"Occupy" Protests

The Doctor wrote: Because college campuses are generally considered to be public forums.  And it does raise some first amendment issues.  For now anyway, there are still some limits on those in power, and they must follow the rule of law in this case.  Which means they must go through the process. We haven't fallen into authoritarian corporatism completely, yet, where private citizens with some degree of power can simply take the law into their own hands.

Not really. Most campuses only have small sections that are designated as free speech zones. Colleges are generally privately owned property.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: Because college campuses are generally considered to be public forums.  And it does raise some first amendment issues.  For now anyway, there are still some limits on those in power, and they must follow the rule of law in this case.  Which means they must go through the process. We haven't fallen into authoritarian corporatism completely, yet, where private citizens with some degree of power can simply take the law into their own hands.  Not really. Most campuses only have small sections that are designated as free speech zones. Colleges are generally privately owned property.

FDR's New Deal had some similarity to corporatism (or fascism, whichever) but that's for a different thread!

I know at Penn State there were only 2 areas you ever saw anything go down, I don't know if it's because they were very populated areas or if they were free speech zones, but wouldn't be surprised.
The cops came once to more or less be a pain in the ass about it, ironic since it was just some dumb atheists talking to a preacher...who were always going at it.

I wonder how they responded to the actual protests (or various riots) that later happened???

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Not really. Most campuses only have small sections that are designated as free speech zones. Colleges are generally privately owned property.

As long as speech is confined to a small zone where the speakers can't be heard, what's the problem?

^I think it's starting to get old, though in this case I support repeated use of the image of the brute.

^I don't think it will desensitize. Though it's true that it might make the action seem less relevant, on the other hand is a constant reminder. Most people's memory for that type of event is rather strangely short...

The T wrote: ^I don't think it will desensitize. Though it's true that it might make the action seem less relevant, on the other hand is a constant reminder. Most people's memory for that type of event is rather strangely short...

That's true. I'm not sure of the overall effect.

Slartibartfast wrote: Well from what I hear from the real liberal media, the movement is moving away from the occupying of parts and to smaller scale but more widespread protests.  This is what they fear, that it will move beyond into a few concentrated punks that are easy to isolate into some kind of new form of French Revolution.

The Doctor wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Well from what I hear from the real liberal media, the movement is moving away from the occupying of parts and to smaller scale but more widespread protests.  This is what they fear, that it will move beyond into a few concentrated punks that are easy to isolate into some kind of new form of French Revolution.    Guillotines and all?

Sieg Heil TheDoctor Robbespierre!

The Doctor wrote: I agree with Equality.

Equality is ultimately not obtainable.  Stacking the deck in favor of the wealthy hasn't been working out for the economy so well.

If you fear things turning into a French Revolution, then the whole let them eat cake attitude is not sustainable.

Taxing the rich more most certainly won't solve the deficit problem, but putting the burden on the rest of us isn't going to either.

From what I learned in history class, the French Revolution was a bloody mess, but if the aristocrats had given a damn about sharing the wealth with the people things could have been different.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 08 2011 at 20:45

The wealthy 1% are not asleep, a divided America is just what they like.