We seem to have happily gotten past the point of Occupy critics plaintively asking what the occupiers want and demanding that Occupy release some, well, demands. Instead the pundit class seems to have concluded that it was all a bit of fun but it’s time for those people to move on so we can all go back to obsessing about the deficit. At the mainstream media level we seem to have gone into some kind of Ghandian Groundhog Day where we repeat the course he outlined over and over (“first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they ignore you,” and on and on).
So it’s probably only a matter of time before the MSM makes its way back to “then they fight you,” and at that point some recent developments will come in handy. The most important of those might be the way the militarization of our police forces has been put on full display. The nature of the official response lately has highlighted the fact that, independent of any particular grievances, the very right to peacefully protest has become so tightly constricted that the act of protest has become a demand in and of itself. (And as Angus Johnston very helpfully noted: “Nonviolence doesn’t mean doing whatever the police tell you to do.”)
A lot of people were raising alarms as our civil liberties kept getting clipped, trimmed and kettled over the last decade. When the warnings weren’t ignored they were mocked. Joe Klein was perhaps the worst offender, dismissing the people trying to call attention to it as “civil liberties extremists.” That was typical of the response when some nice, respectable centrist journalist deigned to acknowledge the issue.
I checked my own archives for references to just fusion centers and found them here, here and here among others. A lot of us were basically saying, no good will come of this. Well, no good is upon us. (Just for the record, I’m not patting myself on the back for seeing how it would turn out. It was fairly obvious to anyone who was simply paying attention.)
Look at the ACLU bullet points on fusion centers from four years ago; Ambiguous lines of authority? Check. Military participation? Check, to the extent that the police forces themselves have become militarized. Excessive secrecy? Um, yeah that’s a check. A lot of pieces that were quietly moved into place over the last decade – and that were regarded as trivial by those who should have known better – have moved ferociously out into the open.
Incidentally, while doing the research for this post I came across some fascinating recent history. Remember that DHS report by Homeland Security that warned of a rise in right wing extremism? And how the sunshine patriots on the right were in full howl over the mortal danger it posed to liberty and freedom in America? And how they weren’t angry about what was basically a fairly bland warning amounting to “watch out for kooks!” but about the principle, gosh darn it? Remember that? Here’s a refresher if you don’t:
the problem with this DHS study is not that they are threatening extra-Constitutional surveillance and interrogation of people; it is that they are coming very close to attempting to criminalize non-violent political dissent. That is deeply problematic even if they do it with all the proper warrants.
Yes, criminalizing non-violent political dissent is awful, so of course Maguire has, true to that wonderful principle, been vocal in his condemnation of that very thing happening right now, even though he disagrees with the protesters themselves (“homeless vagrants” and “over-educated unemployables,” to wit)? Not so much: “Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD clear out Zucotti Park overnight, although it may be only temporarily[.]” Yes, cleared it out all right. As of this writing there is literally no word at all about the heavy handed police tactics.
And again this is not just criminalizing dissent, but the militarization of the police that has gone with it. Look at this from Denver (via):
Or this from North Carolina (via):
Those are just two of the more dramatic photos that have been snapped. We are seeing responses like that in city after city. As digby pointed out, it has become difficult to even tell the difference between the responses here and those in countries headed by a military government – and those governments are in fact using our militarized responses to justify theirs (via).
So when Occupy folks start once again being asked what exactly they want, I hope they have at least one ready response: The right to be here.
Cross posted from Pruning Shears.



35 Comments

“…the act of protest has become a demand in and of itself. …”
I have been saying for weeks that the 1st amendment issues have been forced to the top of any list of grievences.
I have been following my local occupy for several weeks now and I attended my first GA last night. I don’t agree with every idea I’ve heard but i have heard some good ones. I have come to respect those that are constantly in attendance and admire their perseverance. Given time, some of the ideas expressed could become ongoing worthwhile actions.
But none of that matters. It is not important that I agree wtih anything they are saying or doing for me to support their right to continue saying and doing it.
