need opinions here. wtc incident
 

Ok, so, i'm finally in manhattan and i make the trek to the WTC site to pay respects, etc, take pictures, and just see for myself..

I arrive, beautful sunny day, walk around the church across the street, walk over to the actual site, see the last steel cross, the mourning building (the one draped in black), etc...

Then, i'm walking down the steps to get closer to the excavation site and i hear this lady shouting at the top of her lungs, "BUSH IS A TERRORIST, BUSH MUST BE STOPPED. HE AND GUILLIANI HAVE ALLOWED THIS ATTACK ON AMERICA!!" and several things along these lines at the entrance, 20 ft away really (there was a sign saying no material within 20 ft of the entrance), and she kept screaming and they wer passing out flyers, etc, along with a big, "HELP THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS OF 9-11, STOP THE COVER-UP" sign.

Now...i'm thinking...Ok, i dislike bush...seriously dislike. A couple days after 9/11, i was talking with people about how it could easily be planned attack, etc, kind of like how pearl harbor was but not really..i know the dispute over pearl harbor still goes on, but it's along those lines...so i mean, i should be sympathetic to this group...

However...
I have to admit, i was pretty disgusted. I really didn't care what they were saying one way or another. Seriously, i probably agreed with a good bit of what she was saying, but i honestly think the venue for it was atrocious. Seriously, people go to that site to take it in, pay their last respects, just look, morbid curiosity, whatever. It's not exactly a space where you want people spouting politics. Honestly, I was kind of offended by the whole ordeal. Again, not bc i disagree with anything they were saying, but ith where. I think that area should be partisan free. Honestly, I don't get offended by anything, but for some reason, just having people who were probably on my side of the political spectrum turning a monument like that into an anti-republican rally just made me kinda sad.

Any thoughts? sorry for venting there, just had to get it off my chest.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

We could have done this, we could have done that. Well, it happened and there isn't much we can do except try to prevent it from happening again.

People must think being the President of the United States is easy, that you can easily stop something with just a thought or something.

Or maybe they're conspiracy theorists that have zero respect for those who lost their lives, and decide to use those deaths as a catapult for their bullshit message.

There are plenty of nuts in NYC. It's a fun place. Her venue draws attention to her cause. I don't think she's being disrespectful towards the victims.

I think there are better ways of spending one's creativity and energy to further a cause than standing on the site of the atrocity and screaming things at people.

She IS being disrespectful by her actions. Different place I could care less but I know I dont want nutjobs screaming crap over such a sacred place

Sacred place? Eh, i wouldn't go that far, but it is disrespectful.

But really, does it matter? If she looks like a loon an idiot, then she is. if she ain't, she ain't.

There is no reason to allow the government's (our paid public servants right?!?!) actions to go unchecked in memorial for the dead.

Highly, highly, highly inappropriate.
The thing is, and she is probably too much of a zealot to understand this, but she is alienating a large segment of the population that may very well support her views and idealogy, but are turned off by her actions.

I'm a fairly liberal democrat and that irritaes me. I fear that I would have felt slapping her was my civic duty. However, she does have the right to free speech.

I don't really have a problem with it. It's her view and she's free to speak it just about anywhere she likes so long as other issues don't arise (becoming a public nuisance/disturbing the peace, causing damage, inciting riot, etc).

Exactly, that seems to be the new American thing, free speech as long as you watch what you say. She has the right to voice her opinion and you have the right to disagree with her opinion.

Personally I see nothing wrong with her voicing her opinion at the WTC site or elsewhere.

i am really ambivalent about the making "sacred" of the wtc site.

i have been to the city many many times since 9/11/2001 and have not been to look at the place.

for me, looking at the manhattan skyline while approaching the city, particularly the first couple times after 9/11, was enough.

i am not sure what function is served by turning the wtc site itself into a tourist attraction, complete with merch.
i could maybe see someone writing an article about the place, had they hung around since 9/11, seeing in the shifting patterns of activity/usage a kind of grassroots-level fight over the meaning of the space.
but that assumes that the making over into a tourist destination itself is not some way of cheapening and commercializing the whole thing---collective grief as a commodity you can buy---a space for fetishizing shock--a kind of fucked-up voyeurism disguised as respect....i dont get it.

maybe someone could explain it to me?

I think it's in bad taste, but that's about it.

Free speech does not equal yelling in my fucking ear as i'm walking by. If you do that, you will get slapped. I don't understand this perceived attack on free speech. No legal authority stopped her from doing that, but that doesn't mean i have to be receptive to that hysterical bitch. Seriously, i would have definitely told her to fuck off and gave her the finger at least.

