Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Clashes With D.C. Police During Million Mask March
Daniel_Stuckey writes "Scheduled to coincide with Guy Fawkes Night, a centuries-old day of remembrance typically celebrated in Great Britain, the Nov. 5 protest is something of a tradition for the hacktivist collective. Anonymous, which is often identified by the Fawkes mask used in the Hollywood blockbuster V for Vendetta, hosted a similar rally in 2011, dubbed 'Night of a Thousand Masks.' Protesters in Washington, D.C. clashed with police before noon. By approximately 10am, an arrest was made. The incident was livestreamed, and Anonymous claimed that the individual was grabbed and arrested after stepping off a sidewalk and into the street. A spokesperson for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department declined to comment."
I've never understood why protesters obey the rules and regulations of protests. I understand protesting, but for god's sake people, staying behind the line, or really keeping up any fabricated reason not to go to jail, is silly. The whole reason for a protest is to go to jail. It's not just to go to jail, but to have so many people go to jail that there is no feasible way that they can house them all. In the end, the point should be to overwhelm not only the people that you are protesting against, but to also overwhelm the police that have to look each person in the eye and arrest them. All protests should carry on without violence, without resistance, until the jails are filled.
"Fight the power" means just that, however there are 2 pieces of the power - law-makers, and law-enforcers.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
The establishment really ought to love "Anonymous". Unlike every successful movement, it has no direction and no organisation, therefore it will make no progress. It's just a bunch of kids saying, "We're not very happy about stuff and we think someone should do something about it!"
Scuffles with police when Anonymous set fire to their electricity bills outside Buckingham Palace as a symbolic act of protest against the price of staying warm in winter. (source BBC news).
Korma: Good
Did you catch the NYTimes article on undercover agents at these protests, it's so bad in New York, that undercover officers infiltrate 'Occupy Sandy' the hurricane relief effort!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/nyregion/undercover-just-about-everywhere.html?_r=0
But the agent provocateur problem is more serious, officers starting or attempting to provoke crimes that can be used to justify mass arrests, e.g. from the NYT article:
"One of the large, undiscussed questions of such surveillance is how civic dialogue can be influenced or distorted by police agents — perhaps as provocateurs, or possibly with no motive beyond maintaining cover. During the Republican convention, after a group making a film was arrested, a redheaded man standing on the street pounded on the back window of a police van, urging that the people inside be let go. A day later, the same man was videotaped being briefly put under a fake arrest, leading to tumult in the street from others who objected to his incarceration. They were unaware that the man was an undercover police officer who was walked down the street by uniformed officers, hands behind his back but uncuffed, and sent on his way: catch and release. "
Anonymous is a bunch of mindless vigilante manchildren and idiotic trolls. Maybe if mommy has to go bail them out they'll grow up.
Why hello there, tool of the police state!
After the government is done jailing all the people exercising their 1A rights whom you didn't support because they said things you disapprove of, they'll get around to you.
Some things about, and actions taken by, Anonymous I support. Others I disagree with.
But I'd fight to the death for their right to speak out, because I understand that if they can be silenced, so can I or anyone else.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It was a celebration of the capture and execution of anti-government forces, with some vaguely anti-Catholic undertones, not a remembrance of their efforts. It has since metamorphosed into a politically neutral excuse to set off some fireworks and eat hamburgers on soggy November nights, and I'm all for using it as an ironic de-facto civil liberties day, but let's not be mistaken about its historical origins.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
...Time Warner Inc.'s Guy Fawkes masks.
Also Guy Fawkes failed to blow up the Parliament in real life, so this mask is a mask of fail.
Eppur si muove: here we are, discussing them, yet again. Giving one name to voice various kinds of social unease, whether it's with Scientology, the NSA or power companies, seems to have been rather successful from a publicity perspective.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The choir always discusses matters of faith.
anti-Catholic hatred? Nice. That'll certainly get them some converts! Nothing like a little one-minute hate to bring in the plebes!
