13 ms·

I never realized just how bad the situation was until I got involved more seriously in activism. Two and a half years into being politically active enough to ne

I never realized just how bad the situation was until I got involved more seriously in activism. Two and a half years into being politically active enough to never go more than a week or two without some form of protest (which could take the form of a march or rally, or an Overpass Light Brigade, or helping organize a cryptoparty, hosting documentary movie nights, helping with direct action training, etc.), I now have literally dozens of friends who have been charged with felonies. These are among the sweetest, and gentlest, people I know. Some are barely older than children (the youngest person I know charged with a felony was 19 when she was charged with "Use of a criminal instrument" for locking her arm to a fellow protesters arm using a device suggested and made for them by a team of undercover Austin Police Department officers). It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It includes violent, or at least threatening, police presence at any protest of significance (which means many populations cannot safely express dissent; anyone with warrants, regardless of what they are for, has no free speech because they will be snatched from a protest, anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched, etc.). It includes violent arrest tactics; police are trained in "pain compliance" techniques, which include spraying pepper spray into protesters eyes, and forcing their eyes open to do so. It includes widespread spying at the local, state, and federal level, as well as spying by corporations like Stratfor. It includes charging activists with laws intended for violent terrorists, so that arrest is no longer a minor inconvenience, but a life-altering event. When non-violent activists are facing years in prison, for causing nothing more than minor temporary inconvenience, something is horribly broken. I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it. But, it's not very frequently reported in mainstream media. I only know about it because I know some of the people involved and follow activist-oriented news sources.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult. Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding. This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
- doorhammer 13y ago
  "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  "It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism." I had an inkling, as I think most people do, even the people who most benefit from the status quo. But, being born white and male into a middle class household granted me a tremendous amount of privilege to avoid ever having to see it too closely, without even trying very hard. Having been exposed to technology at a young age, and encouraged in that pursuit, granted me a near complete lack of need to actually work all that hard to survive. It's easy to believe in a meritocratic society when you believe you're meritorious enough to deserve all the good things that happen to you and to avoid all the bad things being inflicted on others. Let's just say I've grown as a person over the past few years.
  - forsaken 13y ago
    Have you written more at length about this? I often find it incredibly hard to convey these points, and having stories or at least anecdotes that are relatable to people is usually the best tactic.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Where did you learn this nonsense? I'll grant that calling something like this "terrorism" is over the top but the rest of this rant had me checking for a full moon.
  - sdoering 13y ago
    It is quite easy to learn this. Someone with your intellect could do it in a short time: It is called opening your eyes, cleaning them of the propaganda-rheum and seeing, wide awake the real structure of the world we live in. I am a white male, totally privileged. Absolutely lucky to be that way by chance. And you know what - I know of this privilege, I did nothing for to earn. I know, that the system is rigged like in a mobsters casino. And you know what - I believe it sucks real bad. And people like you make it harder for everyone fighting for change. Or for people turning their backs on this system, robbing it of its support. So please, do me a favor: Go home and play with your new shiny toys - what ever keeps you asleep in a world, that needs more people being awake and seeing for real.
kashkhan 13y ago
There is no excuse to be dumber in action than the people/company/administration you oppose. Business is ritualized warfare. It's not about playing fair.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  What are you suggesting?
  - kashkhan 13y ago
    I am suggesting that doing direct action, when you are few in number and susceptible to arbitrary brutality, makes the movement weaker. If they really care about success then they would do it differently. It doesn't take great genius to get arrested. To win you need to be strong, skillful or lucky. When you are none of these things you are wasting your time seeking confrontation. David won against goliath because he was skillful.
    - SwellJoe 13y ago
      I think that following your advice would lead to no one, ever, fighting against oppression. Because the oppressor is always more powerful and better equipped. But, without a few people having the courage to fight in the beginning, those who are afraid will never feel empowered to join. It is also useful to know that this kind of action isn't generally subject to arrest. This is a simple "make a little noise, get asked to leave, leave" kinda of thing. It is clear that even this minor act of disobedience is being punished in this absurdly over the top way in order to keep people thinking like you: It's too risky, it's too confrontational. So, I have to repeat: What would you suggest? You are saying this is foolish, you are saying it should be done differently. But, you don't offer any suggestions for what would indicate skill (and no one will ever be "strong" against a foe as powerful as the fossil fuels industry). And, maybe these folks are just hoping for luck, in the face of overwhelming odds. If enough people take a spin, maybe somebody will hit the jackpot that turns this tide. Given the circumstances, and our seeming inevitable slide into the madness that is global climate change (which, I'll assume, you're familiar with and not one of the nutty right wing climate change deniers), I'd say we need more people taking that chance, not fewer. But, if you have better ideas, I'm all ears.
malandrew 13y ago
Sounds like a documentary that needs to be made. Take every single protest issue that has broad public support and document the abuses perpetuated against protestors. Ideally the protestors in the film should represent the entire range of the political spectrum (right wing to left wing. gun rights to animal rights. pro-life to pro-choice. etc). The highlight needs to be on the forcefully violent oppression of peaceful dissent.