In support of liberating spaces (censored) by utube?

the following utube vid explains the reason public spaces are required,
and liberating space is an integral part of the public commons.

very well produced and inspirational video explaining why the liberation of spaces is very important to all people/



www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



the idea of public spaces has for to long been controlled in a way that is not in the spirit of commons.

xploder

lol
you have to watch the rt video on media censorship of american protests

Mainstream media hypocrisy?

link to rt video

explains that american networks refuse to cover the protests at home while covering other protestors<


xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

As always, I'm confused. Are you saying that America has lost it public spaces for protest? That the space was taken by dozens of police force scattered throughout the country? Or are you saying that protesters are treated inhumanely? Or both?

I'm not sure that we've lost our public spaces. There were protests all over the country without any problems, for a while. Isn't at least one of the objections to OWS that they took the common public space and made it their private protest space for weeks on end? For months they deprived others of the chance to use that space for other purposes. Wouldn't it be fair to say OWS took the public spaces?

I'm not running at full speed yet this morning. Straighten me out where I'm getting it wrong, please.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by XPLodER

 

As always, I'm confused. Are you saying that America has lost it public spaces for protest? That the space was taken by dozens of police force scattered throughout the country? Or are you saying that protesters are treated inhumanely? Or both?

let me answer a question with a question,
if the people of america wanted to freely assemble, as is there inaliable right,
but limitations were placed on that free assemblies, accross different state lines,
co ordinated by a federal action, it would be a direct message for the people,
occupation of a space has cultural and historical signifigance in the language that is used in that society and in the laws that govern a society. like free speach is protected,
so to is the free assembly of citizens for redress,
the space is where the indivduals become the free speach of freely assembled for the good of the people,
occupation is a FORM of free speach because people are interacting as a comunity, that is protected
this is enshirined in the constitution of your republic,

I'm not sure that we've lost our public spaces.

i could show you a person being thrown to the ground for dancing in washington monument, a piceful non violent act. and if assembly doent include the right to stay on public grounds overnight, how can a free assembly encompass people from all states that wish to express their democratic rights, but non can stay over night,
it shows that the free assembly of all peoples enivitably lead to a more stable and higher standard of living.

There were protests all over the country without any problems, for a while. Isn't at least one of the objections to OWS that they took the common public space and made it their private protest space for weeks on end?

i would counter that argument with the fact that ALL were welcome to be equal and participate and learn and have fun those that agreed with piecful non violent civic action stayed, like a living piece of art the free speach of living human beings in a comunity working together for redress of grave injustices,
anyone could come and join in.
the statement came when the individual states acted in co ordination with the fed gov
that they would enforce individual laws in different states and counties across the country,
laws at a state and local level, then the acual federal govenment has participated in a interstate crime against free speach and free assembly at a federal level.
using the local by laws to enforce the federal mandate is a direct evedence that the federal govenment wanted to and conspirerd to selectivly enforce laws,
you see there is a thing called "in the public interest"
and by law this must be taken into account when making enforcement decitions concerning citizens,
and in this case the police decided what was "in the best interest of the people",
was to remove their free assembly and curb the from of free speach that is physical occupation or free assembly.
the tents are nessecery to show the form of visual and physical protested space, human beings living life wanting a better world for all in their comunity
it is the closest people can acually get to wall street to occupy "legally"

For months they deprived others of the chance to use that space for other purposes. Wouldn't it be fair to say OWS took the public spaces?

no the right to freely assemble has no time limit on it, and if peoples from all over the united states wanted to assemble, as is their right, at the moment they would not be allowed shelter "overnight"
this directly contracdicts the ability to freely assemble, and considering the assembly is called occupy wall street.
remember these spaces were free and open to the comunity,
anyone could participate, all were welcome, all were equal

A public space is a social space such as a town square that is open and accessible to all, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. One of the earliest examples of public spaces are commons. For example, no fees or paid tickets are required for entry, nor are the entrants discriminated based on background. Non-government-owned malls are examples of 'private space' with the appearance of being 'public space'.