Well said, both danps and Coach.
Visiting Occupy Albany this past Tuesday in aid of Occupy Supply made even more real for me how immense the effort is to set up and to sustain an Occupation.
No one would undertake this, or take on the responsibility to keep Occupiers including the homeless fed, sheltered, etc., except for an imperative cause.
As you so well express it, for starters, the 1st Amendment will do.
I find it strange that the very media that keeps asking OWS what their demands are blacked out the ONE, (1), yes one request that was made. In fact, it was made to the President of the United States of America just last week at a Campaign stop.
“Stop police brutality so we can exercise our 1st Ammendment Rights”
His response: Okay, but let me talk first.
Got it? In other words, there were no words.
Here is some perspective from a piece in Alternet
And
Here’s the text of the first amendment:
Based on the first amendment, under what circumstances, if any, could government officials order the police to disburse a crowd of peaceful protesters?
I haven’t made any effort to study the case law (I’m not a lawyer). Certainly, if a crowd gathered on private property, say, for example, the Mayor’s front lawn, it would seem that, even given the specific wording of the amendment, private property rights would trump the right to peaceably assemble. Do you agree with that?
Further, even on public property, say, for example, a “locked up at night” town hall, issues like safeguarding of records and protection of other “town hall assets” might reasonably trump the amendment and allow certain public facilities to be locked during non-business hours. Are you OK with this limitation on the first amendment?
But, when it comes to public parks, any limitation, seems to directly violate every citizen’s right to peaceably assemble.
I just don’t see how evicting Occupiers from public spaces can be legally justified. As for the trumped up hygiene arguments we’ve heard, one would have to believe that a few port-a-potties would be a whole lot cheaper than paying police overtime rates. Problem solved!
The Constitution, including all amendments, cannot be left to the discretion of local and state governments and their police forces. It cannot be violated by the power structure when it becomes inconvenient. As a nation, we’ve almost come to see those who demand their Constitutional liberties as extremists. How crazy is that?
Freedoms only endure when we, the people, demand that they endure.
In my town when the Occupy movement tried to camp they (The PTB) immediately made it illegal, except of course if u were camping out to buy something on Black friday , that was ok. When they were asked why protest wasn’t allowed after 10pm locally, they said it was to protect the protesters no less. From whom?
“…they said it was to protect the protesters…”
To protect the protesters, they beat them with 3-foot long nightsticks, sprayed pepper spray into their eyes, noses and mouths, pressed their faces into the pavement, threw tear gas canisters at them and shot them with rubber bullets.
I’d hate to see what they’d do if they weren’t “protecting them”.
yep. we’ve been far too passive for far too long in the face of first amendment rights violations. we’ve put up with ‘free speech zones’ and ‘protest pens’, tear gas, pepper spray and god knows what all. if we ignore, and fail to invoke and defend our first amendment rights, they will go away.
To steal a line from an old nfl coach / Rights what rights,are you kidding me,rights! you have to buy that with B or M period.
In Minnesota we had port a potties. Paid for by us, through donations. They were taken away, not allowed. So the sanitation issue is obviously false. Meanwhile, in sunny California tents were allowed from the start. In Minnesota, where tents make much more sense no tents have ever been allowed.
There is a mass tent action being planned soon. We have also moved into the area of occupying foreclosed homes.
Aside from spreading fire, virulent disease, or imminent natural disaster, I can think of no legitimate reason for a government to disperse a peaceful protest. Consequently these are the specters that authorities will always claim as authorization to intervene.
Been making the rights point to everyone I know for years since 9/11. Nobody wanted to hear it, or buy it.
And a lot of those are OK with the military style crackdowns which have been occurring.
And these are mostly big d Democrats.
Whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”
Fuck Barack Obama.
Really excellent post. Thank you.
“As for the trumped up hygiene arguments we’ve heard, one would have to believe that a few port-a-potties would be a whole lot cheaper than paying police overtime rates.”
