From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 12:55:47 MST
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:30:20 -0600, Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
wrote:
> That's one of the most idiotic claims I've heard in a while.
> Yes, the SC has recognized that there is a right to anonymous
> pamphleting, but a public protest isn't that. If you want to
> stand out on public streets with signs, you have no right to
> expect privacy or anonymity. Either you believe in what you're
> protesting, or you're a coward and a hypocrite.
Or: Wear a maskerchief like the anarchists. It'll help mark you out as
either (a) very frightened, (b) very interestd in *looking*
frightened/oppressed to the cameras/world, or (c) someone likely to do
something overtly criminal.
(C) is the objective justification for the outlawing of wearing any sort of
mask in the recent Seattle npleasantness. I think that was stupid, too,
since there are health reasons to wear one in some circumstances, and I
disapprove in general of most status crimes.
Back to the anonymity right claim: I agree that it's idiotic, but so is
cops quashing taping by other parties. And this abuse of power does indeed
happen.
> The fact that
> the cops videotape the events should help them defend themselves
> against spurious charges of police misconduct that always erupt
> in SF, as well as helping them prosecute protesters who cross
> the line.
The thing to do is, in the words of Mr. Mann, "shoot back". Lots of
cameras, all sides. The missing piece is rapid robust distant backup.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 13:02:29 MST