Public space has also become something of a touchstone for critical theory in relation to philosophy, (urban) geography, visual art, cultural studies, social studies and urban design. The term 'Public Space' is also often misconstrued to mean other things such as 'gathering place', which is an element of the larger concept of social space.

wiki
public space
the legal right to exercize free speach in the commons is unlimited, as long as ALL are free to enter at "NO" charge.

Dear XPLodER,

Thanks a lot, a thorough and thoughtful response.

I think there are limitations placed on our free assemblies. Let me tell you what I'm thinking.

For one example, consider the White House, Congress or Supreme Court chambers. If protesters walked into one of those and started singing (or whatever), they would be bounced pretty darn quick, and I don't think anyone would complain.

As another example, I was reading about the new Martin L. King memorial. The Park Police have gone to some trouble to make sure that no one rappels down the monument, even though it's public space.

Another. My residential area has nearby public parks. If a drum circle were beating, a couple of doors down, all night for days, I think I could persuade the police to pick them up for disturbing the peace.

And even the Supreme Court has said that some limitations on free speech and protest are allowed. They get that conclusion by balancing one set of rights against another and trying to accomodate all of them.

I agree with you completely that sometimes police don't understand what they're doing, or sometimes they're just jerks. But peaceful and non-violent doesn't guarantee the protest is allowed. What if 1000 people wanted to walk silently into the White House? They're bounced.

I'm not sure on the overnight thing. I thought OWS was allowed to stay overnight for a long time. Even in many parks, you have the ability to stay overnight.

The only argument of yours that I don't like very much is "OWS is not depriving others of using the park. If they want to come and join the protest, all are welcome." To me, that sounds like OWS is saying the park is ours, you can only use it if you join our group. That doesn't sound right at all.

And I'm not sure that the feds did anything wrong. If there's blame, it goes on the mayors. They either enforced or didn't enforce their local laws. It was their call, and some mayors didn't go along with it.

I may not have mentioned some points you thought important. Please run them by me again, if I missed them.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952


For one example, consider the White House, Congress or Supreme Court chambers. If protesters walked into one of those and started singing (or whatever), they would be bounced pretty darn quick, and I don't think anyone would complain.

neither place, "the white house" nor "the supream court" are commons, they are nessacery for the mecanations of govenment, and therfore not for occupation. it would be illegal to do so. there for not an option

As another example, I was reading about the new Martin L. King memorial. The Park Police have gone to some trouble to make sure that no one rappels down the monument, even though it's public space.

for the saftey of all who use that public space i understand

Another. My residential area has nearby public parks. If a drum circle were beating, a couple of doors down, all night for days, I think I could persuade the police to pick them up for disturbing the peace.

And even the Supreme Court has said that some limitations on free speech and protest are allowed. They get that conclusion by balancing one set of rights against another and trying to accomodate all of them.

both parties have rights, if there is a solution where both rights are upheld this is called "common" law,
you must NOT infringe on anothers rights or the rights of other parties. the reason given was not too much noise, it was an overnight camping using tents.

I agree with you completely that sometimes police don't understand what they're doing, or sometimes they're just jerks. But peaceful and non-violent doesn't guarantee the protest is allowed.

acually it does your conclusion is incorrect,
if all actions are within the law and the movement is pieceful and non violent,
and people discuss their moral and political concerns,
they usually try to list all the things that CAN be accomplished,
and in doing so inspire people to do things for the greater society
the opposite of the greed driven eco system of the corps

What if 1000 people wanted to walk silently into the White House? They're bounced.

the white house is a function of govenment and therefore to interfear or occupy is not in the spirit of the movement. all actions mujst be pieceful and respectful of the moral standing of the comunity they are in.
i suggest you are asking hypothetical unknowns

I'm not sure on the overnight thing. I thought OWS was allowed to stay overnight for a long time. Even in many parks, you have the ability to stay overnight.

there are some really old laws that are still binding in law to this very day
that free citizens are allowed to use the commons without cost, with equal access for all, that the right to assemble and speak. this assembly as long as anyone can enter and all may speak without cost to enter,
is protected, and is in the tradition of democracy that these public debates that space was protected for the purpose of democracy.

