"Civil Disobedience" at RNC
 

Well that was fun. Some of you might have seen the tear gas grenades going off in St. Paul last night as protesters and police clashed outside of a historic Minnesota greasy spoon, Mickey's Diner (which incidentally has excellent black bean soup). Some of you also might have noticed some TV guys getting blasted with the stuff and stumbling around blinded. I was one of them. No, I'm not gonna tell you which one ;).

Got me to thinking though. If you watched the events unfold (a good place to do this would be to look for the raw video of the protests on their local ABC affiliate, kstp.com) the protests were largely peaceful. In fact, one of the local stations (I think it's wcco.com but dont' quote me on that) has video of one of the protesters talking an anarchist down from a bus shelter and convincing him that breaking crap isn't the best way to get the point across. yet the protesters were met with cops in full riot gear, who would not allow them to demonstrate where they wanted to demonstrate.

In light of our supposed constitutional right to peacably assemble and petition the government for a redress of our grievances, is it right for the cops to stop protesters from protesting where they want to protest. Are "Free Speech Zones" sufficient to meet that constitutional right, even if, as I saw when at the DNC, the zones are positioned quite far away from the ears of the government officials whom the protestors would like to petition. Is this right?

Personally, I don't think so. Yes, the idiots breaking things and trying to swarm a private business should be stopped, but from where I sit, if you're peacefully chanting, not blocking traffic, not starting fights or riots, it is your right to be there, and to say what you want to say.

Your thoughts?

I'm glad you're safe.

Free speech zones are a wonderful opportunity for civil disobedience. The next time I'm protesting at a major event, if I am escorted to a free speech zone, expect me to move out of that zone and sit. Expect others to do the same. The act of sitting does two things: it demonstrates an unwillingness to be moved and it demonstrates that we are absolutely not violent and can't be painted as such. I won't fight back when they grab me to either pretend to arrest me or toss me back in the free speech zone, I'll just attempt to peacefully and passively move back to my sitting position outside of the free speech zone.

They're unconstitutional and should be treated as such.

I'm too old to disobey anymore.

I was arrested for sitting once.

1985....protesting apartheid at the South African embassy in DC. Arthur Ashe joined the protest...the organizer was this hot redhead grad student..I believed in the cause, but I was also there hoping to get in her pants after the protest....I failed....I got community service instead.

I thought this might make a good pub story.

For the time being, I'll disobey enough for the both of us. And yes, there are some incredibly hot women that like to protest. It's a tertiary incentive, but I'll admit it's an incentive none the less.

I think the real lesson here is when a band called Rage Against the Machine wants to give a free concert, do not attempt to stop them with riot police or things will end poorly.

It is a shame that people are not allowed to peacefully assemble anymore. I think as long as they are not causing safety issues (blocking traffic for example) then there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

I think 'free speech zones' are a load of crap. It completely violates the 1st Amendment. The only reason they are now tolerated by a majority is the clamor for safety and security. Another bullshit reason, but most people of one political bent or another are going to side with safety and security over the rights of others, so there you have it. Want to change it? stop voting for majority parties who enjoy the power of violating your rights for their safety and security.

Especially with that band at that price. The riot police will have their hands all the more full when those in attendance realized they greatly overpaid for a band that covers "Suck My Kiss" fifty different ways with lyrics that are never quite as thought-provoking.

As unconstitutional as it may be, I'm all for a free speech zone that covers every last inch of the country EXCEPT for Zach de la Rocha's current position. We can make it work. We have the GPS technology.

Otherwise, it seems pretty obvious to me that free speech zones are ridiculous.

Rage Against the Machine is a joke... they are a part of the machine.


As I sit here in a nation that does not allow protests, doesn't allow peaceful assembly of groups larger than three people, I can help but wonder how much US citizens are going to be willing to give up in the name of safety and security.

This thread title is misleading and needs to be changed. The Rage Against the Machine concert and subsequent riots did not take place at the RNC. The rioters were violent, disorderly and a danger to the public. Luckily the police were there.

