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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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
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.