The only argument of yours that I don't like very much is "OWS is not depriving others of using the park. If they want to come and join the protest, all are welcome." To me, that sounds like OWS is saying the park is ours, you can only use it if you join our group. That doesn't sound right at all.

i think the idea is that if you came down and didnt like what you heard,
you could "raise your voice" at your turn to speak and be heard by all.
you dont need to join to diagree or agree or speack or listen or just to watch
but you can disagree and still participate by sharing your viewpoint,
thats the beautiful thing about a debate,

it leads to knowledge.

And I'm not sure that the feds did anything wrong. If there's blame, it goes on the mayors. They either enforced or didn't enforce their local laws. It was their call, and some mayors didn't go along with it.

i have no direct proof to point to so is conjecture at this stage^^^^

piece and light
xploder

reply to post by charles1952

I agree with you completely that sometimes police don't understand what they're doing, or sometimes they're just jerks.

i dont think cops are jerks,
to be clear, they are in a very tough position,
after layofffs and pension losses and the bad economey they are just as victomized as we are,
they too have families to feed,
it must be a really conflicting thing to have to provide and to serve

i make no ill judgement other than to plee that all be humain and compassionate to each other,
after all the police are the 99% as well,

i think eventually the police will be marching with us

the ability to find "the moral compass" that unites america will be for all people,
not just the 1%

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

I'm not sure that I can agree with you completely yet. Let me think it over for awhile. Thanks very much, you've been very helpful.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

The only argument of yours that I don't like very much is "OWS is not depriving others of using the park. If they want to come and join the protest, all are welcome." To me, that sounds like OWS is saying the park is ours, you can only use it if you join our group. That doesn't sound right at all.

I'm not in the US, so I haven't been to any of the occupy sites, but from the livestreams and comments from those that were there, I've yet to hear OWS protesters (en masse) preventing the public from using the park - by that I mean actively blocking them. Of course, if a bit of earth is occupied by a human, I cannot occupy the same square foot unless I give the other guy a shove, but I can stand next to him.

I guess you mean that if they are playing drums, I might not be able to enjoy my game of bridge quite as well, but that isn't the same as a group forcing me to join their group, or is that actually how you see it?

reply to post by RogerT

Dear RogerT,

Thanks for the question. Actually I was responding to something he said, although I may have misinterpreted it:

i would counter that argument with the fact that ALL were welcome to be equal and participate and learn and have fun those that agreed with piecful non violent civic action stayed, like a living piece of art the free speach of living human beings in a comunity working together for redress of grave injustices,
anyone could come and join in.

Perhaps I misunderstood his statement?

My impression, from looking at the videos, was that OWS pretty much commandeered the park. Oh, I suppose, one could find a place to sit if you wiggled through the people, but there wasn't room for a game of "Tag," or a decent ball game, or spreading out a blanket for a lunch and a nap.

The general point is that the protest had the effect of taking a "public space" out of service for months because one group decided their use was more worthy than anyone else's use.

With respect,
Charles1952

Well it would be interesting if the local soccer or football team decided to go to the park for a work-out and got blocked out by OWS protesters, or perhaps got welcomed with open arms and they all joined in. Or maybe something in between.

Without such an example, I'd say your concern is more hypothetical than actual.

reply to post by RogerT

Dear RogerT,

Thanks for keeping my nose to the nose keeping place. My two favorite answers in all the world are "It depends," and "Yes and no." When it comes to whether my argument concerns hypotheticals, I'll have to go with number 2.