Oh yeah, 8 years ago at the DNC in LA where Clinton was speaking, Rage Against the Machine also started riots there.

Because RATM has a history of inciting violence, Minneapolis Police had consulted the LA police for riot control.

I commend the police on their fine performance.

No, it doesn't. 1) I said nothing about Rage Against the Machine. 2) while there were violent protests, as I specifically said, the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. To lump 10,000 people into the category deserved by only 2 or 3 hundred is, frankly, asinine.

When the idiots, for whatever reason, tried to storm Mickey's Diner I had no problem with the police using the means necessary to stop them. But when the police won't let peaceful protesters (who, contrary to your misleading post, were not the same group as the anarchists starting fights) (I know, I was there) get anywhere near the people they're trying to get their message to, I feel that's a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

In your view does the rights of protesters trump the rights of private property owners?

Do city and local governments have the right to limit or restrict how public property is used by the public?

Does protective public services have an obligation to intervene when the behavior of citizens is disruptive or unsafe?

Irrelevant. The protesters who's rights we feel were violated were on a public sidewalk (and later an already blocked off public street).


Within certain boundaries. They have the right to forbid you from urinating on the sidewalk, but they do not have the right to restrict your travel along it (with the obvious exception of temporary closures for emergency situations such as a traffic accident or a shooting - -neither of which apply here so again, irrelevant.)


Yes, but again irrelevant. A bunch of people holding signs on a sidewalk is not unsafe, and it isn't disruptive.

Plus, if you go by the disruptive yardstick, I'd say fencing off a 1 block radius around this event center (including what appears to be a fairly major street), and causing businesses in the city to force employees to leave by 2pm in order to open up parking and room for the convention goers, is rather disruptive. Does that mean we should make the RNC illegal? Why do they get to disrupt by effectively shutting 1/4 of a city down, but protesters don't get to disrupt by marching?

My question was related to the trade off regarding Constitutional rights of free speech or protest against the rights of private property.

If a private property owner has a public sidewalk on their property at what point does that property owner have the right to do something about people make a disturbance on that side walk?


Are ordinaces restricting for example skateboard unconstitutional?
why are the laws controlling travel on public roads more restrictive in your view compared to "your travel along" a sidewalk?


Who gets to determine that standard of safety, or disruption?

What exactly do you mean when you say "irrelevant"? Do you mean irrelevant to you, to the law, to a specific event, what?

That's really not the issue. All of the protests I've ever been involved in have occurred on public property; a closed off street, a sidewalk. Such is the case at the RNC. There is plenty of sidewalk between the free speech zone and the entrance that they should be able to protest on, but can't because the First Amendment has been replaced with heightened security.
To a certain extent, yes, but when that extent is intended to quell free speech, I'm sure we can all agree that the government has overstepped it's authority.
Free speech zones have nothing to do with a theoretical safety.

but what ace outlines is the way in which this question has been stood on its head in recent times, thanks again to conservative ideology. this because, you see, private property is more important in at least some areas of conservativeland than is the legal apparatus which enables it, than is the consent of a polity implied by it. private property trumps the right to protest every time. this is the central rationale for the creation of these farcical "free speech zones"----and for the "whaddya talking about" from conservatives when it's problematic character is raised.

for conservatives, the political is a narrow category--except of course when it comes to themselves, in which case anything goes---but in general it is a narrow category. noisy hippies get to complain about the goings-on which involve the holders of the Sacrosanct (propetry, capital) from a distance, away from the spaces of power.

welcome to america, the world's leading fake democracy, where the content of democratic process is so hollowed out that most folk don't even recognize that here "democracy" is a word and nothing else.

