Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

See, it makes perfect sense apparently.
Why on Earth would you want to get your protest message out and be heard?
Much better to cuss out people that ask if you have anything you want to tell the world.



Oh, and then bitch about how protesters are locked away.

If you are a protester you want you message to be heard not distorted and Fox has a history of doing the later.

So the wise choice of action is to do it for them.
The correct response was polite soundbites of the main point.
Everybody knows it and you can't spin out of it.

Polite soundbites!!!!

That's hilarious.

The company I work for handled all the events at the convention center for the DNC and I had several protesters in a few meetings... this is sort of how it worked.

The one event in which I had most of them was sort of funny in a way.  So the DNC is a having a interfaith religious meeting/ceremony/service whatever you want to call it; C-SPAN and others are taping for later broadcast.

The minute the thing starts (with a choir mind you); some numb nut stands up and yells something about "Obama killing babies...";  Several police officers escort him out of the theater.

The ironic thing about this which I find amusing is that everyone in this particular event was religious and probably felt the same way about abortion as the numb nut protester.  We had 2 more during the whole event.

Protesters have a right to be heard; but not during a formal "meeting" mind you; press conference... yes. 

Secret Service was present in just about every event that I was part of.

-mark

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

is there a reason why the media can't have someone stationed inside the "pen" so as to give them coverage? JUst because they are kept outside of the convention doesn't mean that thyey still couldn't be covered.

I know, eh? Especially sine the press is so liberal!

So why aren't they not interviewing these people since they are clearly there? If Editors are yawning about coverage of protests because they are boring, then maybe they're really looking for sensationalism and not straight news.

Eh?  You think stuff gets reported just because it happens?  Or because its significant?

A: It gets reported because it gets ratings, and sponsors get customers.

Last edited by Metacell (2008-09-02 7:33 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

Metacell wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

So why aren't they not interviewing these people since they are clearly there? If Editors are yawning about coverage of protests because they are boring, then maybe they're really looking for sensationalism and not straight news.

Eh?  You think stuff gets reported just because it happens?  Or because its significant?

A: It gets reported because it gets ratings, and sponsors get customers.

Then you are directing your ire in the wrong place. It's not a first amendment free speech issue, its a crappy media issue.

Wow, are you ever wrong on this one.

Are you suggesting the government can do whatever it likes to control what you say and how (and where) you say it, but as long as the media has the theoretical ability to stick a camera lens through the chicken wire everything's kosher?

everlong205 wrote:

Metacell wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

So why aren't they not interviewing these people since they are clearly there? If Editors are yawning about coverage of protests because they are boring, then maybe they're really looking for sensationalism and not straight news.

Eh?  You think stuff gets reported just because it happens?  Or because its significant?

A: It gets reported because it gets ratings, and sponsors get customers.

Then you are directing your ire in the wrong place. It's not a first amendment free speech issue, its a crappy media issue.

I assure you, my ire radiates in all directions!

bratboy wrote:

Yeah, I really hope a lot of this bullsmurf ends up in court.  The raiding of private residences and the arresting of members of the media is really disturbing.  Everything is on video, of course.

Raids like that are standard practice for police in these sorts of situations. During the protests themselves basic rights are also not respected. You can be arrested arbitrarily at almost any time, regardless of who you are or what you're doing. You will not be able to get an officers name or badge number. You will not be able to talk with police, even if you have a legitimate grievance or problem. Yes, this is all illegal. The protests just get charged for bullsmurf which ends up getting dropped later. They are cuffed, processed, usually tossed into some sort of temporary holding facility, to be released a few hours (or at most a day or two later). Good times.

Daniel wrote:

avkills wrote:

Protesters have a right to be heard; but not during a formal "meeting" mind you; press conference... yes.

They have a right to be heard wherever they desire to be.

Um, no. They have no right to trespass on private property. If the meeting is held on private property, or property temporarily under their exclusive control through a lease, protesters can, and will, be arrested for trespass.

They also are prohibited from creating an unsafe situation or rioting. This means that protesting on a public freeways or streets are prohibited. Likewise for critical infrastructure sites, such as sewer plants, electrical distribution sites, etc.

Protesters may interrupt a public meeting held in a public facility, though. In reality, they would likely be arrested for disorderly conduct.

That said, I find pre-determined "protest sites" that are purposefully built far from a meeting site to be repellent. The sidewalks around the venue are public property, and as long as the protesters restrict themselves to it, they should be allowed to stay.

bratboy wrote:

Yeah, I really hope a lot of this bullsmurf ends up in court.  The raiding of private residences and the arresting of members of the media is really disturbing.  Everything is on video, of course.

From what I've seen, some members of the media are bringing it on themselves.  The celebrated case of Amy Goodman seems like an example worth looking at.

Two of her team were arrested, so she goes to the site of the arrest to get in the face of the police, don't obey their commands, and gets arrested.

Why on earth would she go to where the people were arrested ?  Is that ever how the system works ?  You don't ask the cop on duty for a dismissal of charges or even a lengthy explanation.  Do you ?

Wouldn't the first step to be to call the police department ?  Once a person is arrested (for valid or invalid reasons), there's clear steps for establishing the reason and petition for release, right ?  None of which involve walking up to a police officer to pester them, especially if they've just broken up a group of violent protesters.

I 100% would believe the cops could have acted illegally, or at least outside of what the situation warranted, but I don't see how Amy Goodman's actions were at all the correct way to deal with the situation.

daemon wrote:

This kind of thng goes to the same point:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/30/du … et-in.html

In the UK, but still....

Dumbest salvo yet in the war on terror, courtesy of the London police
Posted by Cory Doctorow, August 30, 2008 7:12 AM | permalink
Today I spotted this sign at a Tesco's grocery store in Islington, London -- it might just be the single stupidest salvo in the war on terror to date, courtesy of the London Metropolitan Police:

    Terrorism: If you suspect it, report it

    TERRORISTS NEED INFORMATION
    Observation and surveillance help terrorists plan attacks. Have you seen anyone taking pictures of security arrangements?

    TERRORISTS NEED TRANSPORTATION
    If you work in vehicle hire or sales, has a sale or rental made you suspicious?

    TERRORISTS NEED TO TRAVEL
    Meetings, training and planning can take place anywhere. Do you know someone who travels but is vague about where they are going?

    TERRORISTS USE COMPUTERS
    Do you know someone who visits terrorism-related websites?

    TERRORISTS NEED COMMUNICATION
    Anonymous, pay-as-you-go and stolen mobiles are typical. Have you seen someone with large quantities of mobiles? Has it made you suspicious?

Musta misunderstood this movie:

# The Ministry of Information logo is "MOI" printed inside a black rectangle. This logo is seen all over Kurtzman's desk, indicating that the MOI has "official" items that its employees can use. These include tea cups, lamp shades and even Kurtzmann's goldfish bowl.
# Prisoners who are about to be interrogated at Informational Retrieval are called "customers".
# Background propaganda signs are similar to those that were posted around the UK during the Second World War, but with a subtle twist. These signs include:

    * Suspicion breeds confidence
    * Help the Ministry of Information help you
    * Information: The Key to Prosperity
    * -topia Airways (behind Sam and Harry as MOI is blowing up, note the implied ambiguity.)
    * Don't suspect a Friend: Report Him
    * Trust in Haste — Regret at Leisure (with a picture of a man behind bars)
    * Who can you Trust? (with a picture of MOI officials underneath. Seen as Sam says "Trust me Jack")
    * Mind that parcel. Eagle eyes can save a life (regarding terrorist bombs)

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.