You're right that hypotheticals are involved, but laws, and a lot of human behavior, are based on hypotheticals. "Your honor, if X is allowed then there is nothing in the laws to prevent Y, or even Z," is a perfectly good legal argument. Even Supreme Court justices use it when questioning the attorneys. Or, "Let's not go to your Mother-in-Law's, if Bobby shows up he'll say something about Aunt Tilda, and you know a fight will start." They're both hypotheticals, but important to us.

I'm not completely convinced that this is a totally hypothetical situation. I seem to recall several interviews with New Yorkers saying, "I wish they'd let us alone, we don't go to the park anymore because of (Drugs, Hippies, Pepper spray, Noise, Human waste products, whatever)" I believe there were people deprived of their use of the park for a significant period of time.

How to balance the protesters' rights against others' rights is the tricky part. I can't believe that no balancing should take place.

And I hope we're not forgetting that Zucotti Park is privately owned space.

With respect,
Charles1952

Sounds like we're mostly in agreement Charles.
Respect required all round, but hey, if that were already in place, there wouldn't be an OWS movement anyway

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by RogerT

 

You're right that hypotheticals are involved, but laws, and a lot of human behavior, are based on hypotheticals. "Your honor, if X is allowed then there is nothing in the laws to prevent Y, or even Z," is a perfectly good legal argument. Even Supreme Court justices use it when questioning the attorneys. Or, "Let's not go to your Mother-in-Law's, if Bobby shows up he'll say something about Aunt Tilda, and you know a fight will start." They're both hypotheticals, but important to us.

in this case it was the medias portrail of the protest that gave people the "opinion" that the camps were unsafe and dirty, anyone who went down there and took at look for themselves very quickly realised that all peoples were welcome, and non violence was expected. in this case any person who would acually want to say "walk through the zucooti park" were welcomed to do so, in the case of tents there are many ways to walk around or through them. the other point to make is that the most important use of a public space is democracy,
and as all are equal, all the rights of the participants and observers were of equal any one could come and go as they pleased, so in the sence that some people didnt "want" to go down there because of media coverage doent mean that there was any blocking of usage of the park. you could if you liked go down there and "tell everyone to get jobs" and offend people but "you" would be safe in piece and non violence. there was no intimidation that i am aware of to a level to suggest problems with access or use.

I'm not completely convinced that this is a totally hypothetical situation. I seem to recall several interviews with New Yorkers saying, "I wish they'd let us alone, we don't go to the park anymore because of (Drugs, Hippies, Pepper spray, Noise, Human waste products, whatever)" I believe there were people deprived of their use of the park for a significant period of time.

this is due to an uninformed opinion drawn from media coverage and not from direct contact with the occupy groups. it should be pointed out that police would round up homless and send them to zucooti park, the protestors realizing what was happining decided to feed them this of course attracted more people with social and economic hard ship issiues and metal health issuies.
when all are equals the homless too are the 99% this enables the media to point to the extream cases to discredit the movement. but the ability to feed the hungry is always taken up by the just, even at the expence of bad publicity because all are equal.

How to balance the protesters' rights against others' rights is the tricky part. I can't believe that no balancing should take place.

there are rules like the "commons" and if done correctly gives all rights equal space and no cost to enter,
all peoples are equal and all may talk in turn and state their points and greviences. no discrimination against anyone who is non violent and piceful to all asembled.
violence is not tolerated

And I hope we're not forgetting that Zucotti Park is privately owned space

i would like to point out that to be a park the ownership and the rights of the citizens are at adds,
the park had to be there for construction considerations and therefore must be available to ALL citizens and therefore a "park" without the park the construction could not go ahead.
the owners only "own" the park as an agreement with the council by providing a "public space" in lue of building consent constraints.

i would like to point out that property taxes on zucotti park are over due, and that if it was NOT public space the ownership would be contested to pay for back taxes and penities.


xp