.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So what does that mean? I think it means the right to have a parade or a demonstration or a large congregation like the "Million Man March" a few years ago. You get to interact, speak your piece, send'em a message, etc. That means for a short period you get to disrupt other people going about their business.
It does not mean that you have the right to use occupation to force other people to bring their lives to a halt until you get what you want. It does not mean that you get to coerce people to do what you want them to.
Some people are confusing this with civil disobedience as in the civil rights movement. But a fundamental part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of the law. If you go to jail, then you get the appropriate amount of added publicity. The current crop of occupiers seems to be outraged at the idea that the law should be applied to them.
I would encourage those who support the occupiers as they are camping out and preventing other people from carrying out of their business to give it some thought. For example, the Supreme Court long ago determined that freedom of assembly does not allow a right to life group to close an abortion clinic by occupying it.
.
THE SEVENTH DWARF (CARTOON)
22 hours ago
Aye men
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and in my circle of acquaintances I can find no real disagreement with that. Still when a law enforcement body tries to stop or prevent the occupiers from being disruptive my circle of acquaintances will break down into those that support the police action and those that are indignant that the rules are being enforced. V’GER was right. The Earth IS infested with carbon based units.
ReplyDeleteI heartedly disagree with most of this post.
ReplyDeleteThe right to peaceful assembly does not have a time limit. {Riotous assemblies, I feel, should be broken up using appropriate force, and the amount of "appropriate force" for most situations has been hashed out in the courts.} There is still interaction, message sending, and piece-speaking. I also argue that the format of the protest, the occupation of public spaces, is a part of that message [vis-รก-vis M. Mcluhan, the medium is the message]. The fact it's still going strong after 2 months is a testament to the cause.
Most of these occupations of public areas are not grinding people's lives to a halt. These occupiers are not closing these spaces off to the public (if they were no one would be able to join them). They are not occupying buildings or streets (unless it's a parade day, in which case they usually get permits). It is a protest, and none of the things it is protesting has stopped so I see no reason why it shouldn't keep going on.
Occupation was used in the civil rights movement in lunch counters and bus stations. Just because they were pulled from their seats and beaten doesn't mean they wouldn't have stayed their until closing time or to the end of the bus line. The purpose of those sit ins was to keep those places from carrying on with business as usual and it worked.
Remember those UC Davis students that sat on the ground and locked arms in the quad, the same ones that were pepper sprayed at point blank range? They started their sit-in because only 3 students were initially arrested for peacefully protesting. They felt is was wrong for 3 students to take the fall for what they felt was an exercise of their 1st amendment rights.
[Which, getting back to the point on "appropriate force", the SC has ruled that pepper spraying nonviolent protesters is excessive force.]
Thoreau went to jail because he didn't pay his taxes, not because he couldn't, but because he knew a portion of those taxes would be used to hunt down and return escaped slaves to the south. He refused to be a part of that system. During the civil rights movement many of the actions they took, like the lunch counter sit-ins, were illegal. In both cases they went to jail for breaking what they felt was an unjust law. But I can guarantee you they were not happy about going to jail. What you think is outrage because the law is being applied to them is actually outrage at the unprovoked physical beatings, being dosed with chemical agents, being shot with rubber bullets, beanbags, flash bang grenades and tear gas canisters. It's outrage that grannies and young women are being pepper sprayed without provocation and veterans are being shot.
And that outrage draws more out to the protest.
I support them, because things need to change.
You say: "The fact it's still going strong after 2 months is a testament to the cause." No, it is only a testament to the commitment of the participants. Think of some things that you don't like that went on for a lot longer than 2 months.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that civil disobedience is sometimes justified. That was stated in the original post. And sometimes the police overreact and when they do that should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. If you want to start another post about pepper spray, then I will probably agree with most what you say. But here it is obscuring the question about time and disruption. Therefore, in this context, civil disobedience is a red herring. It was granted at the beginning.
This question was about time and disruption. The group was occupying that park (private I think) in NY. Is it your position that the right to assembly means that the city cannot expel them from that park even after two months? Does that mean that anybody else who wants to use the park (maybe tea partiers) is just out of luck, cause the occupiers got there first?
Most strikingly you did not say whether your view of the right to assembly would support the right of the right to life people to occupy and shut down an abortion clinic. Does it?
Michael’s last sentence states “I support them, because things need to change”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that statement with the clarification that agreement with the cause does not imply agreement with the tactics (of the protestors).
I would also have to quibble over some language as well. I don’t recall any reports of “unprovoked physical beatings”. A veteran was injured, but I don’t believe he was shot. Grannies and young women may have been involved in some incidents, but their status as grannies or young women is not germane to the argument.
But, back to the need for change. If I don’t like what my bank does I talk to my banker. I would argue that approach has a better chance of causing the desired change than camping on his porch with a placard saying banks are evil.