We're quite lucky to have freedom of speech, but it's unfortunate that some people use that right in a way that is not only in bad taste, but in a way that makes people unlikely to take their message seriously.

We also have the freedom to be rude, stupid, and offensive, for what it's worth.

I agree, you can say whatever you want. But it doesnt mean other people have to be respectful when you're being stupid with it. People are allowed to say what they want about other people's girlfriends/mothers/etc, but freedom of speech wont prevent them from getting their ass kicked or somehow give them repreive.

Assault laws are supposed to keep them from getting their ass kicked. Using free speech goes both ways. Said person makes outrageous comments and it is your right to respond to her verbally. As long as you are not being abussive.

Like I said free spech a long as you watch what you say. What a load of shit.

And say hello to Mr. assault charge if you slap them. That makes a whole lot of sense. I guess the days of being able to say what you want are over, you have to tow the party line.

I don't care, I'm glad she's doing what she is doing, she is doing something she believes is right. I notice most peple here think she is a nut job, but what proof is there to back this up, not a damn thing.

I would approach this by trying to understand why this person is so upset. There is a reason that the person is there... she feels very strongly that a major injustice has taken place and is taking place. The typical response I'm seeing in this thread is that this woman way out of line, which I'm not inclined to agree with. I am inclined to say, however, that she is being ineffective and possibly even do more damage than good.

I find it unlikely that the motivation of this person is simply blind partisan politics. She probably has a deep emotional attachment to the event, and in doing some research has felt that our government has seriously let us down. Either that, or she's uneducated and really hurting her cause. I find that getting offended at someone like her does no good. I don't get offended at those people who tell everyone that they're going to hell, stand outside of Planned Parenthood calling those who work there murderers, and other protests with things I really disagree with. I just try to understand it, and leave it at that. As long as my personal civil rights aren't being violated, then I'm ok.

Attn: Matthew330
Seriously I challenge you to go to NYC and visit a corner where the Black Israelites are gathered speaking and shouting and SLAP one of them. What about these people on public transportation who feel the need to preach the word of God?
Free speech is free speech.

this is exactly what I was thinking, too.

for all one knows, the lady could be related to a direct victim of the incident. she could be a survivor--or anything.

we don't know. but the idea that certain people, with no direct claim to harm, have more claim to the effects of the incident than those directly invovled has always and continues to make me upset.

freedom of speech---such as it is in the states---is only obvious and necessary when the speech involved is in some way offensive.

to someone.
for some reason, ridiculous or not.

god knows there are alot of people who are upset for any number of reasons about 911 and bush's absurd handling of the post-911 situation, from families of victims to people politically opposed to what has transpired.

but i dont think the question here is really about the content of the woman's speech.

the problem with this woman seems to lie in the volume of her speech----so i dont see why this is even worth a debate---unless an similar complaint would be lodged if someone was yelling in a subway about needing money for tinfoil so he can make a final repair on his spaceship and go back to his distant planet of origin. in which case, the problem is "noise abatement" and not the content of the speech.

what this seems to come down to is some snarkiness generated by a sense of personal space having been violated----in which case i cant say much beyond get over it.

wow, i didnt' expect this much of a response.

Anyway, i'm not sure if i was clear, but essentially, I'm not opposed to what she was saying, but the venue was in 'bad taste' imho. She really was alienating the crowd who probably agreed with her the most.

I really believe she has the right to say whatever/however she wants to say, no problem at all, but the venue just seems a bit disrespectful, not to any political party or whatnot, but to people who just came to view the site.

I obviously got over it, but i was just stating my opinion at her choice of venue.

As another post mentioned, there are plenty of nuts in NY. I think that a lack of taste or decorum is probably the least of the problems for this possible schizophrenic. It's probably not fair to associate either party with the politics of the insane.

nevermind

Thankfully, people in the US have the freedom to make complete asses of themselves -- thereby driving people to the "other side." :D

I'm curious as to where you earned your psychiatry degree, at least I hope you have one. I mean you diagnosed a woman as a "possible schizophrenic" simply by reading this thread, that's rather impressive.

Wow, now she's insane, you must be good. Do you have any proof to back this up or is this just what you think? Those are some serious allegations to make against someone. My own opinion you have no idea if she's crazy or not, but you think you do.

I'm pretty sure "possible schizophrenic" is not currently listed in the DSM-IIIR.

""BUSH IS A TERRORIST, BUSH MUST BE STOPPED. HE AND GUILLIANI HAVE ALLOWED THIS ATTACK ON AMERICA!!" screaming this period is irrational behavior. Screaming this solo at the site of the world trade centers is enough to make a reasonable assumption that "she ain't all there."

