This is What Democracy Looks Like, Act III

video uploader here: I agree that the demands were wobbly, and the protestors could have been better organized that day. The important thing here is this is an example of the protestors demanding something and getting an actual response. The alderman came down fairly quickly to address the protestors, and made it clear he would help them follow the laws to achieve their goals. Hopefully others will be inspired by this video. The OWS movement's legitimacy is increasingly becoming acknowledged. I think they just need a little more organization for it to reach its potential.

This statement has been contradicted by every single write up I've seen of the Grant Park arrests:

"Maybe we're missing the parallels to the Wobbly free speech fights, but they've been able to protest largely unmolested, save for the pesky city ordinance here or there."
That's the thing - no city ordinance should override the right to peaceably assemble and exercise the right to free speech. Yes, they've been able to protest mostly without incident. But there should not have been arrests in Grant Park. They assembled there as an act of free speech, and using an 11pm closing time to arrest 200 people was nothing more than a flimsy excuse to break things up and attempt to squash the protest, i.e. stifle the right to free speech. Regardless of wether you agree with the Occupy protestors cause, they have the right to assemble. And, as the alderman said, that right exists 24/7. It doesn't magically disappear at 11pm based on where you're standing. Grand Park is not private property, it's a public park.

Good grief. How can you be so incredibly ignorant of the law? This protest was like a textbook for "what I think" fails in civics. Aldermen do not "run" wards, and there are reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment that are discussed, I believe, at some length on Wikipedia.

Easy there, tiger. I’m fully aware of the law. However, I don’t agree with it’s application here. Had the Grant Park protest been blocking pedestrian or auto traffic then I would feel differently. It wasn’t.

The police have discretionary power for a reason. Every single instance where an ordinance is broken does not warrant or require an arrest, and police are expected to make that call. In the case of the Grand Park protest the right call was to let them stay. In fact, police told the protesters they could stay past 11pm, that the city’s only issue was one of noise and if the group could keep that to a minimum they would be left alone. The group agreed to respect that. Police arrested them anyway.

This has noting to do with ignorance of the law, and everything to do with said law being used as an excuse to stifle a protest.

You may be "aware" of the law, but you obviously have no idea how it works.

Wha! The police have discretionary powers and used their discretion in a way contrary to my hopes and dreams. Wha! Quit bitching. Break the law, get arrested. That's civil disobedience. Don't want to get arrested? Leave the park.

Sorry, but this post doesn't jibe with your previous statement:

"That's the thing - no city ordinance should override the right to peaceably assemble and exercise the right to free speech."

You clearly believe that your right of assembly should supersede local laws when they would inconvenience the protest.  I disagree and so does the supreme court.

If you want to make this an argument about whether the police should enforce laws that are valid and legal, you should probably go ahead and try to argue in good faith.  This statement has been contradicted by every single write up I've seen of the Grant Park arrests:

"In fact, police told the protesters they could stay past 11pm, that the
city’s only issue was one of noise and if the group could keep that to a
minimum they would be left alone. The group agreed to respect that. Police arrested them anyway."

The protestors were told repeatedly that they would be arrested.  The police gave them 90 minutes after official park closing, warning them throughout that time, then arrested them. The protestors were even expecting it, from accounts of Aaron Cynic on this very site.

Try again...with a little more truth this time.

This statement has been contradicted by every single write up I've seen of the Grant Park arrests:

In this case, I think ignorance of the law is only a part of it.  There are a ton of people that say the same things as Jeff.  They seem to argue from a standpoint of "this is how the world should work", "I don't care what the actual law is" and "I haven't really thought out the repercussions of my ideas."

After all, it is all well and good to shutdown the world when the protestors are fighting for something you believe it.  It is quite different when the protestors want something completely at odds with your ideals.  To let protestors hold society at large hostage, you are opening up a big can of worms.

"That's the thing - no city ordinance should override the right
to peaceably assemble and exercise the right to free speech. Yes,
they've been able to protest mostly without incident. "

I disagree.  I believe, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, that the right to assemble can be limited, though not blocked outright, so long as it is not limited on the basis of the content of the message.

That is:  municipalities can create common sense laws about when, where and how protests happen so long as they don't discriminate who protests or what they are protesting.

