General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOWS protesters charged with felony for mic-checking SD mayor
OWS Protesters Charged With Felony For Mic-Checking Mayor
A few days ago, members of Occupy San Diego cleverly mic-checked Mayor Jerry Sanders during his State of the City address.
Now mic-checking, while intentionally disruptive, is an completely peaceful tactic that has been employed in a wide-variety of settings during the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The CEO of Wells Fargo, representatives of JP Morgan Chase, Newt Gingrich, and even President Obama have been targets of this practice. But not even President Obama responded with as much aggression and ignorance as the San Diego police officers in attendance (with full blessing of the Mayor).
Not content to simply escort the OWS protesters out of the venue, at least three were arrested and charged with felony conspiracy for their actions.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/ows-protesters-charged-with-felony-for-mic-checking-mayor.html#ixzz1jMHpr05j
(the mayor's office in SD just claimed to know absolutely NOTHING about it)
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)I haven't heard much about the AMD CEO in a number of years...I'm wondering if he went into politics.
niyad
(113,552 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Should have taken the time to look it up on Wikipedia...
SlimJimmy
(3,182 posts)I watched the video and it looks like they were disrupting, but that is a fairly common occurrence at these types of events. Escort them out and be done with it.
The Genealogist
(4,723 posts)I'm sure the action was disruptive and drew attention, which is part of what the mic check is meant to do. But felony conspiracy? Please!
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Ah, memories!
Gold Metal Flake
(13,805 posts)What frightened, frightened little men these fascists are.
niyad
(113,552 posts)Gold Metal Flake
(13,805 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Good luck to them trying to get a conviction on the people using the 1st Amendment to speak to a public official.
What a jerk, I hope all these mayors lose their next elections. This movement has certainly exposed them for what they are.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)No objection to complaining about the level of the charges, but interfering with someone else's rights isn't a way to protect The First Amendment, or to build support for one's cause.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with their elected officials. Not other ordinary people. They are protesting policy to those who make policy. Politicians have no special protection from the people's use of the 1st Amendment. This is in no way a felony. A minor misdemeanor at most.
We would be in a bad way if interrupting your elected official for a few minutes of the time we pay for and rarely get, is a felony offense. It simply is not. This country take the 1st Amendment very seriously, still. And if they get a conviction, I will be amazed, but if they do it should to all the way to the SC.
Sorry, if you want to be a public servant and the people want to talk to you, you can't claim 'felony'. Leave the job if you're that thin-skinned. But there is no felony here. It is laughable.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)nt
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)The purpose wasn't to pass along a message of concerns to the elected official; it was to prevent the elected official from giving a message to the audience, and to give their own.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That is what OWS is all about. Letting the people be heard over the money that has way more influence over our elected officials.
If you read H2OMan's story today, he cannot get anyone on either side of the aisle in his district or state to agree to meet with him and other concerned citizens. So, he is going on a hunger strike to try to get their attention. OWS goes to public meetings to do the same thing. And there is no way this is a felony, I sure hope not.
It is not politicians who need protection, it is the people and there would be no OWS if they had been doing their jobs.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)In the interest of fairness.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)I believe in EVERYONE's right to speak without interruption; as soon as I deny that to my opponents, I have no right to complain when they deny it to me.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If you want to speak you have to interrupt her, at which point she becomes irate because you had the temerity to interrupt.
A lot of politicians are like that, in love with the sound of their own voices and if you want to talk you'll have to interrupt.
I've long since given up trying to have a conversation with my relative and resigned myself to hearing a never ending monologue.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)You may or may not be right about whether such tactics will build support, I don't feel I can predict. In the short run, they often don't (look at civil rights era polling about lunch counter sit-ins, etc.).
On the other hand, it's not difficult to understand that certain segments of society have much more access than others and certain points of view are given public platforms much more frequently than others. The protestors probably feel they've "been denied the right to speak" in any meaningful ways anyhow. Civil disobedience - which is what we're discussing - calls attention to such imbalances of power along with getting whatever specific message out. Yes, those actions are sometimes illegal (although felony charges seem ridiculous here) and yes, some will find them annoying.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)dembotoz
(16,832 posts)just saying
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I can definitely see the felony conspiracy argument and the Constitutional right to free speech in public places clashing in this one. All the way to the Supreme Court.
Robb
(39,665 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
SantorumAnalFrothyMX
(6 posts)Give them enough rope and..........what's taking the PTB so long to get to the part where they hang themselves? K&R
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and it seems that it's essentially heckling. So heckling is a felony now?
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)These idiots had best come to grips with OWS, if they destroy it what replaces it will not be as much to their likings and messy for everyone.
Hamfisted, myopic, and minds of wheels but empty of actual thought.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Otherwise I think it'll be thrown out, this is hardly "felony conspiracy."