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  While I think such a documentary is a great idea, I think this will never happen: "Ideally the protestors in the film should represent the entire range of the political spectrum (right wing to left wing. gun rights to animal rights. pro-life to pro-choice. etc)." Ideal is hard to find in the real world. This is a very one-sided battle, and pretty much always has been in the US. The powerful and rich are aligned against the powerless, and have the police, courts, and lawmakers, on their side. You'd be very hard pressed to find right wing protesters being abused in the same way as environmental protesters (or, at all, for that matter). Because the right wing protesters aren't fighting for anything that oil companies, for example, would find threatening. It takes a combination of vast wealth and state/corporate collusion to get the kind of violence we've seen in the environmental activist community. I've been amused to note that Alex Jones-sponsored gun rights rallies are vastly less likely to be harassed by cops than anything I would be involved in. The kind of dissent that is most likely to be quashed is that of the powerless against the very powerful. White guys who support the death penalty don't fall into the category of "powerless" and their opponents are not the powerful (the powerful like having more tools to keep poor people in line and to give teeth to their threats, so are unlikely to worry about someone supporting the death penalty). Pro-life vs. pro-choice? This one I'm really familiar with. Take Texas as an example...during the recent battle over womens reproductive rights here, the surprisingly peaceful pro-choice side had their heads smashed in (http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-12-arrested-tx-senate-oks-strict-abortion-controls-10152653.html http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-12-arrested-tx-senate-oks-s...), were aggressively searched , had tampons removed from their purses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/07/12/texas-confiscates-tampons-not-guns.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/07/12/texas-co...), were falsely accused of trying to bring feces and urine into chambers (http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_23960175/el-paso-times http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_23960175/el-paso-times), were spied on by DPS officers. No pro-life proponents were arrested, or detained, or harassed, despite the occasional actual assault on pro-choice protesters. All of this, despite the fact that pro-life supporters have literally murdered people in support of their cause...I'm not suggesting that DPS should have been harassing pro-life folks the way they were harassing pro-choice folks; just that it's clear which side the power was aligned on, and to what end. Most right-wing "dissent" is manufactured outrage over imagined slights (or wealthy white people being pissed off that poor brown people could possibly want to be treated equally). I lean libertarian, some days, and so I'm sympathetic to some "right" causes...but, it's clear that when business and the poor go to war, it is a one-sided battle and nearly all the violence is being initiated by police. If we have to find examples of right wing protesters being abused in the ways that those on the left are being abused, we'll never see anything resembling the documentary you've imagined. Anyway, I went looking to see if such a documentary existed, since I'd like to show such a thing at one of the Revolution in the Park movie nights I host in Austin. Couldn't find anything exactly along those lines, though it looks like someone was planning to make one last year, but seems to have stopped updating: http://examplesprotestdoc.wordpress.com/ http://examplesprotestdoc.wordpress.com/ But, most documentaries about protest cover the outsized response of police, because that's always a big part of the story. Of recent films, We Are Legion, 99%: The Occupy Walls Street Collaborative Film, Blockadia Rising (which is about an earlier stage of the Keystone XL fight, and includes some of the folks I know who've been charged with felonies), all cover how government responds to peaceful dissent.
A_COMPUTER 13y ago
>anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally? Protesting while obviously out of compliance with the law is quite a bit different from being suppressed by a completely fabricated charge.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  Because freedom of speech is more important than immigration bullshit, and because arresting people on unrelated charges is one of many tools in the toolchest of those who wish to silence dissent. It is one of many chilling effects that makes large scale movements all but impossible in the US. Police simply wander around spotting people they think might have something in their past that allows them to arrest them. I'm a middle class white guy, and I've been detained and had my ID run at least a dozen times in the past two years, merely for having the gall to show up at a protest. I've never been arrested, and never had a warrant, so I don't fear being detained the way many would...but knowing that you will very likely be targeted just for being present, even if you aren't breaking any laws, insures a whole lot of people simply don't show up. So, by saying this is OK, as long as it is not a "completely fabricated charge" you're insuring that there is no such thing as a large scale movement to change anything in the US. Most people cannot afford to be targeted by police in the way that a lot of activists I know have been. I believe that undocumented workers have the right to free speech. I believe that people with warrants have the right to free speech. They don't have that free speech because they know they are likely to be targeted by police if they exercise that speech for dissent (just like anyone expressing dissent becomes a target). It's just that the cost of being targeted by police is so much higher than it is for someone like me.
  - A_COMPUTER 13y ago
    I think understand your position a little better now, that as you said checking people's status has a chilling effect. I was thinking of the undocumented thing in the context of an actual protest with people holding signs saying they are undocumented. I believe this is basically daring the police to do something about you. There is basically no way for an undocumented immigrant to protest without crossing over into civil disobedience, which has obvious costs. I still don't think it's totally the same, but I see where you're coming from.
L4mppu 13y ago
>suggested and made for them by a team of undercover Austin police Department officers If it was considered illegal i think the officers should be punished at least to some extent. Why are Police officers encouraging crime to begin with?
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  Because that's standard practice for breaking up protests. See: false flag NYPD starting altercations with police at OWS in order to give police justification for violently putting down the protest.
  - JonnieCache 13y ago
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing...
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  "If it was considered illegal i think the officers should be punished at least to some extent." I think they should be, too. The judge had some harsh words for the APD, and the charges were reduced to misdemeanors and the sentence (which was originally looking like years in prison) to time served. Though, one of the protesters in this case ended up spending about 2 years in jail because he had a past warrant (he missed his court date for that old warrant in Dallas because he was in jail on a felony charge in Houston, so they punished him for missing that date). He was just released a few weeks ago. It's also worth mentioning that APD did not reveal their officers had made the devices or suggested their use in the action, and fought to not reveal their involvement in court. The Houston police department, who were prosecuting the case, didn't even know APD was involved in the protest, until a few lucky breaks led to three of the six undercover officers being outed. It is, frankly, miraculous that those seven kids aren't still in jail and shackled with felony convictions. Dumb luck revealed that they'd been setup, and the prosecutors were forced to fold. But, it's happening every day. This is standard operating procedure when dealing with protesters; and, not just at the national level. And, as far as we can tell, the chain of command on this particular operation went all the way up to the chief of police. It was not rogue cops going beyond their assigned duties to set kids up for felony charges. Some references, so this doesn't end up being dismissed as a paranoid fantasy (I know it's pretty unbelievable stuff): http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-infiltrated-occupy-austin-1/nRqZN/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-infil... http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Undercover-Austin-police-officers-aided-Houston-3841846.php http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Undercover-A... http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-09-07/apd-infiltrates-occupy/ http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-09-07/apd-infiltrat... More came out later based on open records requests, but my google fu is failing me at the moment. In short, it was actually worse than we knew during the early stages of the trial when these three articles were written. "Why are Police officers encouraging crime to begin with?" You tell me. Why would police officers encourage crime, encourage violence, encourage escalation in tactics, etc.?
honzzz 13y ago
This reminds me of the book Where the Dog Is Buried by Czech dissident and activist Pavel Kohout. It is basically a book about various tactics that the police in communist Czechoslovakia used to harass and intimidate him and his fellow activists. Some of those tactics were surprisingly creative and twisted... from using 'flexible laws' to justify arrests and constant surveillance to tricking him into emigration - he was a playwright and when police gave him a permission to travel to Austria to see the opening night of one of his plays he thought it was maybe a peace offering after years of troubles with the police. He went there with his wife but while they were there the police invalidated their passports and when they wanted to return home they were not allowed to cross the border and they were both forced to emigrate.
gaius 13y ago
I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it I don't think that's true. I think Americans actually like it this way. It gives a soccer mom a deep sense of contentment that if anyone so much as looks at her precious little darling she can summon a SWAT team to punish them. It just so happens that right now you have a President who is more than happy to deliver on this. There is an old saying: a country gets the government it deserves.
- aptwebapps 13y ago
  There is an old saying: a country gets the government it deserves. Especially in a democracy.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Since the inception of radio and TV the democracy is gone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    - beagle3 13y ago
      Honest question: why do you believe it was there before television or radio ?
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        because there was no easy/centralized way to spread propaganda. One had to use terror/fear to stay in power. The truth was obvious, so somebody had to keep population scared, so they don't revolt. Nowadays, subtle propaganda works. You air day and night stuff explaining people that white is black and black is white and this works. People see the truth, want to revolt, but then "the experts" from the silver box explain that the opposite is actually true. Everybody happy thinking they are free while they are slaves to the banks and constantly monitored by the Government.
        13y ago
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
so the only option that will leave people at the end will be in fact (oh irony!) terrorism.
Shivetya 13y ago
Guess its not fun to find out how bad it is to express a point of view. Go look at all the hoops abortion protestors have to jump through. They wouldn't even dare cross the threshold of the business because by law most can't even come within shouting distance of their targets. So yeah, welcome to the club. Business and government use the power of the later to enforce their will. The sad part is, people will cheer this type of behavior on provided its exercised against people they don't like but suddenly they are all aghast of when it hits them. As with all other forms of freedom of speech, asking the government to silence people you do not like is akin to allowing government to silence you when someone else does not like your speech.
- jsymolon 13y ago
  Freedom of speech as it's written in the 1st amendment is NOT a blanket of protection against everything you say. "In America, you’re simply guaranteed the right to speak without the government taking action against you. However, that doesn’t mean your employer can’t fire you for bad-mouthing him on Facebook, and it certainly doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want with full impunity" http://www.nogalesinternational.com/opinion/guest_opinion/free-speech-is-often-misunderstood/article_04391a86-2ab3-11e3-89c4-001a4bcf887a.html" http://www.nogalesinternational.com/opinion/guest_opinion/fr...
- king_jester 13y ago
  > Guess its not fun to find out how bad it is to express a point of view. Go look at all the hoops abortion protestors have to jump through. They wouldn't even dare cross the threshold of the business because by law most can't even come within shouting distance of their targets. Abortion protestors don't merely express a point of view, they deliberately attempt to prevent people from accessing health services at places where an abortion may be provided. A protestor that disrupts a business or barricades themselves to a door can reasonably be expected to be detained or arrested, but not charged with terrorism or charged with major felonies.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  Do you really believe the two are comparable? Anti-choice protesters have assaulted women trying to get low cost health care, have murdered doctors, and have aligned themselves against the poorest, least powerful people in this country (poor women of color). Recently, a pro-life group distributed a message suggesting pretending to provide rides to women needing health care, but actually kidnapping them and taking them to a church. This is crazy shit, and some of them are terrifying people. I also believe you're misrepresenting the state of affairs. Anti-choice protesters can protest right outside of clinics on sidewalks, streets, etc. At least in my state, they can. And, I've not seen much in the way of police violence against anti-choice protesters. I haven't seen police setting up anti-choice protesters and encouraging them to commit violent acts. Maybe this is happening, and I just don't know it, because I'm not in those circles (I think it's assumed here in this thread that I'm left wing, but that's not really accurate; though I am firmly pro-choice). I know it isn't happening in my state, however, as I saw it with my own eyes. Pro-choice groups were stalked by police, while pro-life groups were ignored even when they became aggressive and got physical. Anyway, I've never asked for pro-life activists to be silenced. I do think that if they physically prevent someone from getting medical care, they are violating that person's basic rights. I also find it particularly reprehensible that they target the poorest and least powerful people. Wealthy white women get abortions all the time at places other than Planned Parenthood or other free and low cost clinics; but, pro-life groups would rather harass the weak and poor, who are often just needing birth control or medical services unrelated to abortion.
cstross 13y ago
These are all features of a system described by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin as Inverted Totalitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism -- that is, while it's a totalitarian system, unlike traditional fascist/totalitarian states it's driven by the pursuit of cost-effectiveness rather than some abstract ideology. Welcome to one of the failure modes of representative democracy.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult. Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding. This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.