This makes complete sense to me.  Protestors behaving any way they wish, protesting any time or place they wish, using any tactics they wish, could completely cripple the local economy, infringing on the liberties of those not involved or supporting the protests.  They could, for instance, prevent people from getting into a planned parenthood.  Or prevent people from getting to their jobs.  Or prevent the flow of traffic, hindering emergency vehicles, for weeks on end.

You have a right to protest and make your voice heard.  I have a right to go on living my life and ignore your voice if I choose.  Allowing any and every protest on the protestor's terms would upset that balance and, dare I say, the order of our society.

As I wrote below ( http://chicagoist.com/2011/10/... ), the Grant Park protest was not obstructing traffic. If anything, that space in Grant Park is a much better location, less obstructive, than having all of these people park themselves on the sidewalk in front of the Federal Reserve.

I'm not arguing "better" or "worse" locations.  I'm simply making the point that the city has the right to impose common sense limitations on the protestors.  And personally, I think that is the way that it should be.

Take Grant Park, for instance:  in your ideal world, what's stopping the protestors from camping out in the park for weeks and beating their drums and chanting 24/7?  Are the rights of the students in the nearby dorms or the residents of the nearby condos not important?  Do they simply have to put up with the protests day and night for however long the protestors decide to protest?

My answer is no.  The city has the right to impose limitations to maintain order and provide their citizens with a degree of stability.  Given that the ordinances in question were on the books long before these protests and that they are, IMO, sensible, their application in this circumstance represents lawful limitation to the first amendment rights of the protestors.  They are allowed to make their voices heard and the citizens of Chicago who may not support or participate in the protests are protected.

Win, win.

And I'm in agreement with you on the point that ordinances serve a valid purpose and a protest shouldn't be allowed to perpetually cause a major disturbance. The issue of disturbance was addressed by both the protestors and the police. The protestors themselves said, repeatedly, they didn't want to disturb people in the nearby hotels and buildings throughout the evening. From my comment below:

The police have discretionary power for a reason. Every single instance where an ordinance is broken does not warrant or require an arrest, and police are expected to make that call. In the case of the Grand Park protest the right call was to let them stay. In fact, police told the protesters they could stay past 11pm, that the city’s only issue was one of noise and if the group could keep that to a minimum they would be left alone. The group agreed to respect that. Police arrested them anyway.

Cool use of an expensive Iphone when youre protesting that we're poor. But I also blame the government... this is what you get when you have a bunch of unemployed people with nothing to do. WE NEED JOBS, WE ALSO NEED TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS

This isn't people protesting because they're dirt poor. This is people protesting against financial power which has been consolidated globally into the hands of a few individuals.

I found this to be an informative perspective: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

They are not protesting about being poor. They're protesting about corporate greed and corporate money in politics. Assuming these people are all poor misses the point by a few miles. Having an iPhone has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
Know Your Meme made a video that explains things rather well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I have a lot of criticisms of the Occupy folks, but there is a difference between having an expensive phone and having opportunity. Furthermore, a person with an iPhone *could* be living within their means, but still understand that the level of wealth disparity in the U.S. is still unhealthy.

So, you just hate aaroncynic? Because we can all see that aaron is a big Occupy fan, and this is the protest equivalent of the saddest flash mob. I mean, seriously, this video conforms to 90% of the negative stereotypes people have about Occupy. Actually you might hate me because I almost gave myself a  concussion slapping my forehead after hearing the half-baked theory of "emergency 24/7 free speech."

P.S. Nice of the alderman to shrug and blame the mayor instead of giving them any useful advice. Have they applied for a permit to camp in Grant Park? I haven't seen a report that they have. That would be my first step. If the permit is denied I see if I have something to argue about. Due process and all that (all those *other* parts of the Constitution).

Why are they doing call and response on that?

It's not a call-and-response. It's a method called the "human microphone". If you're way off in the back and can't hear the one guy up front talking, when the entire crowd repeats each phrase like that everyone gets to hear it. It's just a method to make sure everyone can hear what is being said, and it works incredibly well for large groups.

Had this been a "large group" this would have made more sense. I have larger groups for my kid's birthday parties.