I think the public health approach is legalese to satisfy certain DHS responses required by statute. It kind of fits, so they’re legal rear ends are covered from lawsuits, if they want to ratchet up response, that kind of thing.
From them! They can’t or won’t control themselves!
“Whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”
It’s alive and well. Those not standing in “Free Speech Zones” used it. Occupiers are using it. It was extended to the Tea Party and the Kochs. It’s extended to the Republicans and Democrats. They’re just being forced to return the favor and they don’t like it one bit. Bullies are known for their violent tendencies.
There could be ongoing recall efforts for all official bullies, but I’m thinking the OWS-highlighted issues are enough to allow officials of merit a chance to redeem themselves. It’s a very democratic call for a revolution of the mind and spirit as opposed to physical revolution.
‘Civil liberties extremist’! Well, I think I support that.
Was Klein circling back to Barry Goldwater’s saying that ‘extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice’? Irony or hypocrisy?
“independent of any particular grievances” could well-describe the OWSers themselves. In fact, it’s a point of pride for most of them to push AGAINST issuing any specific demands and instead just spout such gems as “death to capitalism” and endless demands for debt forgiveness (“I know I just borrowed $75,000 to get a French lit degree that is valueless in the marketplace, but I’m just no good at math”). That is, when they’re not infecting each other with STDs, crapping on public property and/or bitching about the lack of a strong WI-FI signal.
Ask them what a fusion center is and they’ll likely as not agree, complaining about nuclear power generation.
Appears without the right to assemble we cannot go forward with any other grievance. Occupy everywhere.
I’ve yet to see a “death to capitalism” sign in anything about an Occupation.
Even Americans with supposedly practical engineering degrees have trouble finding jobs. No job, no way to pay off student debt.
Couple that with recent U.S. law making it impossible to discharge student debt in bankruptcy, and with the federal government’s utter failure to prosecute mortgage fraud and related financial crimes that have drained the U.S. economy.
Do you really not comprehend why Americans have taken to the streets?
Thanks Kevin!
You’re not paying attention if you have not heard the call to end capitalism. It’s about the only thing they have been consistent on.
I’ve not said I don’t comprehend why these dolts are setting up their little tents and chanting in unison. But they are barking up the wrong tree. They should be outside the White House, not Wall Street. Their ire should be aimed at a government that has allowed itself to be owned by the highest bidder and a partisan approach n every little thing. There’ a lack of leadership in DC.
The First Amendment has never been interpreted in the manner many here seem to believe. The folks involved in the occupation movement are generally not involved in pure speech, but speech plus.
In the key case of Cox v Louisiana, the the Supreme Court in 1966, at its liberal zenith, said this about speech plus.
”We emphatically reject the notion urged by appellant that the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as those amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech.The conduct which is the subject to this statute–picketing and parading–is subject to regulation even though intertwined with expression and association.”
That’s insightful. We can’t lose our public squares. Also, big city mayors have failed us here. I’d like to see medium sized cities occupations in states/counties that allow for more demands for reform without interference. Here our battles can make real changes, maybe enough to get some real solid representation.
I’ve been paying attention and have heard calls for increased socialism for human services, infrastructure, and domestic investment-oriented budget priorities. Capitalism doesn’t work for addressing human needs.
I have seen/heard calls for fair taxation, equal representation, justice in addressing predatory business practices, ending corporate personhood, a rational defense budget, etc.
End capitalism? Not so much. It isn’t as though capitalism is our current system. The US subsidizes far too much private business and its preferred markets to pretend it’s capitalism. We have Corporate Socialism.
I guess it’s just time for protesters to go home.
Nice try, asswipe.
I think you’re using this quote from the Court’s opinion far too broadly. The specific intent of the quotation was to address protests occurring “on streets”. The specific charges against Cox were:
“breach of peace, picketing near the courthouse, and obstruction of a public passageway”. The quote you provided was specifically addressing a “public passageway”. Cox, by the way, was found not guilty on all charges.