Best Slashdot Co
Well they're BlueStrat, they have done more harm than good, putting innocent bystanders in the middle of their hackings to prove their point which you should never do if you're trying to prove a point.
But I'd fight to the death for their right to speak out, because I understand that if they can be silenced, so can I or anyone else.
Manning and Snowden spoke out about much more important matters. They don't have the right to it and neither can travel freely in the U.S.
Free speech isn't about the right to scream racist slurs. It is about the right to speak out against the government.
I doubt very much that you would be willing to fight to the death for free speech. If you would you would be out on the streets rioting now.
If you're protesting about a corporation's activities (Don't buy Nestle Products, Monsanto GM corn etc.) then you are working within the system, protesting to raise awareness of your issue, and Western states typically allow this (note the use of the word "allow"). However, if the object of your protest is the government itself, then sooner or later you will inevitably need to break their "rules of protest". No government is going to submit to a revolution without a fight.
Unlike every successful movement, it has no direction and no organization
Errr.... you think 'every successful movement' had direction and organization when it began? Uh, no. It's true of some movements, where an objective is fairly easily identifiable in the latter stages, but throughout history a significant number of 'movements' have started as a mess. See just about every 'movement' ending in a revolution.
A 'medic' was allegedly pulled over a barricade because he was holding Scissors; I'm not sure what happened with the other two. People were off the Sidewalk ALL day through 6pm EST without genuine interference by authorities, though when the main group split at one point there was rumor that a few more got picked up when they stayed behind at the White House and authorities weren't so overwhelmed by numbers. Otherwise, the protest was fairly benign as far as Police action until someone threw a foam ball over the fence at the White House shortly after dusk; The Police line began shoving a few protesters and throwing a camera or two on the ground while the bomb dogs checked the inside of the fence.
I read an article several years ago on how the Park Service handles protests...
DC of course hosts a very large number of government protests. Since most of those protests take place on land managed by the US Park Service, they handle protest management. They are required to reasonably let protestors do their thing, but they also have an interest in preserving the other uses of the land; namely for tourism, recreation, and of course the business of government and the functioning of the city.
Now, if they come down like a sack of bricks on protestors, the Park Service will end up looking like a bunch of thugs, and get slapped by the courts. But if anyone that wants to protest can do anything they want, it would make it difficult for DC to function as a city. Different groups also need different space allocated for their protests. (Six different groups protesting six different things can't get their message out if they are all mixed together in an undifferentiated mob.)
Now, protestors like to be arrested; it makes for good PR, nice photos, fundraising, member recruitment, whatever... but few activists actually want to do anything violent or damaging or spend any time in prison, get beat by riot police, etc. And the Park Service has more important things to do then sending people "up the river" for doing something illegal (but not especially violent) during a protest, like vandalism, blocking traffic, etc., and they also don't want those disruptive offenses to take place. (And they especially don't want a protest to degenerate into a violent mob while trying to get arrested.)
So what does the Park Service do? A couple things:
- They actually negotiate arrest counts, protest locations, timing, etc. in advance of the demonstrations. If you want to protest in a high-profile location, like in front of the White House, your protest can't last too long, and the arrest count the Park Service will agree to will be low. Protests in less photogenic locations can be larger.
- The "arrests" are usually for violation of the "Kodak Moment Rule"; basically, you can't stop in one place so long you obstruct others trying to take photos. This is about the least disruptive thing possible, anywhere, to get arrested for. You'll get zip-tied, taken to a holding facility (a warehouse in SE), fill out some paperwork, pay a $50 fine, and get released (it's even convenient to Metro!) I doubt they do anything with your new "criminal record" other than stuff it in a filing box.
The article had an anecdote about a NORML-backed protest and their negotiations; NORML wanted a large number of protestors on a certain day right in front of the White House. The Park Service negotiator complained that there were already three other protests scheduled that day, and his participant count and requested number of arrests was too large; so the Service offered a larger protest in front of Treasury, (just across the street) instead. The guy from NORML challenged the Park Service lawyer to a joint rolling contest to settle the dispute.
