Anonymous Clashes With D.C. Police During Million Mask March 388
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."
Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fight the power" means just that, however there are 2 pieces of the power - law-makers, and law-enforcers.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. You go first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Slashdot. Maybe ten years ago, maybe. Today? No. No frickin' way!
How can I show up to work tomorrow if I'm in jail?
Give me a blog post about violence in video games by a third-rate hack tech-journalist so I can express my superiority and fuck off. I've had a long day.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:4, Insightful)
Protesting is supposed to be an event that brings to light the truth behind logic and order's place in society.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
Being arrested is not a badge of honour, kid.
And having states arrest people for protesting should not be a goal.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
No. All I was saying is that if you're out there protesting, then it should be something that you feel strongly about. So strong, that you are willing to go to jail for a few hours, at the very least. Protests only "work" when the powers that be change something. All else is not protesting, but simply hanging out. I'm not suggesting rioting, or anything like that, but you've gotta do more than sit around waiting to be pepper-sprayed by people that have no respect for you anymore - because you're such a pansy (this would be their mentality).
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
So strong, that you are willing to go to jail for a few hours, at the very least.
Nope, now you can be accused of terrorism [commondreams.org] and held for a month just as an example or slapped with a nice fine of several thousand dollars for costs of detainment.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that once you've been in jail you're pretty much unemployable (aside from a few jobs in rap music and computer security consulting, if you have one of those talents). You're doomed to destitution from then on. That's a heavy price to pay.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention that once you've been in jail you're pretty much unemployable
I have been to jail. It has not made one iota of difference to my employment prospects. I doubt if any of my employers were even aware of it. None of them asked, and, as far as I know, none of them checked. Few companies do criminal background checks, and most of those will look at the nature of the crime. If you are working in finance, or defense jobs that require a security clearance, then it may make a difference. Otherwise, it usually does not.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
Blue collar jobs often actually do background checks and just toss out applicants who have criminal records. It's just a supply/demand issue: the supply of blue collar workers is extremely high while the demand for them is extremely low. Therefore, companies can choose to be extremely picky in who they hire. This creates a terrible situation for many who don't have the resources or intelligence to gain the higher education necessary to make them valuable enough for a company to overlook any misdemeanors they've been charged with. I assume that you have either an education or skills that make you valuable enough to your employer to overlook whatever prior offense you have on your record, or your skills in combination with your interview meant they didn't see any reason to bother with a background check.
Unfortunately, blue collar workers, who probably have the most reason to protest, also have the most to lose by doing so. They could make themselves unemployable to all but the lowest paying fast food jobs, which in turn would make crime a more appealing source of income, at which point they become part of the penal system's revolving door trap.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a supply/demand issue: the supply of blue collar workers is extremely high while the demand for them is extremely low. Therefore, companies can choose to be extremely picky in who they hire.
This creates a terrible situation for many who don't have the resources or intelligence to gain the higher education necessary to make them valuable enough for a company to overlook any misdemeanors they've been charged with.
I hate to break this to you.
But the old geezer working the fork lift in Receiving is less likely to get the axe than the geek on campus who has been publically linked to Anonymous.
Re: (Score:3)
And that resource requirement is increasing every year, while the value of that 'higher education' is falling.
In many cases, it's already past the point of diminishing returns.
The more intelligent people are more likely to see that dilemma and not jump into that mess any more.
So far, a good alternative has not come up that I know of.
Sure, grants and loans still exist. But the grants are never
Re: (Score:3)
That's a heavy price to pay.
Freedom isn't free, yeah there's a hefty fuckin' fee [youtube.com]
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone care to comment?
I will share a bit of my experience with the Occupy WS Movement, along with my arrest as I was a part of the initial movement in Zuccotti park on September 17, 2011 (I was there for three months)~
Towards the end of my stay in NYC there was a large march that deviated from our usual path around the nearby adjacent streets that usually navigated around the Financial District of downtown. On this day we vastly expanded our coverage, marching around a much larger radius of downtown and for the first time spilling out freely into the streets after (easily) getting around the police blockade using sheer force of numbers. The police were scrambling to contain us, making arrests en-mass but only in small areas at first since they were initially overwhelmed with our “spontaneous” deviation from the normal paths taken. I was within view of the leaders who were directing the general group, within the front hundred members of the march (I could not see the back-half of people since the march was large and wrapped around blocks).