Isn't that what protesting is all about? Being disruptive to get your fricking message to the politicians? It was that way in boston all those years ago.
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 01 : 38 : 08-----
All the Amendments have been replaced with heightened security. FTFY
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 01 : 40 : 09-----
When this country was founded, private property rights were probably one of the highest priorities. Did that change?

it makes no difference what 18th century property holders thought about property in 2008 beyond the reflection of their views written into the constitution. outside the legal framework put into motion by the constitution, there are no private property relations. those which preceded were made possible by other legal orders. there is no private property outside a legal system. the legal system is an extension of the larger political order. political contestation of the order itself is not limited by the relations which are shaped by actions within that order. sorry.

private property is not a "natural" relation--the state of nature is and was and will always be a fiction.

so no, i don't see private property relations as limiting political action.
and it is of no consequence to me in this regard what the framers of the constitution thought about it. and besides, even if it was, i am not privy to the types of seances that you perhaps are, the ones that let the Authorized Psychic conjure up the Founding Dudes in order to ask them how 2008 reality should be interpreted in light of their 18th century views.

Not all of them, Ace. I'm not quartering any soldiers. Yet.

First off, throughout the rambling, do you realize that you are actively promoting the kind of chaotic rule of law that is currently being used by republicans as well as democrats, that rule of law that basically means 'the constitution says what I say it says'?

Secondly, there are no more ludicrous claims that those of us who purport to know the framers meanings of things than those spouted by the likes of you who wish to do nothing more than denigrate and ridicule the founding fathers stances because you simply do not agree with the individual freedoms and liberties that they fought for, that you would rather place all power within some sort of baronial hierarchal structure because you can't or won't think for yourself, so instead of trying to study the actual writings of those framers to see what it is they were thinking and believing, it's much more convenient for you to call them, and us, crackpots who were stuck in 18th century mindsets while your supposedly 21st century progressive ideas are much more profound and realistic.

Personally, your ideas and mindset will destroy freedom and personal liberty placing humanity in to a one world order where you're nothing more than an economic mark of how much you can make for your masters.

It matters little what you push and strive for though, because like the founders, people will begin to physically and violently resent the processes as well as those who pushed them and they will come for you.

dk---i am your worst nightmare politically.
let's leave it at that in this context.

i don't like free speech zones.
you don't either.
we agree on that, even if from radically opposed perspectives.
we can has out or not has out other things in another thread.

Who's my worst nightmare, politically?

Agreed.

Mine is Evil Monkey.

http://images.wikia.com/familyguy/im...vil_Monkey.gif

Hopefully, yours is less disturbing.

Your question is impossible. A public sidewalk by definition cannot be on /private/ property (unless it's an easement, in which case, the land is considered your property which you have to pay taxes on, but the sidewalk is owned and operated by the state, which is a whole new level of bullshit that we'll talk about in a separate thread ;) ) Point being, if it's a public sidewalk, it doesn't belong to a business.



This would only be relevant if the protesters were on skateboards.

You mean the laws stating that pedestrians always have the right of way on a roadway, even if they're not supposed to be there? Laws keeping walkers off of interstates are there for the safety of everyone. They don't restrict travel by individuals or groups - they just specify that the travel must be done in a safe manner.

Cops refusing to let protestors *walk* down a side*walk* are not doing so because they fear the walkers will be hit and killed by someone engaging in the normal mode of travel on that sidewalk. They're not stopping the protestors because they're a large group - if they were then they'd also stop those elementary school field trips you see with 300 kids travelling in a large pack down the sidewalk.

The cops are stopping them /because/ they are exercising their constitutional rights. That's the /only/ reason the cops are stopping these people.

So: The real question is: Is it OK to detain, harass, or refuse right-of-way to someone expressly because he is exercising his constitutional rights.




To this discussion.

Thanks for your clarification. I posted because I took issue with the title of the thread. I felt it was misleading - implying that there was civil disobedience at the RNC when in fact this was not the case. The links you provided shed more light on what happened and it was indeed Rage Against the Machine that incited the riots in the streets of downtown but NOT at the actual RNC. It appears however, that we are talking about 2 separate things that occurred in proximity to each other. There is a difference between peaceful protesters and rioters.

