Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Does this mean that you believe graffiti is a significant vehicle for change?

Ah, no. In fact it's pretty obvious that's exactly the opposite of what the grafitto is saying - and it's given weight by the fact that it's a Banksy - probably the best known grafitti artist of this century. What coloured glasses are you wearing?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

what's a tp?

<just reading along>

1 Reply

@hingehead,

So am I, a champagne socialist. (Sort of just under Che's left beard area)
Cheers!

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Nothing nice.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Salut!

0 Replies

@msolga,

I answered one using a2k as social media, somewhere in the middle of the quiz, but not the beginning question. Answered the ones about the riots (there's that word again, argued about back in LA) as if I lived in England.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Oh, wait, it was in the beard... I explained that wrong.
3 blocks down from the horizonal center line, six blocks to the right of the vertical.

Financially, I'm more of a dry spumante person.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

I'm very mixed on graffiti. I lived a couple of blocks from key gangs' territories, for 25 years, and don't like all the markings on people's abodes. Especially if you built a fence by yourself, like me. Territorial proclamation going on. But I'm also a fan of maintaining some sites that were originally graffiti. At Venice Beach, for example - I suppose that is all gone by now. Amigo and I used to talk about this.

I take graffiti as essentially hostile, which is its good point and its bad point. I probably am more for it as an expressive mode than I'm verociously against it.
<wars with self, claws out>

Banksy, I'm at the 'eh' stage on him.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Some graffiti is artistic, and some is witty. Unfortunately that's about 1%, the other 99% is complete garbage.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It is impossible for anybody's brains to avoid being hamstrung by their preconceptions.

You have a tautology on your hands their hinge.

Even the hamstrung can often reach a good destination... I knew a man who was club-footed who because he was constantly whipped for it in time became good enough at walking to become an ironworker, and walk the high iron!!! People should be challenged for their misconceptions and preconceptions mostly because it demands that they think... Ultimately, it is when people are caused to feel differently that change is possible, and all our preconceptions have their implications, and people do not want to follow their thoughts all the way to their natural conclusions which might make a murderer out of them... They would like to follow their preconceptions just so far, and say goodbye, and return to home, and hearth and supper, while the implication that follow on deprive others of the very happiness they seek to enjoy...

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

If it's not on property belonging to the "artist", it isn't art; it's vandalism.

Maybe I should modify that just a little. If it's on your car, and you consider it art, then it is. That idea might not be upper most in your mind.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Attraction of art forms are subjective to the individual who enjoys it or not.

1 Reply

FORA TV

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Accepted, but most people can see the aesthetic appeal of a Banksy compared to someone's initials.

0 Replies

The State of South Carolina created emergency regulations after Occupy Columbia had encamped on state capitol grounds for more than 2 months. A federal district court opinion denied Occupy Columbia's challenge to the regulations on December 22.

Quote:

The State and its agencies must be able to respond to new situations as they arise. In this case, the Board reacted to a new situation and promulgated an emergency regulation to prohibit camping and sleeping on the State House grounds. The State has a valid interest in reducing the risk of harm associated with camping and sleeping on the State House grounds.

**********************************************************

The public interest in the right of the people to freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United State Constitution. This right may only be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The time, place, and manner restrictions of Regulation 19.480 have previously been approved by the United States Supreme Court in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).

The public has an interest in having a properly-maintained State House grounds that may be enjoyed by everyone, including those not involved with Occupy Columbia. The public also has an interest in valid, publicly-available regulations governing the use of the grounds. Regulation 19.480 serves these various interests.

A pdf copy of the 14 page opinion can be downloaded at:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/3:2011cv03253/186573/38/0.pdf?ts=1324656820

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

I agreed with the premise of OWS and I think they have the right to protest, but I have kinda thought all along they didn't have the right to just park themselves in parks (public or not) making a mess and havoc for everyone else. Nor do people have a right to vandalize other people's property or even public property in the name of protest. Its really all just that simple.

1 Reply

The OWS and TPs should start working with their state legislators to begin passage of a couple constitutional amendments -- campaign finance reform and term limits. If a couple states push it through then many others will quickly follow suit. There is no incentive for anyone on Wall St or K St to change themselves. The states can do it for them though.

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

I agreed with the premise of OWS and I think they have the right to protest, but I have kinda thought all along they didn't have the right to just park themselves in parks (public or not) making a mess and havoc for everyone else. Nor do people have a right to vandalize other people's property or even public property in the name of protest. Its really all just that simple.

Earlier on this thread some posters suggested that occupying public spaces is part of the right to free speech or the right to assemble. All of our rights face restriction when our exercise of a right comes into conflict with the rights of others. Court decisions involving various local occupy movements have all upheld reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Court decisions involving various local occupy movements have all upheld reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech.

Are they "reasonable?"

Should a government have a right to tell it's citizens how, when, where, and for what amount of time people can protest peacefully? Simply put, if the restrictions aren't about a violent threat, then they aren't reasonable. The more permits and red tape we create so that people can protest, the less powerful we are; the less capable we are.

That a court upholds a restriction, doesn't mean it's reasonable, it means it's upheld.

Let's be honest, if the government can say what's the "reasonable" time and place to protest, the only reasonable places they'll let us have will be off far far away.

A
R
T

2 Replies

Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know