From:   jemcgloin@verizon.net
Sent time:   Wednesday, October 05, 2011 4:27:52 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   [september17discuss] Today's march is the top story on CNN and MSNBC 5pm broadcasts.
 

 Today's march is the top story on CNN and MSNBC 5pm broadcasts.
 
 
On 10/05/11, Will Gauss<willgauss@gmail.com> wrote:
That changes a lot, thank you for the clarification that today's march is not OWS.  In that case, GA has no authority over it.

I still stand firm however that we put a resolution which declares that we do not recognize a need for permits as legal or just and refuse to capitulate to such mechanisms of control as them.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 5, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Doug Singsen <dougsingsen@gmail.com> wrote:

That's correct. Today's rally and march were called by other groups, not OWS, and those groups include a lot of public workers who can be fired if they get arrested, which we need to take into account.

Doug

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Aaron Gemmill <gemmill@gmail.com> wrote:
It's my understanding that this march isn't directly organized by OWS, but by several groups sympathetic to OWS. By what authority would the GA restrict other groups from organizing their own assemblies as they see fit?

Permitting creates a safe space for a much larger group of people to express their solidarity with OWS than would be able to in circumstances which would put them at risk for arrest, ticketing, etc.





On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Will Gauss <willgauss@gmail.com> wrote:
Then the Supreme Court decided unjustly and in contravention of liberty.  Looks like another decision which must be overturned, or made irrelevant by mass civil disobedience.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 4, 2011, at 7:39 PM, Gabriel Johnson <gabjoh2@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay… but the Supreme Court disagrees.

--glj

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM, hextic <willgauss@gmail.com> wrote:
It is too late to put this to GA attention, so I will tweet now on the
one condition that we make an effort to pass a resolution that in the
future we completely reject the entire idea of requiring a "permit" to
exercise Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Of what possible,
conceivable use is a freedom of speech and assembly which we must ask
for?  Asking for permissions implies legitimacy of a "no" answer.  The
entire purpose of this freedom is to give us the ability to
unilaterally assert ourselves when our representatives fail to
represent us.  The requirement of a permit is a direct nullification
of what is an unbridgeable right.

On Oct 4, 6:35 pm, Conor Tomás Reed <conortomasr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, OWS twitter-squad. Please update your info tweets to note that the
> mass 4:30pm rally tomorrow at City Hall Park has been moved to Foley Square
> so it can be given a marching permit (i.e. essentially no risk of arrest).
>
> https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=282473051782707
>
> thanks!
> -Conor




--
aarongemmill.com
tomorrownowforever.com
robotpedagogue.com


< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >