dwell with them? Absolutely.

[wdomburg]

The broader question is when a protest ceases to be peaceful? The argument is being made that the protests themselves are peaceful, and a fringe element is wholly responsible for acts of destruction and violence. That was also true at the height of the abortion protests.

And does the right to "peaceful assembly" ever include the right to interfere with the operation of private businesses or to harass individuals on their own property? These actions cannot be dissociated with the official movement because they have appeared on their official agendas, which (assuming they follow their own rules) implies consensus support of the actions. The occupiers have not been shy about claiming victory in shutting down the Oakland part, have not been apologetic about marches to private residents and have staunchly defended the practice of swarming banks.

[tangled_rhythms]

Since this is my opinion and a rather wide angle lens type discussion, take it with a grain or two of your favorite seasoning since most people don't do salt

[wdomburg]

The dispute becomes how fringe some of the tactics are, and when they started to dominate some of the individual encampments.

I think there has been a significant disrespect for law from the very beginning, with many of the groups flouting long established rules regarding permitting, noise ordinance and rules regarding public resources. Even disregarding the encampments themselves, events on the official agendas have not always fallen under protected speech (e.g. marches on private residences, shutdowns of public roadways and ports of commerce) and the media teams have publicly advocated or defended acts of dubious legality (e.g. protests inside bank branches).

(Mind you, I'm not wholly unsympathetic to some of their complaints, though I generally think the movement generally misdiagnoses the root of the problems.)

[object_sleep]

The difference being that the pro-life supporters have been doing such for years, so much so that not only do they believe in their cause enough to actively protest, actively hold up signs, actively try to scare, and belittle, and deter already scared and vulnerable women, and actively, without even the glimpse of an argument, shoot, kill, harass and domestically terrorize doctors who are doing their jobs.

And aside from all that, not even counting the ones on the front lines, but they've also gotten bills passed, in at least one state, with the potential of a couple more, that say that women who miscarry can be held accountable, jailed for negligent homicide

[wdomburg]

Actually, I wasn't making a comparison to the modern pro-life movement, which has largely abandoned those tactics, but to the protests of the early nineties. For example, the "Summer of Mercy" in Wichita, Kanasas and the "Spring of Life" right here in Buffalo

[object_sleep]

Except we're being led to believe that these things are actively working, and in an actual, tangible way, they are not.

[wdomburg]

Some of that legislation hasn't even taken effect yet, so it is hardly fair to pass judgement on it. And some of it has obvious, tangible benefits for consumers, like the CARD act. (Of course I consider that piece of legislation window dressing since many of the same protections had already been passed by the Federal Reserve under pre-existing authority.)

But the effectiveness of the legislation is somewhat beside the point. There clearly are - and have been - cheerleaders for these issues and legislators attempting to address them. Why they have not been more effective is another debate entirely.

[object_sleep]

AND

[wdomburg]

"The first amendment has no exceptions."

This is the claim that has been repeated ad nauseum by protesters and supporters when challenged about the nature of their assemblies or of their messages.

It all boils down to law and the equal application thereof. If it is okay for people to monopolize public spaces to complain about banks and politicians, it's okay for them to do the same to say "god hates fags" or "god hates niggers" or "god hates Republicans". If it is okay for protesters to harass business owners in their homes, it is okay for them to harass women seeking an abortion or people mourning in public (Phelps and his band of merry miscreants have also picketed heavy metal singers, LDS leaders and other figures). If the protesters have no responsibility for the violent elements in their midst, then neither do pro-life or anti-Muslim activists.

[object_sleep]

Except when it comes to hate speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.However, where are the police bashing in the heads of the Fred Phelps, or pro-choice fanatics? How many of them are wrangled up, thrown into an FBI database as domestic terrorists? Where is the enforcement of these laws when it comes to larger-based movements and demonstrations

[wdomburg]

Given the size of the protests, the prevalence of extremist sub-groups, and the general lack of cooperation with law enforcement by even the mainstream faction, the use of crowd control tactics seems justified. There are, clearly, individual cases of excessive violence and those should be prosecuted

[rheyamorgaine]

I had an occutard in 3 of my 4 classes this semester. It was quite amusing when right before Criminal Law class, my professor asked if anything was new in the news and I pulled up ajc.com and there he was getting arrested on the main page. "Uhmmmmm Professor, Mr. Morris won't be in class... he got arrested 2 hours ago..."