Irrational how? No one here knows anything about this woman yet everyone assumes she's crazy. Why not assume she's normal? It still doesn't prove she is "insane", or a "possible schizophrenic", or a "nut job".

Doesn't look like she was doing this solo. "they were passing out flyers, etc".

What is the big deal about the venue for this demonstration? Like someone else posted before
But I guess the "possible schizophrenic" title fits better, because after all free speech ends once 9\11, or the WTC, becomes the topic.


Is it not a big assumption to make about someone simply by reading a thread? I mean I could say anyone here is a "possible schizophrenic", because apparantley I've read enough things posted by them to make this assumption. If that doesn't count what about this:
is calling someone "insane" after reading a post normal?

Because a sane person with an agenda would realize that that sort of behavior is convincing noone, and as paq said - alienating everyone (not too mention annoying the shit out of them).

Also as Paq said, that area should be partisan free. I don't give a shit if she was a survivor or had a relative killed. Not every survivor or relative of someone who was killed believes her politics, but they have a right to go there and mourn without the bitch shouting in their ear.

If i saw anyone doing this i would think "crazy bitch", so i can read about someone doing it and think the same thing.

Her irrational and arguably unjustifiable hatred for the President, has caused her to leave reason behind and stand at a mourning site "yelling at the top of her lungs" for what amounts to absolutely no reason, because "that sort of behavior is convincing noone, and as paq said - alienating everyone". so again, it's safe to assume she "ain't all there", and "possible schizophrenic" though probably unlikely, isn't out of the question. You see types of behavior comparable to this among schizophrenics.

I think the wonderful thing about American and NY is that she can go there and do this. That said, Bill nailed it by pointing out that her screaming (not her message) is probably alienating potential converts. I've been down there (living in NY and all) and it is a powerful experience, even with the merchandising along the street corner. (roachboy, I'd say that the hawking of wares isn't a sign of a lack of respect - it is a reflection of the strange commercial fetish that materialism has brought to Americans. They buy those plastic models of the WTC and the FDNY hats because that ownership speaks to them as a kind of remembrance. I'm with you in thinking that it seems crude, but the fact that those guys make money buy selling their wares shows that buying is part of the ritual for visitors). It is also a somber place - people don't act like New Yorkers. There isn't a lot of yelling, not a lot of pushing. People go there to reflect. Knowing that, it is not an appropriate place to SCREAM.

Silent_jay, I don't know where you got your hard-on about Americans and free speech. I may be reading into your posts, but it seems that you think our system is hypocritical. I say that it is not. If Matthew330 slapped that women, it would be an open and shut case of assault. She's got freedom of speech, even if she exercises it in an unpleasant way. He's got the freedom to walk on the other side of the street for 10 feet.

That said, freedom of speech is an important value in America, but so is taking responsibility for your actions. That is what was meant by the Supreme Court ruling that you can have freedom of speech, but not yell fire in a crowded theater. Go ahead, yell fire - if there is one, you'll be a hero and I promise there will be no negative repercussions. If there isn't, you should bear the responsibility for your actions. 9/11 is the same way, with a lot more emotional charge. You can say whatever you want - where you please as long as it doesn't abridge the rights of others. Matthew330's reaction to this is not proof that we don't believe in that right, but proof that we do. The right to free speech is important when that speech annoys others or goes against the status quo. However, that annoyance, or even complaints about the speakers message or methods are a vindication of that right, not an abridgement - because that possibly-crazy lady is still on the corner yelling.

This is where an argument is invalidated because you cannot create an argument based on a subjective issue/circumstance.

The argument wasn't based on the subjective part of that sentence, if it makes you feel better, pretend like "and arguably unjustifiable" isn't there.

..quick point of clarification, i wouldn't slap her. I would want to. I thought when i said "Seriously (in other words, i wasn't serious when i said i'd slap her two sentences ago), I'd tell her to fuck off" which is precisely what i would do. I thought it was pretty clear to begin with.

I didn't read this entire thread, but I would say if it was me walking by, I might have tried to start a conversation with her rather then just ignore or or "tell her to fuck off". I would try and point out that my opinion there is better venues for voicing her opinion.

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I respect her right to speak out but do so at a more appropriate spot. I put this right there with having an anti-war rally beside the Vietnam Memorial. People come their to grieve not listen to someone's propaganda.

doh, forgot to mention, she wasn't alone..

two guys giving out flyers and holding up a HUGE banner, lady shouting to the audience/visitors. She was all there.

