Comments on: Naomi Wolf arrested at OWS event for violating terms of an imaginary law

By: robert wilson

robert wilson — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:47:00 +0000

they did have lawyers, when the lawyers went to walk to the first precinct to speak with there client’s the cops then took them to another precinct instead!!!!!!

By: dahlia

dahlia — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 01:23:00 +0000

what?? nobody told me that the breakdown of civil society was going to be formal! damn, and the black crepe de chine is at the cleaners.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:54:00 +0000

In SF, the cops would put you in the paddy wagon, drive around the corner and let you out.

By: Gibb

Gibb — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:32:00 +0000

god told me.

By: John A Arkansawyer

John A Arkansawyer — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:05:00 +0000

I agree with what you’re saying, having once spent three nights in jail on five grand bail for “demonstrating without a permit” only to be let go once the event we were demonstrating against was over, but would add that the arresting officers in protests often don’t know the law–it’s not a situation they’re familiar with–and most often the blame for the tactics you very accurately describe lie with the higher ups and not the rank and file.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:10:00 +0000

The police’s goal is to disrupt the protest, and arrest is their first-line tactic. Whether the arrest itself, or the “law” cited, is legitimate isn’t really germane. In fact, it’s safe to assume that arresting officers know their actions aren’t lawful. But, it doesn’t really matter. Their mission is to disrupt protest. They know full-well that the charges will most-likely be dismissed/dropped later, and no court will want to sort-through which officer did what unlawfully. All that matters is that the protest was disrupted. Mission accomplished. Repeat as necessary.

By: Phil Fot

Phil Fot — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:49:00 +0000

Okay. You just take a seat over there and the next available DHS Party Van will be by shortly to help you out with that.

By: liveTexas

liveTexas — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:21:00 +0000

” funny ” that we promote these actions world-wide and take those exact same rights at home …

By: guest

guest — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:19:00 +0000

within 2 months the 1% will tire of this, and there will be A Beating of Heads; how the country takes this – will we be chicago 68, or paris 68? – will decide whether we begin to descend into a nightmare, or rise from it.

i’m thinkin’ chicago……………

By: bmcraec

bmcraec — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:31:00 +0000

Hmm, that may be a problem. Their schools will have brain-washed them into reporting any suspicious or disloyal activity, which telling them about the old days would clearly violate.

By: quickwhistle

quickwhistle — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:25:00 +0000

woland .. every right to say so .. hell .. them pay so. Poor me .. I’m not paying enough. So go pay MORE. Go dog, Go!

Picketting and sit-ins (too old for ya?) occupy don’t solve the problems. Just like Vietnam .. it takes someone truly great to solve the problem. Just ask Richard Nixon.

By: woland

woland — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:53:00 +0000

Why? The position of OWS isn’t that the 1% are evil. It’s that they control too large a portion of the country’s wealth and pay too little in tax. Some members of the 1% agree with that position and have every right to say so.

By: oohShiny

oohShiny — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:39:00 +0000

Better instead to welcome with open arms any shows of solidarity from the 1%. We’re stronger together, and if the 1% can be convinced to join in plans for helping out the other 99% to their own detriment, how can we refuse?

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:37:00 +0000

Even if you are incorrect on this point, the mere fact that public trust in their institutions has been and is being severely eroded is a telling sign of the times and once trust is lost, it is very difficult to regain and can lead to far worse events.

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:35:00 +0000

. . . a bit like “whose snipers do you trust?”