It would be interesting to ask an OWS protestor when they last talked to their banker (since they seem to hate them so much).
The question of OWS's right to use private property, while it has been addressed admirably by YA, is too narrow a question. I comment to YA readers the article "Capitalism vs. the Climate" in the Nov. 9 issue of The Nation. See www.thenation.com/capitalism-vs-climate (I think that will get you there. It suggests the truly massive changes we need to make to survive as a species on this planet, suggests that it is in the self interests of plutocrats to deny climate change, and sees, if I read this scary article correctly, OWS as a ray of hope.
ReplyDeleteReaders can find the article KW references at this URL http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
ReplyDeleteWayne, I'll concede the point that the ongoing protest is due to the commitment of the protesters, not what they are protesting.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to time and disruption, I contest that calling the park "private" is also obscuring the question. The park is a Privately Owned Public Space, meaning it was built by a private company for public use in return for "additional floor area or related waivers". From what I remember from my undergrad days is that there are certain rights in public spaces, even if those places are private property.
But to answer your question I feel that yes, the peaceful exercise of a constitutional right should not be infringed upon. Other groups still have the right to use the park. From what I've seen of the live feeds (I think you can also see it on this picture) the park is not fenced in (unless the police put up barricades) and any group can also enter the park at any time, from any direction.
And about the abortion clinics: many, and I would wager, most, are enclosed private property and as such the owners or operators can call the police to remove the trespassers.
And a few points for Tom:Here is video of police beating protesters with linked arms. The veteran that was shot was featured in this link " flash bang grenades and tear gas canisters" He was not shot with a bullet, but with a tear gas canister. They are fired from a barreled device with enough force to cause a skull fracture, so I'm tallying that one as being shot.
And the fact they were young women and grannies is entirely the point of the argument. I was discussing the level of outrage at these actions which, if a group of stout young men were being peppered, would not have been as high.
Your comment about talking to your banker is completely right, this is something people should be doing to enact change in the system. Sadly not every bank will be as accommodating as yours is to you. A manager at Wells Fargo, US Bank, or one of the other "to big to fail" institutions will not be able to be as flexible as the manager at a community bank.
That is why several OWS protesters went and talked to their banks at the beginning of the month. November 5 was "National Bank Transfer Day", which encouraged people to move from one of the "big evil national banks" to a credit union, and it seemed to work.
KW - I read the entire article (all 6 pages) you referenced and I too find it scary.
ReplyDeleteMichael - 1. You make a distinction between private property and public property. But isn't Wall St private property too?
ReplyDelete2. Even public property offers some problem. I am assuming you consider the university a public place. Does that include the classroom where I am teaching my class? Do you have a right to camp anywhere you like in a National Park?
3. Perhaps we should follow KW's advice and treat these questions as too limiting. If you make it about global warming then one could argue that it transcends law and constitutionality.
I am very uneasy with Wayne’s item # 3. I would agree that GW is a major and pressing issue that needs to be vigorously addressed. However, I am not prepared to suspend the rules if the subject turns to GW. If anything I would say the more important the issue the more important we follow the rules.
ReplyDeleteTom: I think I was not as clear as I should have been in number 3. Freedom of assembly involves activity that is inside the law (which of course includes the Constitution). Once it becomes an assembly that is not protected by the law, then you move (if you are doing things the right way) into civil disobedience to get attention to your argument. That is where I think KW's ideas lead us. Civil disobedience does not suspend the law. It uses the law and accepts the penalties on behalf of a cause. It is in fact not revolutionary.
ReplyDeletePS Just to be crystal clear: I do not think (and I don't think that any of the other discussants think) that we are anywhere near the next stage which would be revolution. By which I mean real revolution - i.e. violent overthrow of the government (of which I would want no part) .
Wayne, I think it was my reply that was not clear. Certainly, I do not think anyone on this blog is close to advocating revolution. I am, however, still uneasy with the mental gymnastics that will lead any person or group to conclude that civil disobedience is justified because MY CAUSE is the right one if only I could make everyone else hear me they would believe.
ReplyDeleteUnless, there is TRULY no other course of action. In the case of the OWS group I think there are a myriad of options available that they simply do not wish to use. In a previous response I suggested that the OWS group’s stated dislike of banks should precipitate a visit with their banker. True, many in the OWS did send their bankers a message (in mass) by switching to Credit Unions. That is a civil response, and a logical response, if their banker or any vendor will not provide the service they want or expect they should switch. But that is not what I was suggesting. Walk into you bank, set down with an officer and say “John I am really not happy with a $5 monthly charge for using my debit card”.
The article at the URL below reports that a group of Occupy Wall Street protesters disrupted a Right to Life rally and threw condoms on Catholic school girls inside the Rhode Island state capitol building.
ReplyDeletehttp://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/occupiers-dump-condoms-on-catholic-school-girls.html
Is the OWS group still within the bounds of “acceptable” civil disobedience?