From:   hextic <willgauss@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Monday, October 03, 2011 9:39:38 AM
To:   september17 <september17@googlegroups.com>
Subject:   SPAM-MED: [september17discuss] Re: Liberty Park is filling to capacity. We need to plan for overflow.
 

Is there a way that I can remotely participate in this meeting through

Skype or something?

 

On Oct 3, 10:26 am, Doug Singsen <dougsing...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We need to set a time to meet and discuss this. I assume this should be done

> through the direct action committee. (The tactical committee seems to have

> become direct action, I believe.)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Will Gauss <willga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > In my opinion, the First Amendment trumps city law.  This is exactly the

> > kind of chilling law which the First Amendment's assembly and speech

> > protections is designed to prevent.

>

> > Sent from my iPhone

>

> > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:28 AM, "Jackie DiSalvo" <jdisa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>

> > ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

>

> > It is illegal  for over 20 people to meet in a city park. ****

>

> > ** **

> >  ------------------------------

>

> > *From:* **september17@googlegroups**.**com** [mailto:**

> > september17@googlegroups**.**com**] *On Behalf Of *Gabriel Johnson

> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:59 PM

> > *To:* **september17@googlegroups**.**com**

> > *Subject:* Re: [september17discuss] ****Liberty** **Park**** is filling to

> > capacity**.** We need to plan for overflow**.******

>

> > ** **

>

> > I was in the process of typing up a reply, saw your email, you are probably

> > right**.** Key points: Public parks do technically close, and I don't

> > think ****Washington** **Square** **Park**** is an ideal location for

> > other reasons**.** Is "direct action" the new name for tactical? And when

> > + where are the meetings?****

>

> > ** **

>

> > --glj****

>

> > ** **

>

> > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Doug Singsen < <dougsing...@gmail.com>

> > dougsing...@gmail.com> wrote:****

>

> > Since this is a sensitive security issue, we may not want to discuss this

> > on the public listserv because it's undoubtedly under police surveillance*

> > *.** We should probably call a meeting of the direct action working group

> > to discuss this in person**.**

>

> > Doug****

>

> > ** **

>

> > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:47 PM, hextic < <willga...@gmail.com>

> > willga...@gmail.com> wrote:****

>

> > Currently, the NYPD has allowed ****Liberty** **Park**** to be occupied,

> > and from

> > what I see the occupation there is stable**.**  Though, I am sure that

> > they are looking for any excuse to clear the park**.**  One such excuse

> > could easily become sanitation or health concerns due to crowding**.**

> > These excuses are very PR-friendly for the NYPD**.**

>

> > In order to expand the occupation we need to occupy another park,

> > preferably a larger one**.**  We should absolutely continue to use ****

> > Liberty****

> > Park as our primary demonstration site and rallying point, but it will

> > not house the entire 99%**.**  I propose that we explore how we might

> > assume control of ****Washington** **Square** **Park******.**  As public

> > land, there is no

> > excuse for eviction that we are trespassing**.**  A physically large

> > presence in the park will make NYPD interference difficult because

> > they will have to wade through a sea of people to find the one person

> > who happens to be wearing a mask or more recently, has chained a

> > bicycle to something**.**  There are arches which we can triumphantly

> > march through and return through**.**  The open aerial coverage presents

> > multiple excellent media photography opportunities, capturing us as a

> > sea of people like the pictures we saw from ****Tahrir Square**** in ****

> > Egypt******.**

>

> > This move would also serve to greatly expand the demonstration**.**  I

> > suspect that the ****Liberty** **Park**** demonstration is self-limiting**

> > .**  People

> > will not willingly walk into a too-dense crowd of people**.**  So, the

> > physical dimensions of ****Liberty** **Plaza**** limits the number of

> > occupants

> > naturally, potentially making the choice between whether a person

> > stays the night, ensuring participation the next day or not**.**

>

> > I do not propose that we occupy ****Washington** **Square** **Park****immediately,

> > only that we begin planning for it**.**  On Wednesday, we will have

> > significant numbers of people which we will want to encourage to stay

> > by any and all mans**.**  I suggest that once the march returns to ****

> > Liberty****

> > Park, we use the People's Mic to announce that anyone who would like

> > to stay but cannot find space there, to form a march to ****Washington****

> > ****Square** **Park**** to found a brand new encampment there**.******

>

> > ** **

>

> > ** **

> >   ******************

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >