Two words: The truth.

it's so strange cause even through simple osmosis never quite got to pondering this issue?

so bizarre

I know that protesting often is based on permits because
there are concerns about the use of city pathways etc

but (let's just focus on the states) all first amendment test cases are usually based on something 'happening', or some ideas being expressed, etc

not just people 'being' there in public spaces

I guess there's a fair amount of jurisdiction about what constitutes a public space or a protest, how far it has to be from certain areas, etc..

I just don't have the mental toolbox for the philosophical / legal background on this

It's really not okay - it's not even constitutional, but there's been a history over the last 30 years of using municipal regulations and permitting requirements to quell protest. There is a fair amount of comment on this meta-issue in activist circles, but it isn't often enough seen as a tool to suppress dissent and taken on directly. By the time people get around to protesting they typically have to try to negotiate the rules piecemeal with local authorities, since it's not an issue a lot of people galvanize around when nothing is happening.

Every demonstration has the potential for violence, especially when Hizzoner's shock troops squeeze the demonstrators into a box and use their horses to push them around. Because pushing back at a police horse to keep if from stepping on your daughter is all the violence they need to come in swinging and earn their hazard pay.

What's the difference between thuggish scum, and usually decent police acting like thuggish scum? In reality, nothing. They're given bonuses by the management to break up the strike, just like they always were.

The hagiography of the First Responders changed the perception of cops here. Now they're given the same regard as FDNY firefighters, who actually save lives and property. Cops can now be as corrupt and abusive as ever and people put up with it... because 9/11!

There's a lot more to it, there are certain narratives into which the stealth-conservative media molds the news, feeding both popular opinion and police reaction. There are certainly individual psychological things going on; protesters are probably goading police into violence under the mistaken surmise that hurtful words won't merit a violent reaction from an angry bully whose job is to keep order.

At the bottom of it, though, is the sense that the police know they're being deployed at the behest of sugar daddies, so when protesters point out the cognitive dissonance of a prostitute protecting a pimp, they feel hurt, and like any bullied bully, cops seek to lash out. But the cops are all order-followers; there's no chance of lashing upwards, so they lash out and down, like they always do.

Since there are a lot of them but a lot more protesters, they can look justified and beleaguered while they in fact kick the shit out of dozens of people. Cowardice and rage are a potent combination.

Of course, if they were back on their regular beats, they'd just be harassing blacks and hispanics, so maybe deploying all those police to crack skulls in Manhattan is keeping the rest of the city safe at night.

Two things:

First, these gatherings are attracting more than protestors. Police have received complaints ranging from pickpockets to sexual assault. Whether the complaints are true or not (and some may be hoaxes from the 53%), they must be handled. However, protestors generally do not want to assist in any kind of investigation, and OWS organizers have requested via blogs that victims not report crimes to the police. Imagine the outcry if police simply refused to investigate a reported rape. Between a rock and a hard place.

Sanitation. Without permits, these protests cannot legally set up their own portable toilets. Only a few reports of public urination or human feces found in trash cans are needed to cross that threshold.

Those will be the official reasons. Behind the scenes:

I suspect that costs and other such burdens on city resources play a role in recent events. American cities right now are in a major financial crunch, especially now that state governments are looking for ways to push their own financial problems down to the cities. (Cities can declare bankruptcy; states have a harder time.) An afternoon protest is one thing, but for cities, vigils become a major money-suck.

Also, freedom of speech is fine, but occupation is premeditated trespassing. The use of the word declares the organizers' intent to use civil disobedience. That is blatant conspiracy. I wouldn't be surprised too that since AdBusters is canadian that a little suspicion of foreign subversion is floating around.

The hagiography of the First Responders changed the perception of cops here.

oh man I totally sympathize with the "cops do whatever and get sympathy" argument in general. Look at this youtube vid: Seattle officer shoots woodcarver. Astonishing. Sometimes I mention this kinda thing (plus incredible prison populations and overuse of jail as a solution for everything) to people as why I wouldn't want to immigrate to the States anyway and it doesn't really make sense to them I guess cause Indians don't really face the brunt of this kinda thing the way other minorities do

I still don't understand the philosophical aspect though.