doorhammer 13y ago
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
SwellJoe 13y ago
"It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism." I had an inkling, as I think most people do, even the people who most benefit from the status quo. But, being born white and male into a middle class household granted me a tremendous amount of privilege to avoid ever having to see it too closely, without even trying very hard. Having been exposed to technology at a young age, and encouraged in that pursuit, granted me a near complete lack of need to actually work all that hard to survive. It's easy to believe in a meritocratic society when you believe you're meritorious enough to deserve all the good things that happen to you and to avoid all the bad things being inflicted on others. Let's just say I've grown as a person over the past few years.
- forsaken 13y ago
  Have you written more at length about this? I often find it incredibly hard to convey these points, and having stories or at least anecdotes that are relatable to people is usually the best tactic.
ams6110 13y ago
Where did you learn this nonsense? I'll grant that calling something like this "terrorism" is over the top but the rest of this rant had me checking for a full moon.
- sdoering 13y ago
  It is quite easy to learn this. Someone with your intellect could do it in a short time: It is called opening your eyes, cleaning them of the propaganda-rheum and seeing, wide awake the real structure of the world we live in. I am a white male, totally privileged. Absolutely lucky to be that way by chance. And you know what - I know of this privilege, I did nothing for to earn. I know, that the system is rigged like in a mobsters casino. And you know what - I believe it sucks real bad. And people like you make it harder for everyone fighting for change. Or for people turning their backs on this system, robbing it of its support. So please, do me a favor: Go home and play with your new shiny toys - what ever keeps you asleep in a world, that needs more people being awake and seeing for real.

