What We Missed

Breaking update: A judge has ruled that Occupiers do not have a first amendment right to reside in Zuccotti Park.

Really, HuffPo?

On WBAI, the amazing Janna co-hosted a conversation on SlutWalk, women of color and moving forward with guests Andrea Plaid, Aishah Shahidah Simmons, Michelle Crentsil, and Janeen Mantin.

Thomas MacAulay Millar at Yes Means Yes talks to Jaclyn Friedman about her new book, What You Really Want.

Michelle Obama launches Women for Obama. Community blogger Katie H.R. is not feeling the language. What do you think?

. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    The judge’s ruling seems right.

    Sleeping is not speech or a choosable action. Any involuntary action is not expression or speech.

    If the protestors want to protest 24/7 without sleeping they are allowed to. As soon as they stop protesting and start sleeping they are not performing speech or expression and thus are not entitled to first amendment protection.

    If we start saying that sleep is speech technically any teacher that wakes up a sleeping kid in class could be in violation of his first amendment rights. The kid will have a right to sleep, if it is defined as speech, as he is not creating a hostile enviroment nor disrupting the educational process.

  2. Posted November 15, 2011 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Actually, that’s not at all what the judge was arguing. He was saying that the protestors do not have the right to indefinitely set up camp on private property. Both the judge and Bloomberg stated that it is fine for the protestors to be there as long as they want, but not make it a tent city.

    • Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:38 am | Permalink

      I don’t care what the judge was arguing, that is my argument why they shouldn’t be allowed to camp on public property.

      If they are on private property as soon as the property owner wants them gone he can call the police to evict the tresspassers whether they are there for 1 minute or 1 month. It is my private property, you can only come on it when I say you can. Simple.

  3. Posted November 16, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    It’s definitely a difficult situation with the Occupy protests. In Portland, Occupy was removed from their site–which might be troubling, except that the protesters have torn up the park, have forced out an organization that provides clothing and blankets for homeless people, and have created a space where lice, MRSA, and other diseases. In addition to the tax dollars the city will have to put toward reparing the park, a considerable amount of money has been spent on police officer overtime pay so that the movement can be secured.

    The movement has certainly sparked some important conversations, but I don’t mind them being (peacefully) removed. Tax reformists shouldn’t be using up tax dollars. They also shouldn’t be requesting “quinoa” and “arugula” for food rations (oh, Portland, Oregon…). Too many contradictions for a movement that could–andshould–gain much more influence

  4. Posted November 16, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    I’m really sorry I share a first name with a rampaging classist, folks.

    • Posted November 16, 2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      If you do not respect the property rights of property owners I will have an “Occupy the Gonzales-Blitz house” protest with all my friends to protest socialist attitudes. We will demand free food and services from you while making a mess. If you try to get me out of your house, I will just say it is free speech!

      • Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

        The park is a privately-owned public space. The managing company turned the space over for public use in exchange for concessions (ie tax stuff maybe) from the city. So it is not the same as invading someone’s house.

        The protestors did not demand free food, and in fact they ended up serving food to homeless and indigent people that the city is unable to help.

        As far as other services, to the best of my knowledge the protestors tried to come up with solutions on their own and took problems outside the park to professionals or authority figures when those problems were beyond their capacity. ie they had a ‘safe space’ tent but helped the rape victim get professional help. They had a medical tent but called EMTs when someone had an emergency. They got portable bathrooms, found a place to put them that complied with regulations, and in some cases cleaned the bathrooms of local businesses in exchange for being allowed to use them. etc.

        It is fine to disagree with the protestors, or to agree with them but disagree with their actions, but you should at least have your facts correct when you make hyperbolic arguments.

      • Posted November 17, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

        Try it. And be aware that we live in a collective (not a house.), and we’re no strangers to questionable raids and how to handle them ourselves, both legally and in the moment.

        Also, as Alex pointed out, these protesters did not demand free food, it was freely donated and/or prepared on the premises by volunteers. (Hmm, such as even our own communal pantry, which has in the past hosted Food Not Bombs preparations, and still manages to affordably & healthily feed the group )What propaganda generating machine have you been getting misinformation from?

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

177 queries. 0.768 seconds