Also, a few people were talking to the guys holding the banner, but i heard more than one person muttering that she just needed to STFU.

And yeah, freedom of speech at the WTC site is restricted within 20 ft , no posters, pamphlets, shouting, loud noises, skates/skateboards, profiteering, etc, within that area. 20 ft away, though, and yeah, you have vendors, the lady wtih her message, more vendors, etc.

One thing, though...
I was at union square and another anti-bush rally..well, more like anti-police state rally was going on. The guys were holding up a "no draft, stop the war, support the people of fallujah, nomore bush, (complete with swatstika for the S in his name)" series of banners while they passed around a microphone to each telling about the problems of the current admin and how they would probably be bitching about Kerry when he wins bc America is all about the money and they wouldnt' stop bitching until we realized that there is mroe to life than money...

Was very interesting, but there was a guy walking through the square who started shouting how he loved bush and how bush keeps america safe...this prompted a quick exchange of words between the person with the speaker and the random guy walking through. Essentially ending in a "Well, i may be a socialist liberal pussy and you a right wing nutjob, but at least i'm standing up for what I believe and not running away from this conversation like you" that resulted in a chorus of hooting.

Quite an interesting place here...but i've found that, for everyone that hates bush, another loves him....

I must say, though...there is a paper called the 'Village Voice" they make CNN look like fox news. No holds barred straight out of the village pissed off angst ridden reviews...I love it :)

funstuff..

I bet if it was a pro-Bush rally or person yelling everyone would be fine with it.

Thanks for clarifying, it seems most people here thought they should be calling the white coats to come and pick her up, people should realise that not everyone who protests, or who demonstrates in the streets is a nut job.

No "hard on" for Americans and free speech, I just enjoy seeing how there really isn't free speech anymore. Yes I do think your system is hypocritical, and this proves it, the majority of people here think this lady should have been silenced and for what reason? Much like everyone wanted Farenheit 9\11 to not be shown and MM silenced. Yep sounds like free speech to me.

We want her to be silenced because she's a distasteful bitch, in the meantime, we're not going to physically stop her.

i don't think i want her 'silenced' just in a different area. She can spout anything and everything she wants, that's fine, i just think it's akin to going into a church graveyard and shouting derogatory remarks about whatever religion it is when there is a funeral going on. She wasn't breaking the law or disrupting the peace or anything of that nature, but i think she should choose a bit of a different locale.

On the other hand, i can totally understand why she would do it there. It's directly related, it has a wide audience, etc, but while it may capture the attention of one or two people, it seems to just insult the rest who want to come and observe the site. as i said before, i'm extremely partisan, political, opinionated and i probably would agree on some level wtih a lot of what she was saying, but i don't want to even consider it while i am at that spot.

That's all for now :)

And I bet if you were back in the times you would have argued that Burr had infringed on Hamiltons right to free speech by challenging him to that duel. God forbid someone learn not to talk about another mans wife being a whore or his mother having sex with a horse.

"I bet if it was a pro-Bush rally..... "

Yeah...and when's the last time you saw that. We work differently (i.e. - mature).

ummm...pro bush rallys happen all the time...

big difference, though...

pro bush rallys are often misnamed as "fox news"


seriously, i have seen several pro bush rallys, just that he is normally at them...I think he's the president of his own fan club.

Back to the original post...

She had the right to say whatever she wanted, "Free Speech" is a double-edged sword.

However, given the venue, her actions were inappropriate and in extremely poor taste.

Actions like this have a tendency to be counter-productive to the desired result.

I agree it's free speech but I have to question what her true motivations were.

I think her motivations are obvious.

She just chose the wrong place to voice these opinions, IMO.

I still see nothing wrong with the venue, yes 9\11 was a tragedy, but it is the best place for her to get a wide audience, even if people disagree with her or get angry at her for being there they still hear what she is saying

silent_jay,

It's called class. Sometimes also referred to as taste.

Her motivations are not necessarily obvious. I can't speak on behalf of all 9/11 families, but I don't understand how what she's doing helps me or my family in any way. I walk past the WTC 5 days a week on the way to work at the NYMEX and I see loonatics like her all the time.... there motivations may seem simple on the surface, but you really have to wonder if she's just simply using the venue and circumstances to get out the message that she's mentally ill. :crazy:

yeah, that's it

Once again I see people are assuming that she is crazy, has it not already been said that she was all there?

rant immediately following..........

I personally believe that if anyone had direct knowlege that the attack was going to happen and did nothing about it, then they should be incarcerated. This however has not proven to be the case....as of yet.