The Park Service lawyer won.
Another fun fact: After the Park Service got accused over the years of being racist/anti-semitic/muslim/sexist/baby-killing/woman-hating/jewish/white-oppressing/Nazi/etc. Tools of the Oppressor, they stopped releasing protest/march participant estimates. They do estimate how many people show up for each protest, but don't release the info because they were invariably accused of inflating/undercounting (depending on who was complaining) every single gathering for pretty much every cause.
You can see it well in the movie "Medium Cool" which was filmed during these protests.
In Chicago, you obey the rules or you get your head split open.
Yep, this is the government you party people have voted in over the years.
Dear America, you are a bunch of idiots. You see this shit go down all over the world - the result of electing the worst possible candidates, every single time, and yet you just follow the lemmings in Europe and South America over the cliff.
Wake up already. Your founding fathers had it right. The government is supposed to be small and weak compared to The People it is working for, and it is supposed to be able to be easily replaced if it gets out of line.
You've gone right back to all the shit you complained about in your Declaration of Independence.
I got in a brief fight with a policeman over a girl's right to speak her mind once. Being trained in de-escalation and the lifting of heavy inert objects, I won that fight. Your turn.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
The Park Service has no interest in "filling up the jails" with non-violent protestors. They can't have unruly mobs making the city unusable, but also have to make sure people have the ability to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
If you want some non-violent arrests during your protest, all you have to do is ask. The Park Service will work out with you how many of your Warriors For Freedom will get photogenically arrested, and all you have to do is have your designated arrestees stand still long enough to get cited for obstructing the sidewalk. You'll get zip-tied, taken to a ramshackle holding facility, fill out some paperwork, pay a nominal fine, and they then release you; they probably even give you a copy of your arrest record as a souvenir.
If you want to "fill the jails" you are going to have to get violent, because they simply won't hold you for being non-violent. In any case, I thought the whole reason for a protest was to get those in power to change their minds. How is "filling the jails" an inherent part of that?
For properly organized protests, the Park Service will agree (in advance) to arrest you and your fellow patriots in a way that won't harm your reputation in the least. As long as you don't degenerate into a violent mob, they'll happily (and photogenically) arrest you for obstructing the sidewalk, haul you off zip-tied in a van to a holding facility, issue you a nominal fine for a misdemeanor about as serious as a minor speeding ticket, and release you. (I doubt they even care if you pay the fine or not.)
"Obstructing a Sidewalk" is hardly a violation upon which lives are ruined.
Well said.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
See just about every 'movement' ending in a revolution.
Now there is a perfect example of a true statement that is completely misleading. If you lived in a country where it was illegal to organize a political opposition, you can bet that any opposition that does emerge will be disorganized. Selection bias in your data set.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In a Citizen's arrest, you detain an offender while waiting for a proper sworn officer to arrive and "accept" your arrest. You are going to have a hard time finding a sworn officer with appropriate jurisdiction agree to issue a formal citation to a police officer doing their job.
Only person here looking like a douche is you with posts like that.
This story was either blue or purple (can't remember) last night in the submissions feed when I checked, and for good reason: one person got arrested for blatantly disobeying the laws. As far as I know, they weren't charged and were probably released. This is a non-story, but since it has protesters versus cops, Soulskill's all over it like flies on honey.
The DC police murdered a woman in front of her kid that was simply having mental issues and they did not want to bother trying to get her out of the car. The DC police sre some of the most horrible violent gang members out there.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
People protest against the government in DC All. The. Time. There's a protest about something or other going on pretty much every day of the year. Dissent is most certainly tolerated (even if its usually ignored.)
What they don't tolerate is your protest turning violent or overly disrupting the functioning of the city... you want to gather a couple hundred thousand people on the National Mall? Fine. But don't have those couple hundred thousand people decide to lay down in the middle of the streets during rush hour; there's no right to be an asshole.