Individual police officers were video recording us as we passed, while the larger coordinated police efforts were stuck in traffic and could not keep up with us as we danced, sang, cheered and chanted about throughout the city. We made it about eight or nine blocks away from our home-base when the march leads began steering us back to camp. There was a side-street that they directed us down to link us back up with the main stretch that would take us back home. It was on this side-street that the police made their move. They brought out their red “fishing” nets for the first time that day, first blocking off the exit to the side-street that we were attempting to leave from. The man ahead of me was the last to run free of this net, and I was seconds away from “freedom.” An officer grabbed me and threw me back into the side-street just as the red net finished closing off our exit. Without hesitation I turned and sprinted towards the other end of the side-street where we came in. As I neared my last chance of escape I saw in dismay the second red net had already been put in-place I was stuck. There were well-over 300 of us stuck in this side-street between nets, along with other non-Occupiers as well (what a surprise for them!). Scrambling about we were all trying to find that perfect hiding spot to avoid what was to come next. Sure enough, the officers in full crowed-control entered and started beating, macing, and ziptieing everyone starting from the side-street entrances/exits inwards.
“Innocents” and “terrorists” alike, I witnessed police brutality at its finest (commonplace during this movement). I saw old women getting attacked, mothers and children getting maced, as well as one particularly unlucky young woman get tackled, ziptied, and arrested after walking out of the Barnes and Nobles bookstore with her brand-new book still in-hand, completely unaware of any Occupy march. Watching the chaos unfold around me I sat down with didgeridoo in hand, waiting for my turn. I was eventually pushed down on my stomach, zip tied (luckily with my didgeridoo still in hand, which I must add survived the entire ordeal and even made it back to Michigan with me afterwards) and put into the back of a van with 9 others. We were driven around NYC for hours as all the jails were completely full they didn’t know what to do with us! We were (finally) taken to a holding cell in Brooklyn I believe after a few of us nearly passed out from pain due to the zip ties being too tight and cutting off circulation (the officers in our van didn’t have the release key).
I sat in jail for just over 12 hours without any official cause. None of the officers would answer any of our questions. They started releasing small groups of people every few hours, with my turn finally being with the last group to be released. I was handed a ticket (obstructing a sidewalk or something like that), given back my didgeridoo, and sent along my way to walk back to Zuccotti Park, once again “free.”
This event has made no impact on my employment since, only on my awareness and mentality.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how anyone pretends to care about right and wrong, but will create a police state if you give them the chance.
FTFY.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:4, Insightful)
"have their crayon promptly confiscated until they can be good little liberals."
But we have a liberal in power.
He talked a lot of shit about the previous administration only to be worse.
Obama — a "liberal?" Heh... no. He's a right-authoritarian. [politicalcompass.org]
As Cornel West observed, a "Rockefeller Republican in blackface." [blackvoicenews.com]
Obama may have run on a somewhat leftist platform in 2008, but that's no "liberal" in the White House.
Funny how Liberals pretend to care about right and wrong, but will create a police state if you give them the chance.
Left and right governments around the world both create police states — what they have in common is authoritarianism, not liberalism (or conservatism).
Re: (Score:2)
go to jail for 24 hours
That might sound better if the protest were out in the Loudoun or Fauquier county suburbs, but you're talking about Washington DC. The hell if I want to spend a night in one of their jails.
Re: (Score:2)
Police behaviour towards protesters has nothing to do with how serious the police think the cause is; it might, potentially, vary depending on whether the police agree with the cause. Just look at how the protests against racism have been policed to see how false your statement is, unless you're suggesting that the people protesting against racism didn
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:4, Insightful)
That must be why there are no homeless people: they all prefer to be in jail than on the streets...
Oh wait.
Just because you found homelessness unbearable compared to being locked up, it doesn't mean most people feel that way. What is more, I don't know about your jurisdiction, but where I live, even getting arrested can have a significant effect on many jobs - and I'm not talking about high-flying bullshit, but meaningful work such as in healthcare, or anything which may require you to travel abroad.
More important than all of this is that deliberately getting arrested usually acts against your cause's favour. Sure, it'll get you a round of, "Right on, bro!"s from those who already support you, but those who perceive themselves as the law-abiding majority will dismiss you as a dirty scofflaw.
Anyone can deliberately lose their shit and receive a beating, reminisce fondly about how manly it made them feel, and criticise everyone else for not also requesting a beating. It requires patience and intelligence to organise and establish a long term plan to win people over.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, with such eloquent speech I can't imagine how you ever couldn't find a job and ended up homeless.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if *you* would still do it given the chance. I know I wouldn't
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know if *you* would still do it given the chance. I know I wouldn't
Then you haven't found anything important enough.
You would probably not mind living in a fascist dictatorship as long as you aren't among the people being harassed by it, at least not enough to actually stand up against the law enforcement to protect the victims in such a case.
No, you won't torpedo yourself if you organize (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they also provide catering?
