|Sent time:||Monday, October 03, 2011 3:11:45 PM|
|Subject:||SPAM-MED: Re: [september17discuss] Liberty Park is filling to capacity. We need to plan for overflow.|
actually there are many many privately owned public spaces in NYC that
can be used to gather in, no need to become antagonistic with the city
when there are spaces that afford the same opportunities that Liberty
Park has: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/priv/priv.shtml
I would love to move into the upper east side (hahahahahaha)
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Will Gauss <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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" <email@example.com> wrote:
> It is illegal for over 20 people to meet in a city park.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Gabriel Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:59 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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?
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Doug Singsen <email@example.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.
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:47 PM, hextic <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 >|