Perhaps you misunderstood my post; I was relating to the fact that the Park Service acknowledges that people like to get arrested during their protests, and simultaneously they don't want protests to be violent or disruptive to the functioning of the city. You can actually arrange with them ahead of time to have them haul some of you off, cite you, and release you. The Park Service does not, in fact, actually care if you obstruct the sidewalk for a little bit. But if you are going to be arrested (at your request), they have to write something on the citation, so they selectively enforce the sidewalk-obstructing law at the request of the arrestees during the advance arrangements.
"Obstructing the sidewalk" is a misdemeanor traffic violation on the level of a citation for jaywalking. No employer circular-files job applicants for a minor traffic ticket (especially one not actually involving a motor vehicle.)
Your "record" (if the Feds even bother to check your ID or file it in a database) won't indicate you were protesting at all... anyone reading it will just think some cop busted you for sitting down on the sidewalk to rest your legs. (That's if criminal background check services even bother with those parts of the justice databases at all...)
RTFA. They clashed w/ DC cops, not NPS rangers.
His (or her) anonymity does not take away from the validity of the statement.
How many masks were each person wearing? 5000?
It would probably most likely be a little more efficient if people cancelled their cable and internet and didn't buy any new technological devices for 6-12 months. Hitting profits would probably mostly likely be a little better than standing on a sidewalk somewhere with a stick sign.
That's part of the problem! Protesting is respectable -- you were doing what you were doing for a good reason, and therefore have an excuse for the arrest. I would want that listed on the background check!* Otherwise, the employer would think you're just some random low-life vagrant.
(*Obviously, it makes it more important that your politics jive with the potential employer's, of course -- but then again, if you're getting arrested for protesting you probably wear your politics on your sleeve anyway.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Go back in time and change "Anonymous" to "Hippies".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Hm, hippies (just short for "hipster", after all :D) had clearer aims, but still not clear enough, which is why neoconservatism could rise in the '70s.
"It was a celebration of the capture and execution of anti-government forces, with some vaguely anti-Catholic undertones"
The Gunpowder Plot was a plan to blow up the (Protestant) King and politicians and replace with Catholic alternatives, including the possibility of replacing the current Protestant line with a Catholic monarch and more pro-Catholic politicians. Hence the celebrations centred around the failure of a Plot to kill the monarch, and celebrate his continued good health. Given the political and religious context of the times, this included strong, rather than 'vague' anti-Catholic undertones: for many years it was traditional to burn an effigy of the pope, and the famous folk verse includes the lines:
" A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him. "
Less revolutionary Catholics of the time feared a revolutionary responses to the suppression of Catholics in England at the time in case there was a backlash from the authorities, and indeed this did happen with the discovery and failure of the plot.
Probably both sides were as illiberal as each other at the time, lots of nasty things were done in the name of God and the King across Europe.
I'd very much agree with you that people have re-interpreted the event to their own ends. I don't think the plotters were in the least bit bothered about votes for women, abolition of slavery, replacing a monarch with an elected president, and would happily have burnt anarchists at the stake if they'd found some.
Its like saying 9/11 is a day of remembrance and people wearing a Bin laden mask.
Anonymous is the equivalent of the drunk hobo spouting bible verses on the corner. I ignore both just the same.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
Where did I mention Civil Infractions? I know the two are different.
But if anyone that wants to protest can do anything they want, it would make it difficult for DC to function as a city.
That's kind of the point of protests. If constant protests aren't a huge pain in the ass to deal with, what leverage do the protesters have? Remember the Montgomery Bus Boycott? That made it difficult for Mongomery to function as a city. That was the whole point.
The "arrests" are usually for violation of the "Kodak Moment Rule"; basically, you can't stop in one place so long you obstruct others trying to take photos.
Because tourism is more important than exercising our First Amendment rights? No. If I have a right to be there for any reason, I have a right to be there to protest. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is their absolute root core problem. There is no leadership at all. And I have repeatedly told them this and gotten really idiotic replies back. It is just a bunch of kids who have no clue what they are doing, and increasingly less of a reason why.