And who will provide this valuable service to me when I want to protest against the Park Service?
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter how nice the police are; future employers will still ask "have you ever been arrested?" on the application and then round-file it if you answer truthfully or fail you on the background check if you lie.
Sitting in a cell for a day (or a week, or even a month) or even having the shit beat of you by police is the least of your worries.
It's a minor traffic violation; it's not a problem (Score:3)
"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 e
Re: (Score:3)
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 vagr
Re:No, you won't torpedo yourself if you organize (Score:5, Informative)
It is illegal for employers in the US to ask "have you ever been arrested?". They can only ask, "have you ever been convicted?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
All protests should carry on without violence, without resistance, until the jails are filled.
One should not protest unless ready to start a revolution. And once that decision is made, protesting is not the optimal path to victory.
The day the reasonable people decide it's time to start a revolution won't be marked by a large protest, but by fire and blood and horror.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One should not protest unless ready to start a revolution.
One time in band camp we thought it was unfair that they were increasing our dues so instead of petitioning for a review we set fire to the buildings and killed all the band leaders and took their wives as spoils of war.
Re: (Score:2)
One should not protest unless ready to start a revolution.
One time in band camp we thought it was unfair that they were increasing our dues so instead of petitioning for a review we set fire to the buildings and killed all the band leaders and took their wives as spoils of war.
Ignoring the sarcasm, that was the system teaching you how to only protest inside the accepted limits.
As you've probably understood by now, the world is not Band Camp. If your bank increases your fees, petitioning for a review will get you nothing.
If the government spends your taxes in a way you disagree with, and the election system makes you unable to change that, you can decide between shutting up, protesting and revolting. Of those three options, protesting causes the same amount of change as shutting
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that in America, even with the government doing 'horrible' things ... life is WAY to good to rock the boat very much for 99% of the population. You still wake up in a warm bed, with food and drink, and a job (or you can get a job if you put even a tiny amount of effort in it). America, for all its problems, is just a fucking awesome place to live.
Somalians have something to protest about. Kenyans have something to protest about. American's are whiney bitches too lazy to do anything other than bitch about ... and too lazy to even bother voting properly ... thats how little Americans ACTUALLY care about the 'causes' that these protests are for.
That reasoning doesn't stand. How nice or how awful a place is, is not an objective criterion; people in XI century Europe lived worse than present Kenyans or Somalians and in half a millenia, the poorest in the world will probably live better than current Americans do.
How much a person cares about his situation is not based on the situation alone but on the expectations of that person. Those expectations come from the world he lives in but also from the world he's capable of imagining. A person may well decide to revolt against the best existing current reality if in his mind he sees what could be better, instead of comparing himself with how worse it could be, or is somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi definitely should definitely rethink their strategy. You are right, protest cannot be used to illustrate a moral wrong and build popular support - they should stop right now and arm their followers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Besides, "fire, blood and horror" wouldn't win anyone to your cause and, before you're able to organize sufficient manpower to actually matter you'd be easily found out and imprisoned.
You're the tough guy that will talk down on protests and demand for a real revolution while not getting away from his keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why politicians care about protests if they are huge enough
No, they don't. Not anymore. Not until you get money out of politics. http://www.wolf-pac.com/ [wolf-pac.com]
Did you see the 1968 Chicago convention? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with getting arrested and "go to jail" nowadays is that you stand a really good chance of having employment problems down the road.
It used to be that a municipal arrest record for something like this wasn't really that big of a deal, especially if your potential employer wasn't located in that municipality or it wasn't your home address. Records required manual search, the charges were almost always misdemeanor disturbing the peace-type charges and it was functionally invisible.
Nowadays, th
Yeah, the Park Service is smarter than that (Score:2)
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
Huh? (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Following the rules and regulations depends upon a lot of factors.
For example: you are probably going to follow obey early in the process. Your goal should be to get your message out in order to gain public support, and hopefully end up with a completely peaceful resolution. You should only be escalating the issue if that doesn't work.
For example: you are probably going to obey if there are hot-heads in your midst. You may know the rules of peaceable defiance, but the person next to you may be looking fo
Re: (Score:3)
American protests are not protests, they are social gatherings.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ghandi and Dr. King would tell you that peaceful protestors who break no laws often go to jail. You know, a cop whacks you over the head with a night stick, knocking you unconscious and then arrests you for sleeping on the sidewalk. Freedom to peacefully protest no longer exists in the US.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom to peacefully protest no longer exists in the US.