kashkhan 13y ago

There is no excuse to be dumber in action than the people/company/administration you oppose. Business is ritualized warfare. It's not about playing fair.

SwellJoe 13y ago
What are you suggesting?
- kashkhan 13y ago
  I am suggesting that doing direct action, when you are few in number and susceptible to arbitrary brutality, makes the movement weaker. If they really care about success then they would do it differently. It doesn't take great genius to get arrested. To win you need to be strong, skillful or lucky. When you are none of these things you are wasting your time seeking confrontation. David won against goliath because he was skillful.
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    I think that following your advice would lead to no one, ever, fighting against oppression. Because the oppressor is always more powerful and better equipped. But, without a few people having the courage to fight in the beginning, those who are afraid will never feel empowered to join. It is also useful to know that this kind of action isn't generally subject to arrest. This is a simple "make a little noise, get asked to leave, leave" kinda of thing. It is clear that even this minor act of disobedience is being punished in this absurdly over the top way in order to keep people thinking like you: It's too risky, it's too confrontational. So, I have to repeat: What would you suggest? You are saying this is foolish, you are saying it should be done differently. But, you don't offer any suggestions for what would indicate skill (and no one will ever be "strong" against a foe as powerful as the fossil fuels industry). And, maybe these folks are just hoping for luck, in the face of overwhelming odds. If enough people take a spin, maybe somebody will hit the jackpot that turns this tide. Given the circumstances, and our seeming inevitable slide into the madness that is global climate change (which, I'll assume, you're familiar with and not one of the nutty right wing climate change deniers), I'd say we need more people taking that chance, not fewer. But, if you have better ideas, I'm all ears.

malandrew 13y ago

Sounds like a documentary that needs to be made. Take every single protest issue that has broad public support and document the abuses perpetuated against protestors. Ideally the protestors in the film should represent the entire range of the political spectrum (right wing to left wing. gun rights to animal rights. pro-life to pro-choice. etc). The highlight needs to be on the forcefully violent oppression of peaceful dissent.