Enough with the Guy Fawkes masks. What is the deal with it anyway? Because of that stupid movie... look, Bush isn't President anymore so... time to get a new thing People do know that Guy Fawkes was a fascist, right?
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I'm not saying Anonymous did this (in fact, I kind of doubt it, given their reputation), but yes, you can work with the Park Police to arrange how many arrests you'd like made, in advance. And the Park Police will also coordinate your protest with others that may be happening the same day (so you aren't all mixed up in the same spot in one non-media-friendly jumble), handle any police protection you might need, etc.
You'd think that this would run counter to the spirit of getting arrested while protesting against the government, but few activists actually want to engage in violence or destruction (which is what you'd normally have to do to get arrested), spend time in jail, get beat by riot police, or have a real criminal record. And the Park Police don't want protestors engaging in violence and destruction just so they can get arrested.
By prearranging your arrest for a laughably minor "offense", your organization gets to boast about what tough willing-to-pay-any-price patriots you are, get your pictures taken for your newsletter, you get to file press releases, etc., and the Park Police get to keep order in the city streets. A win-win situation all around! (And the arrestees get to tell the proverbial grandkids how they got arrested in a protest once...)
Talk about "governing with the consent of the governed"! "Officer, I'm going to violate a law you don't normally enforce tomorrow at such-and-such time, would you do me the favor of arresting me for it? Oh, and can you make sure and supply especially mean-looking officers so we can take good publicity photos?"
Guy Fawkes was a heroic revolutionary who failed big time (but also potentially could have succeeded big time.) The oppressive government that he and his co-conspirators opposed was in need of blowing up. Had he acted centuries later... when the government was much "nicer" the Americans and/or French would be celebrating his attempt. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... until the enemy is defeated.
As for fascist, that doesn't mean anything as a term anymore. The real Fascist was Mussolini, who predated Hitlers "Fascism." Mussolini founded the National Fascist Party in the 1920s! He defined it to be a lot like the pro-business mentality that dominates our governments of today. In fact, the British government of the 1500s? was not far from Fascism when you think about it. My understanding of the 5th of November revolutionaries was that they were fighting for religious freedom / influence as part of that long history of Christians killing each other over fictional details.
Guy Fawkes has been a metaphor in one way or another for a long long time. The exact details don't matter; it still was a principled attack against the establishment - that any peoples feeling oppressed can identify with. Oppression doesn't need to applied to be felt; iit is a feeling not a position. You don't have to be jailed to live in fear of being jailed or discriminated against in some other way. A truly free individual who can think on their own is likely to feel the subtle and powerful oppression the majority is ignorant and of their participation.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You have the right to peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Shutting the city down isn't peaceable. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was entirely different. The blacks in the city simply didn't ride the buses, but the buses ran just the same, the city functioned just fine, albeit without those bus fares (and what could they have done? ordered people to ride the bus?) Now, if they had instead chosen to lay down in front of the buses, that would have been very different, and reasonable law enforcement action would have been justified and uncontroversial.
And the "Kodak Moment Rule" isn't actually used for day-to-day enforcement; as long as you don't take up half the sidewalk all day in one spot, they don't really care. (Picket line? Ok; march all day long. Standing as a wall of humanity? Blocks things, including other protestors.) The rule is used because for pre-arranged arrests of protestors (this is worked out with the Park Police by the protestors in advance), they have to write something down on the citation, not because the govt' actually gives a *bleep!* about tourist's photos when you stand still for a minute; I imagine if you wanted to you could each toss a wild pigeon a piece of popcorn and arrange to have them cite you for feeding the wildlife. If you are actually disruptive (instead of requesting in advance to be arrested), like choosing to block car traffic by lying down in the road, they'll find something a little less silly to charge you with, and you'll probably have to spend the night in the lock-up.
Yes, you have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to actually obstruct the normal functioning of government or the activities of your fellow citizens, who also have rights to exercise.