I'm in favor of protesters. The RNC or DNC can have police forces all around it, but any area outside of that on public property is a free speech zone as far as I'm concerned. They shouldn't be damaging stuff (well this position could get me in trouble...), except if it is stuff owned by the people oppressing them.

(If they were at a different location, were they protesting Ron Paul's Rally?)

Should the concept of "private property" even exist in your view? "Private property" is not a natural phenomenon, it has been born form human greed or perhaps insecurity (I say that in a non-judgmental way, but it is what it is).

that is beside the point.

the argument is that private property claims operate inside the existing legal system, which is an extension of the political system. the point was that opposition to the political system cannot be limited based on elements that are created within that system. it's just a logical point aimed at undercutting the rationale for "free speech zones"---even as we all know that the real rationale for them is to limit dissent by keeping it off camera. but to defend it, another argument has to be used, and it's generally one or another property right-based one.

Private property is very much at the root of the issue. If you agree the private property rights are legitimate, then you must believe in certain restrictions to "free speech". If people have a right to use their private property without being unduly interfered with then it is reasonable to strike a balance between property rights and free speech through the use of "free speech zones".

If protesters are motivated by access to "the camera", they still have the freedoms of alternative strategies to get their message out.

the status of private property arguments as over against the rights to political protest IS the issue.
my personal attitude toward private property is not.

what you're ducking is the actual argument that i'm making, ace. you duck it by trying to avoid the position property relations have in this argument. my contention is that they are functions of the legal system, which is an extension of the political system. political protest is directed against the political system itself. so it follows that property relations, which are internal to that system, cannot be used to limit protest directed against the system itself.

The group of anarchists have been planning what happened (and more) for months before the RNC. They planned it /for/ the RNC. There was civil disobedience at the RNC, just outside the fence.

Plus, St. Paul is pretty small as metro areas go. The group trying to take over Mickeys Diner was only a few blocks away from the convention center, and was heading in that direction.

Political protesters want to change "the political system" and private property is a part of "the political system" restricting political protest, I get that. But the issue of private property is like a force field or like a mote, developed by "the political system" to protect "the political system". If the protesters can not deal with "the force field" (which they traditionally have not done very well since the 60's), their cause is lost. Civil disobedience as a strategy for political change has been made irrelevant. Is that fair, is it Constitutional? Has the pendulum swung too far? Those are my questions.

Protesters are obnoxious and have no intention of being civil. They congregate and disrupt intentionally. It's generous to rope off a place in plain view for them to protest, but that's not what they want. Arrest them for loitering when they leave it.

It makes sense to contain them. If you don't - free speech ends, mob mentality begins, and policeman get blamed for the chaos.

Someone hasn't read his Thoreau.

Being arrested for loitering or trespassing is a small price to pay for disrupting what one thinks is even more unjust.

I would absolutely love it if you'd join me at the next protest that I attend. It would be beneficial for you to experience it first hand, so you can gain a better perspective on the activity. We can even go to a conservative protest, if that makes you more comfortable.

Having a political convention is not unjust. Neither is anticipating excitable 20 somethings protesting the latest political trend, and providing them a method to do so that minimizes the chance of police getting attacked. It's a win/win. Thoreau would be happy. Besides, unjust meant something completely different in Thoreau's day than it does now.

Baraka Guru, these kids are not modern day Thoreau's...they're hoodlum criminals in the making testing the waters in a "safe" political environment knowing their base will use (evidently) Thoreau's name to justify their behavior.

Some of the things said or done by those speaking or attending the convention may be unjust. It's clearly unjust from the perspective of the protesters. Would you tell them they're opinions are wrong? Or maybe you can tell them that free speech doesn't include protesting?

Will - I appreciate the offer, and I probably would if we ever ran into each other.

Would you mind if I carried my own signs? and if I smoked cigarettes incessantly?

Free Speech zones are complete BS, IMO. If protestors aren't "obnoxious" and are acting "civil" (which describes the protests I've been to), then there shouldn't be a problem. What's the point in having freedom of assembly if the "freedom" has restrictions? Safety and security, my ass.