I guess my education prepared me to understand this in *one* way; my eyes were really opened when I read a book about Massachusetts legislation in the 1700-1800s to do with farmers vs. waterwheels on river usage issues. Judges basically were like (in terms of their basic bias) screw farmers and we want the textile industry to thrive. So the State sides with industry over people with legit claims rather than weighing things fairly. But when it comes to collections of people I guess never read of attacking them as a good thing. It kinda reminds me of this

On 22nd January, 1905, a peaceful protest led by one Father Gapon, an Orthodox priest and double agent working for the Okhrana (Tsarist secret police) marched through the city of St. Petersburg with the intention of presenting a petition to Tsar Nicholas II asking for changes to desperate living conditions. Troublesome protesters and those wielding weaponry were thrown from the march, while the crowd walked through the Russian capital singing patriotic songs such as God Save The Tsar[1]. Once the protesters reached the Winter Palace, - the St Petersburg residence of the Tsar - however, they were fired upon by the Russian Imperial Guard.

I just know that these days US legitimacy on a lot of issues has been wanting in my eyes. They'll presume to lecture us about global warming then half their domestic legislators will get up on record to say it doesn't exist. They'll lecture us about internet freedom but whenever their own State apparatus (or the music/movie industry..) is discomfited they'll throw notions of due process out the window. They'll talk about how protestors in such and such a country should have freedom of assembly but lord forbid someone in America congregate without a permit.

They'll presume to lecture us about global warming then half their domestic legislators will get up on record to say it doesn't exist. They'll lecture us about internet freedom but whenever their own State apparatus (or the music/movie industry..) is discomfited they'll throw notions of due process out the window. They'll talk about how protestors in such and such a country should have freedom of assembly but lord forbid someone in America congregate without a permit.

Who is this "they"? Sounds to me like you are reading too much in the MeFi cloud and not getting any balance of perspective from the center and conservative stances.

They is the government. The US foreign policy apparatus goes around telling everyone about global warming and then US congresspeople are like "omg the science is fake." How is that supposed to work??

for what it's worth I believe global warming is real and I think developing countries have to address it as an issue regardless of whether the developed countries already took advantage of polluting the hell out of the planet when they were in the coal etc. phase. Sometimes you just gotta rise to the occasion instead of just going 'you did it too'

The US foreign policy apparatus - I can't comment on that because I don't know exactly what that apparatus is, nor how it communicates to the general public in other countries. I could guess, but the result would only be speculation based on speculation.

Sounds to me like you are reading too much in the MeFi cloud and not getting any balance of perspective from the center and conservative stances.

The center and conservative stances are available on TV and radio, everywhere in the US. They are also unconvincing to anyone who's paying close attention.

Is Firas in the US?

speculation based on speculation. - Put another way, I cannot even begin to second-guess the american propaganda machine, regardless of whose administration, and how it operates elsewhere.

Ardiril it's not just about communication and propaganda etc. These are policy stances taken when doing UN & WTO deals. The whole climate change issue causes a lot of drama in terms of the split between developed nations and developing nations. As for other things, the US is far more likely than any other country to go ahead commenting on the internal affairs of every other country. It's just the nature of things. Of course I can tune that out but my point is, I'm beginning to get a clearer understanding that 'Expressed Values & Ideals' are just policy tools. They change at the drop of a hat when needed.

I'm just beginning to get very cynical in general (not just internationally) about notions of 'fairness'. I'm getting an understanding that it's all about social & economic capital in terms of individuals & larger entities. If I have money, connections and persuasion I can wiggle out of things cleanly whereas that guy without them can't. The rest is just a figleaf of supposed justification.

Is Firas in the US?

Is this one of those "gotcha" questions? I'm sure he has access to US news outlets and their steady stream of centrist and conservative balance.

Meta* is a particularly good place to gain perspective on news and politics, since dissent is hashed out by capable contributors, and you can see all the work. That conservatives and so-called centrists feel under fire there is a function of frail arguments shattering upon the bulwark of truth, not of some systematic exclusion.