Thousands of people gathered in DC to protest NSA surveillance just a few weeks ago. Tens of thousands of people gathered all over the country in July for "Restore the Fourth". I don't know of any arrests or conflicts with the police.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:5, Insightful)
In a country of 300 million people, I think you need a bit more than "tens of thousands" across the country for the government to feel threatened. Peaceful protest is all well and good - but as long as people continue to work, and the government knows there will be no violent uprising, why would they care? Did those protests achieve anything at all?
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, disorganized (and even organized) protests with fuzzy demands which aren't actionable don't typically achieve much. If you want an example of how to do protest right, channeling minority anger into political power, look at the Tea Party. For God's sakes, don't emulate some of their goals, but certainly look at their methods.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want an example of how to do protest right, channeling minority anger into political power, look at the Tea Party.
Ah, so all we need to do is get coopeted by the Koch brothers. Great idea! The Tea Party was "successful" only because their entire goal was to further enrich the rich, and so it was supported by Koch, the Heritage Foundation, and Fox News from the start.
Re: (Score:3)
Grassroots? It was astroturf from the beginning. The only reason it was successful was because it's entire goal was to make the powerful more powerful. This is not any sort of resistance movement at all.
A much better example would be the civil rights movement or womens sufferage movement.
Re:Stay behind the line! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want lower taxes if it means higher deficits. Oh yeah, cut welfare for brown and poor people, but maintain it for white and rich people.
Less government intrusion, so long as the government can still step in and dictate who can get abortions or get married. Yeah, freedom, but only for people who think like me. You have the freedom to do what *I* think is right, and no more.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree with you. With the exception of some magic stick determining weather a protest is 'legal' or not.
If your giving thought as to the legality of a protest. Then its not a protest. It's mearely Acceptable Decent.
Acceptable Dessent being the smoke and mirror trick that presents an authoritarian regime to the world as a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth considering that the police have countermeasures against a DDoS attack on the prison system:
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/old-movie-studio-to-become-temporary-g20-jail-1.505070 [ctvnews.ca]
London too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:London too (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it's time to stop supporting three political parties all of which are further to the right than Thatcher.
But I guess everyone has to start somewhere, and that somewhere sometimes involves wearing a mask and burning stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's time to stop supporting three political parties all of which are further to the right than Thatcher.
But I guess everyone has to start somewhere, and that somewhere sometimes involves wearing a mask and burning stuff.
Yes, because supporting the left, who believe the solution to all problems is to grant government even more power and control, will nip that abuse of government power and control right in the bud.
Yup, right in the bud.
Bud, zoom, gone.
Makes perfect sense.
Strat
Re:London too (Score:5, Funny)
In the spirit of things, I choose to set fire to your strawman.
Re:London too (Score:4, Insightful)
You use that word...I do not think it means what you think it means. Yes, the "set fire to your strawman" line is cute, but you really should have waited to trot that one out in a reply where it might have made sense.
The left advocates for a stronger, more powerful government because that's what is required to implement and manage things like wealth redistribution/entitlements and nationalized services and resources. They themselves admit as much.
Therefor, if the problem is government power & control being abused, putting people in charge who will grant the government even more power & control (the left) is antithetical to the goal of reducing/eliminating government abuse of their power & control.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK, we have a very powerful government. It just doesn't exert its power in the interests of the people.
So, again, tear down that straw man.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK, we have a very powerful government. It just doesn't exert its power in the interests of the people.
That's exactly the point. The UK government has a lot of power that it uses to further its own interests, rather than the interests of the people. The problem is that people (and government officials) will almost ALWAYS act in THEIR OWN self interest, not the interest of "the people."
That's the general idea behind American Conservatism. The government will always act in its own interest and against the interests of "the people," so we should limit the amount of damage they can do by having the government
Re:London too (Score:5, Insightful)
I see you're preaching for the Church of American Conservatism, and I am not interested in your leaflets.
I don't want to change the size of government. I want the people to take back control of government.
You're just trying to sell me a power vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the general idea behind American Conservatism.
That might be what fires up people, but in practice they do the same thing as the Democrats when they get into power: grow government and enforce their morals upon society. Bush got elected, managed to get a majority in both houses of congress and... promptly passed the largest expansion of Medicare up to that time, and passed a law banning the budding gay marriage movement.
Re: (Score:2)
True, and it doesn't work. America is massively to the right of Europe and I'd take the government, laws etc of almost any European country over America. There will always be people who wield power, if you have weak government then you don't automatically become more free; you just end up being controlled by someone else who you certainly didn't get vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "less spending, small government, no interference" talking points don't work when the encumbent right wing party's pushing through regulation-of-the-press bills, threatening to cut the BBC's funding unless they get back in line, and adding billions of pounds worth of extra administrative layers to the health system. The UK's Conservative party believes in treading lightly where business is concerned, but they're not exactly shy about expanding their footprint when it comes to social control.