SwellJoe 13y ago
While I think such a documentary is a great idea, I think this will never happen: "Ideally the protestors in the film should represent the entire range of the political spectrum (right wing to left wing. gun rights to animal rights. pro-life to pro-choice. etc)." Ideal is hard to find in the real world. This is a very one-sided battle, and pretty much always has been in the US. The powerful and rich are aligned against the powerless, and have the police, courts, and lawmakers, on their side. You'd be very hard pressed to find right wing protesters being abused in the same way as environmental protesters (or, at all, for that matter). Because the right wing protesters aren't fighting for anything that oil companies, for example, would find threatening. It takes a combination of vast wealth and state/corporate collusion to get the kind of violence we've seen in the environmental activist community. I've been amused to note that Alex Jones-sponsored gun rights rallies are vastly less likely to be harassed by cops than anything I would be involved in. The kind of dissent that is most likely to be quashed is that of the powerless against the very powerful. White guys who support the death penalty don't fall into the category of "powerless" and their opponents are not the powerful (the powerful like having more tools to keep poor people in line and to give teeth to their threats, so are unlikely to worry about someone supporting the death penalty). Pro-life vs. pro-choice? This one I'm really familiar with. Take Texas as an example...during the recent battle over womens reproductive rights here, the surprisingly peaceful pro-choice side had their heads smashed in (http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-12-arrested-tx-senate-oks-strict-abortion-controls-10152653.html http://www.dallasvoice.com/watch-12-arrested-tx-senate-oks-s...), were aggressively searched , had tampons removed from their purses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/07/12/texas-confiscates-tampons-not-guns.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/07/12/texas-co...), were falsely accused of trying to bring feces and urine into chambers (http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_23960175/el-paso-times http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_23960175/el-paso-times), were spied on by DPS officers. No pro-life proponents were arrested, or detained, or harassed, despite the occasional actual assault on pro-choice protesters. All of this, despite the fact that pro-life supporters have literally murdered people in support of their cause...I'm not suggesting that DPS should have been harassing pro-life folks the way they were harassing pro-choice folks; just that it's clear which side the power was aligned on, and to what end. Most right-wing "dissent" is manufactured outrage over imagined slights (or wealthy white people being pissed off that poor brown people could possibly want to be treated equally). I lean libertarian, some days, and so I'm sympathetic to some "right" causes...but, it's clear that when business and the poor go to war, it is a one-sided battle and nearly all the violence is being initiated by police. If we have to find examples of right wing protesters being abused in the ways that those on the left are being abused, we'll never see anything resembling the documentary you've imagined. Anyway, I went looking to see if such a documentary existed, since I'd like to show such a thing at one of the Revolution in the Park movie nights I host in Austin. Couldn't find anything exactly along those lines, though it looks like someone was planning to make one last year, but seems to have stopped updating: http://examplesprotestdoc.wordpress.com/ http://examplesprotestdoc.wordpress.com/ But, most documentaries about protest cover the outsized response of police, because that's always a big part of the story. Of recent films, We Are Legion, 99%: The Occupy Walls Street Collaborative Film, Blockadia Rising (which is about an earlier stage of the Keystone XL fight, and includes some of the folks I know who've been charged with felonies), all cover how government responds to peaceful dissent.

A_COMPUTER 13y ago

>anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally? Protesting while obviously out of compliance with the law is quite a bit different from being suppressed by a completely fabricated charge.