Well they're BlueStrat, they have done more harm than good, putting innocent bystanders in the middle of their hackings to prove their point which you should never do if you're trying to prove a point.
Apparently you skipped right over the part of my post where I said that some things I disagree with Anonymous on.
The subject was speech regarding this demonstration. I fully support their right to assembly, peaceful demonstrations/protests, and free speech. I also strongly disagree with many other groups as well, like the NBPP, KKK, CPUSA, etc etc. But I will similarly fight to the death for their right to peacefully speak out as well.
The answer to speech you don't like is always more speech, not less.
It's always the most unpopular groups who are the first to be silenced. It never ends there once the silencing of those who dissent has begun, however, as history has demonstrated again and again.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
1) Not all non-violent resistance is peaceable. Preventing other citizens from exercising their own rights is not peaceable. For instance, if you non-violently erect barricades in front of Pennsylvania Ave., you prevent other protestors from accessing that same space. You prevent other citizens from using that space for whatever those needs are (maybe they want to get into the White House to exercise their own rights.) You prevent the government, who actually owns the space, from using it for their own purposes, like accessing the entrance of the White House. Illegal and/or disruptive behavior does not receive a "get out of jail free" card just because it takes place in the context of a protest. There is quite a bit of leeway, but it is not infinite just because you don't become violent.
2) No, a boycott is NOT the same as a sit-in. A sit-in prevents other people from using the resources being taken. A boycott is a decision not to patronize a revenue-making service, it's not even close to the same thing.
3) The "Kodak Moment" rule does NOT only apply to protestors. If you camp on the sidewalk in front of the White House with a bunch of stationary photographic equipment you are also falling afoul of the law. The law refers to obstructing the view of others with a stationary anything; it doesn't specifically refer to any object, whether it be a clown suit on stilts, a protest sign, a half-dozen of your closest friends or a miniature hot air balloon. You can assemble all you want. You can assemble in a huge group with several hundred of your closest friends. You just can't block others from exercising their own rights to the very public space while doing so; you have to keep moving (so other people that would also like to use the same space have a chance to occupy it.)
These "arrests" for the Kodak Moment Rule are pre-arranged. As in, the protestors request the arrests ahead of time with the Park Police. It's kind of hard to make an argument that you are being targeted for unconstitutional treatment when you've asked the authorities to arrest you prior to the offense even taking place. So yes, I suppose the protestors are being "targeted" for arrest, but only because they have literally asked for it. I can think of no better (or more polite) example of "governing with the consent of the governed" than citizens requesting in advance to be arrested for violating the law. (The alternative; protestors escalating disruptive behavior such as blocking traffic or vandalism until the police decide to restore order, suits nobody. The protestors end up with real criminal records, such demonstrations can quickly get out of hand (on both sides), it ties up more police resources, and fouls up the operation of the city. Voluntary pre-arranged arrests are better for everyone.)
4) Protestors do not have any special claim to government resources or land that trump other people from also using those public resources. The government is more than welcome to place reasonable restrictions on even protests, as long as those restrictions ARE reasonable, and they are applied in a way that evenly applies to the speech, no matter the content.
Reasonable: No marches across the Memorial Bridge Northbound Span during morning rush hour during the work-week.
Unreasonable: No marches across the Memorial Bridge between the hours of 4AM-3:30AM, ever.
Reasonable: No 100,000 person marches through a trail in a National Park.
Unreasonable: No marches by the lumber industry through a trail in a National Park.
Reasonable: No blocking of the entrances to government buildings.
Unreasonable: No marching in front of government buildings.
Reasonable: Two protests are not allowed to take place in the same place at the same time. If the Lincoln Memorial steps have already been "booked" for an assembly with a speaker, you don't get to set up your unrelated picket line in a circle right around the lectern.
Unreasonable: Two groups that don't like each other can't protest on the
I agree on you on exercising their right to free speech as long as it's not turning to abuse or physical violence.