I was in the States from 2003-08, was a student in international British & US schools all my life before that, so most of my worldview and knowledge is based on US/UK sources. Although, ironically another US person Malcolm X has had me rethinking a lot of that. lol

Here's the always-excellent Charlie Pierce writing about the militarization of US police departments:

Make no mistake about it: The actions of the police department in Oakland last night were a military assault on a legitimate political demonstration. That it was a milder military assault than it could have been, which is to say it wasn't a massacre, is very much beside the point. There was no possible provocation that warranted this display of force. (Graffiti? Litter? Rodents? Is the Oakland PD now a SWAT team for the city's health department?) If you are a police department in this country in 2011, this is something you do because you have the power and the technology and the license from society to do it. This is a problem that has been brewing for a long time. It predates the Occupy movement for more than a decade. It even predates the "war on terror," although that has acted as what the arson squad would call an "accelerant" to the essential dynamic.

The article isn't very long, and it's worth a read.

OWS organizers have requested via blogs that victims not report crimes to the police.

That's quite interesting, do you have a citation?

Miko: search Racialicious (most likely), Feministing, or Feministe. Sometime early last week or the week before. I know it was neither Pandagon nor Jezebel.

Not a gotcha question, Hugh. Trying to figure out how people in other countries come by their perspective of the US is damned impossible if we're not there to experience it ourselves. Also, what gets lost/added in the translation? For example, I am trying to figure out how Firas is getting this "global warming support" idea when the Kyoto controversy continues to reverberate.

I have to disagree about gaining a balanced perspective from the Metaverse. It is as "unconvincing" as the liberal mass-media pundits, "to anyone who's paying close attention." :)

It is as "unconvincing" as the liberal mass-media pundits, "to anyone who's paying close attention."

You missed a set of scare quotes. ;)

" "Dambit!!!" "

Miko, I only grazed that article about not reporting. As I recall, OWS organizers wanted to assure that a crime had actually occurred before going to the cops as they suspected that some calls were hoaxes. Heck, I can easily imagine off-duty cops phoning in false reports just to stir things up (overtime!), not to mention counter-agitation from the 53%.

That seems to be the case.

Trying to figure out how people in other countries come by their perspective of the US is damned impossible if we're not there to experience it ourselves.

It's certainly not impossible. There's a complex and well-funded network of agencies and NGOs at work around the world, in coordination with or directly supported by the US government, and they are actively involved in communicating to individuals worldwide. Everything from foreign embassies to Radio Free Europe to US participation in health and energy and economic development programs help people outside the US form impressions of US policy and ideals. It's certainly hard to take any one individual and say "Exactly which pieces of propaganda contributed to exactly which of your ideas about the US?," but that's not to say that it's a totally willy-nilly and happenstance process. The US, as part of its foreign policy, really is concerned about the industrialization of China, India, and other developing economies and what that means for increased carbon emissions in nations with less environmental protection. That's why we're so involved in global efforts to raise awareness about global warming. If you aren't sure what the US looks and sounds like from a distance, it's very informative to travel or live overseas for a while. It's not just whatever bubbles over from our pop culture that gets through. International communications is kind of a big deal and we spend a lot of money on it, both in the public and private sectors.

I don't understand the word "unconvincing" used in this context. What about comments from people on MeFi from other countries is "unconvincing?" What are they supposed to be convincing about? Do you doubt they are sharing a legitimate perspective?

I have traveled and lived overseas. You listed what the US does to push a message; that is easy. How those messages transform into personal or regional perspectives is not. In addition to the message/messenger conundrum, considerations must be made for local and regional cultures, differences in dialects, the quality of the translations, and native biases.

If other commenters in a forum don't buy your handwaving and points-talking, you can always insult them all with a response like, "You'll never get a real answer for that question from this lot," and then when they insist that you put down your hands and use your words, give them the old, "Well, it's not even a question that can really be answered, because the perspective of the asker is tainted by complexity." Shucking and jiving, oh my, my.

I kinda agree that the meta* sites represent a narrow niche point of view often.

But the thing is, I'm not an ingenue when it comes to US media so I don't just suck down perspectives. I have a 'domestic US lens' and it's heavily Democratic-leaning. I listen to MSNBC & Bill Maher and read the NYer and Krugman. I read about Tinker vs. Des Moines in 10th grade a decade ago and totally supported these 1969 kids with black armbands. It was around that time that I started being annoyed with Bill O'Reilly cause he was leading a crusade against the rapper Ludacris. I got a perfect 800 in my SAT verbal and got a US high school diploma. I donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and canvassed for the current MA governer. I heard first hand about the grip of alcohol and heroin in South Boston & saw the immense wealth steps away from homeless despair in Beacon Hill. I work with American clients during American working hours. I don't need to check to see what Charles Krauthammer might enlighten me about.