SwellJoe 13y ago
Because freedom of speech is more important than immigration bullshit, and because arresting people on unrelated charges is one of many tools in the toolchest of those who wish to silence dissent. It is one of many chilling effects that makes large scale movements all but impossible in the US. Police simply wander around spotting people they think might have something in their past that allows them to arrest them. I'm a middle class white guy, and I've been detained and had my ID run at least a dozen times in the past two years, merely for having the gall to show up at a protest. I've never been arrested, and never had a warrant, so I don't fear being detained the way many would...but knowing that you will very likely be targeted just for being present, even if you aren't breaking any laws, insures a whole lot of people simply don't show up. So, by saying this is OK, as long as it is not a "completely fabricated charge" you're insuring that there is no such thing as a large scale movement to change anything in the US. Most people cannot afford to be targeted by police in the way that a lot of activists I know have been. I believe that undocumented workers have the right to free speech. I believe that people with warrants have the right to free speech. They don't have that free speech because they know they are likely to be targeted by police if they exercise that speech for dissent (just like anyone expressing dissent becomes a target). It's just that the cost of being targeted by police is so much higher than it is for someone like me.
- A_COMPUTER 13y ago
  I think understand your position a little better now, that as you said checking people's status has a chilling effect. I was thinking of the undocumented thing in the context of an actual protest with people holding signs saying they are undocumented. I believe this is basically daring the police to do something about you. There is basically no way for an undocumented immigrant to protest without crossing over into civil disobedience, which has obvious costs. I still don't think it's totally the same, but I see where you're coming from.

L4mppu 13y ago

>suggested and made for them by a team of undercover Austin police Department officers If it was considered illegal i think the officers should be punished at least to some extent. Why are Police officers encouraging crime to begin with?

redthrowaway 13y ago
Because that's standard practice for breaking up protests. See: false flag NYPD starting altercations with police at OWS in order to give police justification for violently putting down the protest.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing...
SwellJoe 13y ago
"If it was considered illegal i think the officers should be punished at least to some extent." I think they should be, too. The judge had some harsh words for the APD, and the charges were reduced to misdemeanors and the sentence (which was originally looking like years in prison) to time served. Though, one of the protesters in this case ended up spending about 2 years in jail because he had a past warrant (he missed his court date for that old warrant in Dallas because he was in jail on a felony charge in Houston, so they punished him for missing that date). He was just released a few weeks ago. It's also worth mentioning that APD did not reveal their officers had made the devices or suggested their use in the action, and fought to not reveal their involvement in court. The Houston police department, who were prosecuting the case, didn't even know APD was involved in the protest, until a few lucky breaks led to three of the six undercover officers being outed. It is, frankly, miraculous that those seven kids aren't still in jail and shackled with felony convictions. Dumb luck revealed that they'd been setup, and the prosecutors were forced to fold. But, it's happening every day. This is standard operating procedure when dealing with protesters; and, not just at the national level. And, as far as we can tell, the chain of command on this particular operation went all the way up to the chief of police. It was not rogue cops going beyond their assigned duties to set kids up for felony charges. Some references, so this doesn't end up being dismissed as a paranoid fantasy (I know it's pretty unbelievable stuff): http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-infiltrated-occupy-austin-1/nRqZN/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-infil... http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Undercover-Austin-police-officers-aided-Houston-3841846.php http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Undercover-A... http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-09-07/apd-infiltrates-occupy/ http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-09-07/apd-infiltrat... More came out later based on open records requests, but my google fu is failing me at the moment. In short, it was actually worse than we knew during the early stages of the trial when these three articles were written. "Why are Police officers encouraging crime to begin with?" You tell me. Why would police officers encourage crime, encourage violence, encourage escalation in tactics, etc.?

honzzz 13y ago

This reminds me of the book Where the Dog Is Buried by Czech dissident and activist Pavel Kohout. It is basically a book about various tactics that the police in communist Czechoslovakia used to harass and intimidate him and his fellow activists. Some of those tactics were surprisingly creative and twisted... from using 'flexible laws' to justify arrests and constant surveillance to tricking him into emigration - he was a playwright and when police gave him a permission to travel to Austria to see the opening night of one of his plays he thought it was maybe a peace offering after years of troubles with the police. He went there with his wife but while they were there the police invalidated their passports and when they wanted to return home they were not allowed to cross the border and they were both forced to emigrate.

gaius 13y ago

I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it I don't think that's true. I think Americans actually like it this way. It gives a soccer mom a deep sense of contentment that if anyone so much as looks at her precious little darling she can summon a SWAT team to punish them. It just so happens that right now you have a President who is more than happy to deliver on this. There is an old saying: a country gets the government it deserves.