I also believe that people want to place the blame on the current presidency. This may be due to their immaturity, their paranoia, their political party or because they are just friggin disgruntled that it happened. As of today, I see no clear indication that any action was totally predictable. I do believe that we need higher communication in our intelligence community.

Remember, while we await the next attack, that no matter what, all contingencies cannot be predicted. No one can prepare for all eventualities. I do believe that we will have another attack or attempted attack. Lets wish the people on watch the best of luck in undermining it.

As for anyone that believes that Bush could have prevented that attack and did nothing, I believe that they need a wake up call. The lady (and men) demonstrating was exercising he right to open her mouth and say something not only unfounded, but closeminded, immature and disrespectful. I don't believe she is mentally ill. I believe she is just another ASSHAT with a personal agenda.

/rant

This is based on reading the innitial account and my experience of being in that area at least 10 times a week and knowing the people that are in the area pushing political beliefs. There's a whole crew of whack jobs that are regulars down there.

You're entitled to your opinion of them.

I feel sorry for the familes of the victims, that have to endure the reminder that their loved ones probably were the pawns in a political game.

I do believe that this lady has an assured right to be there, peacefully, and she seems to be rather law abiding. I think anyone with any other mentality will just be one of those types that just bends over and takes it when our gov decides to start taking our civil liberties away.

Be careful not to mix up the system and the people. The Constitution doesn't say we have freedom of speech "except when the government doesn't like it." The only people who don't like it are the ones expressing that they don't like it on this thread, and probably a lot of the people in the street with her that day. These people are not, however, trying to mount a campaign for a constitutional amendment to stop women from screaming in front of the WTC. They are merely expressing their disapproval of her actions. It seems as if you are just as guilty of making assumptions as the folks who are calling her a nutjob.

Furthermore, I take offense to your repeated use of sarcasm in this forum. Your point was made in the first sarcastic post, and repeating yourself with such a tone has done little to advance the discussion. I am referring to this [LINK], if you don't know what I'm talking about.

You copied my quote which said that she lacked class and then you said that I meant she was crazy.

No class = Crazy?

how did you come to that conclusion based on what I said?

If you are going to use my quotes to make a point, please use them correctly and not make up words to further your point.

Of course I don't know if she was crazy, but judging by the number of screaming kooks that I've run into in NY city, it isn't that unusual of a conclusion to jump to.

Next time, see if you can ease up on sarcasm a little, please.

Sorry about the over sarcasm, it was uncalled for.

You take offense of my sarcasm in this forum, or this thread? My point was made in my first post, well I guess it wasn't because people still replied to my posts, now I guess after someones point is made they should just leave the thread and not reply to anything that is said. Either way it's no big deal.

Nice link, I actually thought it might have been something I had said but nope, it's another we have to be nicer to each other thread, oh well maybe it will work this time.

Alright then, the part of my post that was of importance to you should have been
and that's all. The rest of my post was in response to this post
Hope that clarified things.

I can call anyone crazy as I see fit, and I do not need a degree or doctorate to do it. I think her views are supported by a very, VERY small group of people because they are so damned whacked out. That's my right to say her views are whacked out. In addition, I find it interesting the amount of defense she's getting, based on the fact that her claims of conspiracy are so outrageous.

Oh, and stay on topic please.

Let's everyone take a moment to let go of ourselves... and calm the hell down.

Thank you.

I have no problem with someone saying she is a whack job, but when someone calls her a "possible schizophrenic" that sounds like they should have some credentials to back up their position.

When the person who started the thread says she was all there I tend to believe the person who saw her there

Hey, we're all possible schizophrenics. You, especially, silent_jay :)

sorry to drag this up again, but i went back to the WTC site today to do some shopping and look around and go to the southside seaport for some broadway tickets....

anyway, the people were still standing outside the site, were still giving away fliers and such, but, BUT, had no one shouting and no one yelling or anything disruptive...This time, however, there was a crowd of people around and they were discussing the ideology and no one was shouting obscenities calling the group a bunch of nutjobs and so forth. This time, they were actually communicating with the audience that may or may not believe what they have to say. They weren't instantly pissing off people and were just having a much much better dialogue wtih the crowds.

Today, it was fairly impressive and nothing at all like the first time with the screaming lady, maybe someone took a moment to tell them that they were scaring off their target audience.

That is good to hear. Rational discourse is such a rarity in today's society. Everything has become polarized and quickly degenerates into name calling. Ex: liberal wack job, bush is hitler, ect).
Also, I frequently see the far right and far left of the political spectrum as frequently alienating everyone in between. Maybe that is why the new discussions without the screaming are occuring. Perhaps, someone figured this out or possibly it is just the luck of the draw.