But I don't need that lens to explain the three examples I gave above. Here's something from my inbox re: the climate change issue

This issue of eJournal USA examines what it means to think globally about climate change — and to act locally. “Climate Action Goes Local” shows how communities and nongovernmental groups worldwide are initiating programs that counter climate change, and why leadership from local officials and buy-in from local populations and businesses are necessary for such programs to be effective.

That's a State Department publication.

Re: internet freedoms Hillary Clinton is going about it all the time. Which is well and good until wikileaks come along and intead of other countries' governments feeling threatened, Americans are. Next thing you know it's time to freeze all donations.

Re: the assembly issue I don't even have to mention in light of this years' events how many 'unlawful assemblies' the US gov't has been pretty encouraged about (in the right countries only of course.)

How those messages transform into personal or regional perspectives is not. In addition to the message/messenger conundrum, considerations must be made for local and regional cultures, differences in dialects, the quality of the translations, and native biases.

This is all true stateside as well, though. So you might just as easily say "It's impossible to tell how Americans come by their perspectives." In other words, there should presumably be no difference in your ability to discern the possible range of perspectives on American policy, whether those perspectives are those of foreigners or US residents and citizens. But I don't think that's what you would really say.

What you seem to be saying instead is that you don't know in the case of global warming precisely what the content of the foreign messages is - not that it's impossible to know, but that you don't happen to know. But the counterpoint is that people on Meta* can offer some information about what that content is, as they have received it, as Firas does here.

From my 'at a remove' perspective, this issue has some parallels with the ban on street marches here in Queensland in the 1970's.. There's a (perhaps surprisingly, given the source) fairly even-handed summary of it here. I was a teenager at the time and not living in Brisbane, but I remember listening to the (then) radical, student-driven radio station 4ZZZ broadcasting live from the protests that seemed to go on every day.

The above link contains the statement that:

'The ban was part of an attempt by the ruling class to safeguard the power of big business and the rich, such as the mining companies.

Sounds very familiar, doesn't it? The more things change etc.

There's a more comprehensive analysis of the political environment of the time here.

I hope that the outcome from the OWS protests is at least as positive as the 'right to march' campaign was in Queensland. I don't think that imbalances of power such as that between (mostly) peaceful protesters and armed police with a mandate to use whatever force necessary to quell the protest can survive for long. In the end, enough people have the social conscience to see that peaceful protests don't do society any harm and, in any case, responding to them with violence only builds support for the cause.

It's not at all at odds with my perspective of the US as a nation-state (as distinct from Americans as people) that a country that puts itself forward as the self-appointed world-wide police force protecting people's right to express themselves all over the world is the very same nation-state trying to quell the very same activities among it's own citizens.

Ardiril and Miko: The not-reporting-crimes thing actually was on Jezebel, pulled from the Baltimore Sun (it's happening at Occupy Baltimore). Here is how OWS itself is dealing with the issue.

Yeah, I Googled it after Ardiril brought it up. It seems like a well-intentioned but misguided attempt at self-governance on the part of Occupy Baltimore. They've put out a new set of guidelines that no longer requests people not to go to police first:

The new pamphlet now lists services available to victims. Gone is controversial language that said the protesters would rather handle complaints amongst themselves, and that while they wouldn't prevent someone from going to police, they would prefer not to involve law enforcement.

The memo now reads, in part:

Instances of sexual abuse and assault will be handled according to the expressed desires of the victim. The Security and Medical teams are equipped with a list of resources, including contact information for the police, hospitals, sexual assault hotlines, and women's shelters. In these instances, #Occupy Baltimore welcomes the involvement of the Baltimore City Police and encourages victims to report crimes.

It bugs me how social movements tend to get bogged down in governance issues. However, I heard someone on Diane Rheim representing OWS yesterday say something like "I have some differences with various organizers, but if I waited for the perfect movement to come along that met all my specifications, I would be waiting forever. Better that I join and work to shape the movement that is already under way and which I have 95% agreement with than wait for that mythical perfect one which will never come." That was smartness.