Re: (Score:3)
The primary purpose of the conservative party is to legislate in order to funnel money to their sponsors.
It doesn't believe in small government, but in privatised government, where the DWP channels billions to ineffective Work Programmes and medical assessments to line the pockets of private providers, and creates a "Universal Credit" welfare scheme which is nothing more than subsidising employers who do not pay a living wage; where the NHS must fire its managers so it must hire pricey healthcare management
Re: (Score:2)
Your "less spending, small government, no interference" talking points don't work when the encumbent right wing party's pushing through regulation-of-the-press bills, threatening to cut the BBC's funding unless they get back in line, and adding billions of pounds worth of extra administrative layers to the health system. The UK's Conservative party believes in treading lightly where business is concerned, but they're not exactly shy about expanding their footprint when it comes to social control.
Britain's "right wing" would be wildly liberal/progressive/left in the US. Britain simply has one leftist party with a branch that is slightly more moderate.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get rid of your US-centric perspective.
To the whole world, the two mainstream US political parties are quite far to the right.
The Tory party in the UK is idealistically somewhere between the Democratic and Republican parties, but can't get rid of various left wing initiatives (e.g. the NHS) because they're too popular. It's trying hard to make them dysfunctional, and will probably succeed eventually, but that's where we are for now..
Re: (Score:3)
The UK's Conservative party believes in treading lightly where business is concerned, but they're not exactly shy about expanding their footprint when it comes to social control.
Which is very different from the Labour party who believes in treading lightly where business is concerned, but are not exactly shy about expanding their footprint when it comes to social control.
Or the Lib Dems which are about half way between the two.
I vote for none of the above for what little good it does.
Re:London too (Score:5, Insightful)
``No,'' said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, ``nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards role the people.''
``Odd,'' said Arthur, ``I thought you said it was a democracy.''
``I did,'' said Ford. ``It is.''
``So,'' said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, ``why don't people get rid of the lizards?''
``It honestly doesn't occur to them,'' said Ford. ``They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.''
``You mean they actually vote for the lizards?''
``Oh yes,'' said Ford with a shrug, ``of course.''
``But,'' said Arthur, going for the big one again, ``why?''
``Because if they didn't vote for a lizard,'' said Ford, ``the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?''
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the cheapest energy plans are Direct Debit, so the money would be taken automatically.
And they have online statements, so these would just be printouts.
The greatest shame is thinking about how much HP made from these printouts, and Time Warner from the Guy Fawkes masks.
Occupy Sandy (Score:3, Interesting)
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. "
Re:Occupy Sandy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't know about agents provocateurs, you really ought not to be at a protest - it's like crossing the road without knowing that you might have to check for traffic.
IOW, protest leaders need to give some basic training to protesters.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know about agents provocateurs, you really ought not to be at a protest
Wtf? How are you supposed to tell the difference between the police acting like assholes towards a normal citizen and the police acting like assholes by planting an agent provocatuer.
Re: (Score:2)
"about" as in have an awareness of them, so you don't go all Tarzan when someone shouts "LOL LET'S TORCH THE PIGS LOL".
Re:Occupy Sandy (Score:5, Interesting)
Just wondering: what exactly are the legalities of the use of agents provocateur? At the very least the agents themselves could be charged with inciting riots, but someone is giving them orders, and that someone is following someone else's policy or "polite request", it seems to me that some very serious charges could be levelled at the people up the command chain. That is, if anything ever came of inquiries into such matters.
"Day of remembrance"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. America celebrates independence. Britain celebrates that someone failed to achieve independence. Both equally bullshit, but ours is more funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was trying for independence?
Re:"Day of remembrance"? (Score:5, Informative)
This protest is sponsored by... (Score:5, Funny)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
***so this mask is a mask of fail***
I think you mean Epic Fail, Guy.
Re: (Score:2)
The comic book was, indeed, much better. I've read a copy from a collector friend: it was poignant, and chilling.
So anonymous is celebrating (Score:2)
anti-Catholic hatred? Nice. That'll certainly get them some converts! Nothing like a little one-minute hate to bring in the plebes!
Re: (Score:2)
Announcing that you're not, in fact, dressing up as someone bold enough to try to blow up Parliament (even though he failed), but as some fictional character in a third-rate flick, doesn't help your cause.
Depends on what you're protesting about (Score:2)
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 was aware of detainment for 3 individuals... (Score:2)
Some hilarious background on DC protest arrests... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Cute, but no. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Arrest them all (Score:5, Interesting)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The choir always discusses matters of faith.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Arrest them all (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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