aptwebapps 13y ago
There is an old saying: a country gets the government it deserves. Especially in a democracy.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Since the inception of radio and TV the democracy is gone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  - beagle3 13y ago
    Honest question: why do you believe it was there before television or radio ?
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      because there was no easy/centralized way to spread propaganda. One had to use terror/fear to stay in power. The truth was obvious, so somebody had to keep population scared, so they don't revolt. Nowadays, subtle propaganda works. You air day and night stuff explaining people that white is black and black is white and this works. People see the truth, want to revolt, but then "the experts" from the silver box explain that the opposite is actually true. Everybody happy thinking they are free while they are slaves to the banks and constantly monitored by the Government.
      - 13y ago

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

so the only option that will leave people at the end will be in fact (oh irony!) terrorism.

Shivetya 13y ago

Guess its not fun to find out how bad it is to express a point of view. Go look at all the hoops abortion protestors have to jump through. They wouldn't even dare cross the threshold of the business because by law most can't even come within shouting distance of their targets. So yeah, welcome to the club. Business and government use the power of the later to enforce their will. The sad part is, people will cheer this type of behavior on provided its exercised against people they don't like but suddenly they are all aghast of when it hits them. As with all other forms of freedom of speech, asking the government to silence people you do not like is akin to allowing government to silence you when someone else does not like your speech.

jsymolon 13y ago
Freedom of speech as it's written in the 1st amendment is NOT a blanket of protection against everything you say. "In America, you’re simply guaranteed the right to speak without the government taking action against you. However, that doesn’t mean your employer can’t fire you for bad-mouthing him on Facebook, and it certainly doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want with full impunity" http://www.nogalesinternational.com/opinion/guest_opinion/free-speech-is-often-misunderstood/article_04391a86-2ab3-11e3-89c4-001a4bcf887a.html" http://www.nogalesinternational.com/opinion/guest_opinion/fr...
king_jester 13y ago
> Guess its not fun to find out how bad it is to express a point of view. Go look at all the hoops abortion protestors have to jump through. They wouldn't even dare cross the threshold of the business because by law most can't even come within shouting distance of their targets. Abortion protestors don't merely express a point of view, they deliberately attempt to prevent people from accessing health services at places where an abortion may be provided. A protestor that disrupts a business or barricades themselves to a door can reasonably be expected to be detained or arrested, but not charged with terrorism or charged with major felonies.
SwellJoe 13y ago
Do you really believe the two are comparable? Anti-choice protesters have assaulted women trying to get low cost health care, have murdered doctors, and have aligned themselves against the poorest, least powerful people in this country (poor women of color). Recently, a pro-life group distributed a message suggesting pretending to provide rides to women needing health care, but actually kidnapping them and taking them to a church. This is crazy shit, and some of them are terrifying people. I also believe you're misrepresenting the state of affairs. Anti-choice protesters can protest right outside of clinics on sidewalks, streets, etc. At least in my state, they can. And, I've not seen much in the way of police violence against anti-choice protesters. I haven't seen police setting up anti-choice protesters and encouraging them to commit violent acts. Maybe this is happening, and I just don't know it, because I'm not in those circles (I think it's assumed here in this thread that I'm left wing, but that's not really accurate; though I am firmly pro-choice). I know it isn't happening in my state, however, as I saw it with my own eyes. Pro-choice groups were stalked by police, while pro-life groups were ignored even when they became aggressive and got physical. Anyway, I've never asked for pro-life activists to be silenced. I do think that if they physically prevent someone from getting medical care, they are violating that person's basic rights. I also find it particularly reprehensible that they target the poorest and least powerful people. Wealthy white women get abortions all the time at places other than Planned Parenthood or other free and low cost clinics; but, pro-life groups would rather harass the weak and poor, who are often just needing birth control or medical services unrelated to abortion.

cstross 13y ago

These are all features of a system described by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin as Inverted Totalitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism -- that is, while it's a totalitarian system, unlike traditional fascist/totalitarian states it's driven by the pursuit of cost-effectiveness rather than some abstract ideology. Welcome to one of the failure modes of representative democracy.