By: Lizard Lizard

Lizard Lizard — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:34:00 +0000

Just wondering…. how much money does Naomi Wolf make? The best figures I’ve found lately indicate that the cut off for the bottom 99% is 350K/year. She’s a well-enough known writer, speaker, and so on that it would not surprise me if she hovered at or near that level… which would mean she’s one of the 1%. She might well be under the line, of course, but I doubt she’s very FAR under it. (For example, I’d be seriously surprised if she earns less than 100K a year, which would be the cutoff for the top 20%.) Certainly, people like Michael Moore are far across the 1% line, much further from the 99% than most of the bankers, lawyers, etc, who wander past the protesters day after day, most of whom do not make anywhere near 350K. (Some, of course, are many times richer than that, but not anything like the majority — which is the whole point, right?) I think it would be an interesting statement of principle if OWS formed a consensus to not accept aid, support, appearances, acts of solidarity, etc, from anyone whose income or personal assets put them into the 1%. (There’s no ‘head’ or ‘leader’ of OWS, but there is a general consensus/gestalt which spreads quickly. A principle such as “We don’t care if you’re a millionaire Republican banker or a millionaire socialist filmmaker, the 1% is the 1%, and we’re the 99%, not you.” would be an interesting stance to see them collectively adopt. Of course, you get a lot more media attention if you have a few mastercard marxists acting as public spokesmen, and what’s a little thing like principle compared to publicity? (And the chance to join the 1%, once the media decides who they want to annoint as the “face” of OWS and turn them into a perennial talking head guest on the usual circuits.))

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:31:00 +0000

The police are not to be relied upon in circumstances such as these. I guess they can’t have a lawyer around, can they?

By: Susan Carley Oliver

Susan Carley Oliver — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:23:00 +0000

I want to see a mashup of this with the Angry Marine.

By: John A Arkansawyer

John A Arkansawyer — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:20:00 +0000

You’re thinking of Chuck Norris.

By: John A Arkansawyer

John A Arkansawyer — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:20:00 +0000

I’m okay with Free Speech Zones. It’s those big No Free Speech Zones that surround them I have a problem with.

By: oasisob1

oasisob1 — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:39:00 +0000

“Failure to obey lawful orders of a law enforcement officer given in the performance of his duties.”

Take note of the word ‘lawful’. The orders must be lawful.

By: autark

autark — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:48:00 +0000

there are such places, but nobody lives there, nor would bother traveling there to protest the emptiness.

By: awjt

awjt — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:12:00 +0000

They were pretty stupid checkpoints too. Anyone white and looking like a “regular family” got the two finger wave-by to keep driving. Anyone looking even remotely darker-skinned had to stop, roll down the window, answer questions, possibly get pulled over to be questioned further.

Glad all that’s gone. Security theater.

By: Iphinome Iphinome

Iphinome Iphinome — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:38:00 +0000

Entrapment by estoppel, Raley v. Ohio. Civil right violation as well, first amendment. You have to be pretty dense to not know you’re violating someone’s free speech rights so no qualified immunity. Sue the cops as individuals under 42 USC 1983.

By: SweetieBear

SweetieBear — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:54:00 +0000

The law is whatever rich white people tell the cops it is. Her sentence says it all. It’s bad enough when it’s Blacks or Latinos or people of Middle Eastern descent…but damnit, she draws the line at white people in evening dress. I mean really…what has this country come to when a white women in an evening gown can get arrested by the cops like any common darky? I mean when she says, “then they come for you,” just who is this “you” she is talking about?

By: Creesto4 Lynch

Creesto4 Lynch — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:40:00 +0000

The Declaration of Indepedence: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

By: eddieVroom

eddieVroom — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:39:00 +0000

I believe that Scientology set this precedent, getting “filming” and construction permits to keep protesters off the sidewalks along their facilities. But very few people were paying attention to that…

By: jrobie

jrobie — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:30:00 +0000

“Free Speech Zones” are just about the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard of.

By: jrobie

jrobie — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:29:00 +0000

Basically if you ask the National Lawyers Guild, they’ll come and observe at your protest. You’ll still get arrested though.

By: jrobie

jrobie — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:28:00 +0000

Sadly it really wouldn’t. One of the major points my (somewhat famous criminal defense attorney) law professor made on the first day of Criminal Procedure was: even if you see cops blatantly violating what you know the law to be, don’t try to intervene because you’ll just end up getting arrested and held for 48 hours along with the other arrestee.

These days it would probably be “maced and arrested” but the point stands.