In overturning the holding of the Louisiana Supreme Court that had upheld Cox’s conviction, the US Supreme Court argued:
“The Louisiana Supreme Court construed the obstructing public passages statute as applying to public assemblies which do not have the specific purpose of obstructing traffic.” The Court was noting that public assemblies do not automatically equate to “obstructing traffic” on public passageways.
Based on this, it’s very hard to see how the quote you provided can be construed to mean protesting in a park. The quoted statement refers very narrowly to the obstruction of streets and other “passageways”.
Further, in restricting the right to free speech and to peaceful assembly, note the reasoning of the US District Court of Massachusetts in a subsequent first amendment case (Baird v. Eisenstadt):
The conclusion I draw from this, and again, I’m not a lawyer, is that, while it’s true limitations can be placed on first amendment freedoms where they come into conflict with other freedoms, the government has a very high burden to bear when it imposes first amendment restrictions through legislation or policy. In my view, to restrict the rights of Occupy protesters, i.e. denying them the right to peaceful assembly in parks, for reasons of public safety or public health, does not meet this burden.
As was stated elsewhere in this thread, porta-johns were removed thus contributing to the very concerns the government used to justify forcing an end to the occupation. And, in the very case you cited, there is not sufficient evidence that the protesters pose any risk to public safety. They are peaceably assembled.
“Disconnect: liberals see a suddenly ‘militarized,’ possibly federalized police force. Black people see ‘the usual.’”
The working poor see the usual. We are black, brown, yellow, red and white. This has been a Police State for people who can’t afford a lawyer for a very long time. White racism, of course, makes a bad situation even worse for black folks. We are all “suddenly” the 99% because the middle class is “suddenly” being brought low.
Thanks for bringing Madison to the conversation. We are as a matter of fact at war and we will “dissolve all compacts” by which we have been bound.
Very fine post. Thank you. Recommended.
Well said. The Occupy movement is pushing back against TINA – There Is No Alternative that Margaret Thatcher spouted about neo-liberalism. The theories of Milton Friedman are just repackaged feudalism in a new name. First it was Friedmanomics and then the same flim flam under Clinton, Bush and Obama is called Rubinomics. But there is an alternative to corporate dictatorship and the Occupiers are starting a conversation to free our imaginations from the chains that have imprisoned them. There has been a war on imagination for quite some time as David Graeber points out in “Revolutions in Reverse” (available on line). The corporatists capitalists have been winning that war. At a family and local level we practice communism every day. If you are working on a project together you say “Can you hand me the hammer?” Your friend does not say, “How much will you give me for the use of it ?”
And why should we be charged interest anyway? You borrow a book from a library and return it. You don’t have to bring half a book as interest.
Occupy Wall Street has given me much to think about. That alone, the freedom and time to think, should be allowed to flourish.
The Mahatma’s name was Gandhi!
Please correct your Ghandian Groundhog” comment (which is also a truly *bad* figure of speech — on multiple levels) in an otherwise good article
I just can’t imagine that the only thing the occupy movement wants is the “right to be here.” Kevin Gosztola wrote in one post before NYC eviction (and I’m paraphrasing) that Occupy Wall Street was in danger of becoming sort of a “tourist attraction.” This can’t be the desired end because that label sounds more like a site-seeing destination than a movement. It reminds me of when I was a kid our father took us to Haight-Ashbury on a 60′s trip to San Francisco to “look at the hippies.” No wonder this one guy didn’t react well when my dad tried to take his picture. I don’t think he thought of himself as a tourist attraction either.
When I read these entries, it sounds like that if the evictions stand and there is no more permanent encampments, that’s it. I understand the importance of visibility, but the tea party certainly had a lot of visibility for a couple years without occupying. I believe there are other avenues for spreading the message of the 99%, but then again, I also still believe I can work the system. But if you don’t, then what’s next?
The “right to be here” is a necessary prerequisite for having the ability to articulate further demands and positions.