Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Occupy Wall Street protestors MUST speak out against Occupy Atlanta's actions!

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 2:49 a.m. EST by nightingale (29)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI&lc=VkHP1bJtDCH33dKnCAFwVShprwNEVv87_xxCTJXAGYY&feature=inbox

At Occupy Atlanta, on October 8th, American hero and Congressman John Lewis attempted to speak to the crowd! Instead, a man in a red shirt managed to convince a group of the protestors to refuse to allow Lewis to speak!

Occupy Wall Street was set up by Anonymous! Anonymous is about freedom of speech! Occupy Atlanta should not have taken away Congressman Lewis' right to speak!

Their actions should not be condoned by Occupy Wall Street or any other occupation! It was a direct act against freedom of speech!

66 Comments

66 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by dabocx (24) from McAllen, TX 13 years ago

This will be a media nightmare," mindless zombies deny civil rights hero voice"

[-] 1 points by Slam1263 (196) 13 years ago

Marxists don't like Lestists, that doesn't make them bigots.

I came to this site Friday night to offer my assistance as a non-profit organizer. I can do basic coding of web pages, accounting, and other functions.

Mainly I wanted to get some sanitation facilities out to Zucotto (sic) park.

In a matter of about 20 minutes I found over 15 contact listings, and left vmail and email on every one of them.

24 hours later, no response. They aren't even updating the site anymore.

Where did everyone, and the "tens of thousands" http://afgj.org/?p=1765#more-1765 of dollars go?

Well, the General Assembly never was in the US, they are operating out of a hotel room somewhere in Nicaragua, and the money has been deposited in a Central American bank.

How could the people do this to our citizens, how can members of our government support this?

They have to know, it only took me 20 minutes to find out, and they had days and hundreds of people on their staffs.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

democracy can work when people are face to face

[-] 1 points by JohnTM (25) 13 years ago

I agree. Free speech to anyone.

[-] 1 points by bayonsh (1) 13 years ago

The whole World requires afresh revolution ,for ultimate justice to suit IT age.social media has broken all type of monopolies .STAND UP

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

Isn't there kind of a logical disconnect when you have someone clearly leading this assembly? lol

I'm sorry but that was some ridiculous sh*t.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

I know, right? LOL!

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

I'm waiting for their next video where they tie a big bungie cord around themselves so that they move together as a single ameoba-like organism. lmao

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 13 years ago

no one must be muzzled or the movement fails

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

Exactly! The protestors refusing to allow a person to speak hurts the entire movement.

[-] 1 points by winklewankle (32) 13 years ago

The autonomous collective of Atlanta spoke, who are we, OWS to attempt to control them? So long as they are advancing causes in favor of social change, it doesn't much matter so long as they bring about personal freedom and freedom from the pigs who are keeping us down.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

They aren't bringing about personal freedom when they refuse a man to speak. Try again.

[-] 1 points by winklewankle (32) 13 years ago

In that case, perhaps not, but they did build a consensus around that decision. It is not like there is some "occupy" Czar who generates top-down leadership about what we should all, as the 99% should do, that's kind of the whole point, isn't it? To not let any 1% dictate the terms for the other 99%?

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

Did you not hear the other people in the video yelling "let him speak"?

Besides, since when is it any one group's decision to allow an individual the freedom to speak?

No. I don't think you get the point if that's how you're looking at things.

[-] 1 points by winklewankle (32) 13 years ago

I definitely hear where you're coming from. Here is a reality for you: If he had been afforded the right to speak before an assembly that was clearly divided, it would only serve to divide the collective. Sure those that wanted to hear him could have split off for a period of time and listened to him on their own time in another location, but splitting an individual group is a dangerous thing. This movement as a whole is still fresh and fragile in a lot of ways.

We clearly have a difference of opinion on this, and that's okay. Or we could go for the jugular like mindless animals, either way it won't get us anywhere when we should be trying to convince the masses to back our cause, regardless of how we do it.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

I completely fail to understand how a group of the protestors going to listen to Congressman Lewis would have caused any danger.

I agree that people need to support the occupations. Just so you know, Occupy Atlanta's actions will be held up by the media outlets and used against the movement in any way possible. It WILL hurt this movement.

[-] 1 points by winklewankle (32) 13 years ago

Fox can only broadcast about that photo op for 2 news cycles, people will eventually forget, especially as the movement spreads to more places with downtrodden masses to mobilize.

Group dynamics is the answer to the first statement, if you can divide a group on something as simple as letting a Corporately bought Congressman speak before the assembly, then for that moment if at no other time no longer is the 99%. Acceptance of splits is just as dangerous for us as it is for the Christians, look at them, they have hundreds of denominations, all muddying the waters, it's a miracle that they have any supporters left.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

But, at some point, you've going to have to admit that there are splits. The American people are all different and they're all going to want different things.

The fact is that the majority of Americans, who consume mainstream media, are oblivious to the understanding of acceptance of all ideas. They are waiting for Occupy Wall Street to mean something in layman's terms that they can get behind, but it's too muddy at the moment.

This video is enough to start a string of events in public perception of OWS. That's all it takes.

[-] 1 points by winklewankle (32) 13 years ago

Well what can be done to quell a similar grassroots movement that espouses somewhat similar views to that of our own? Bottom line: what's done is done.

We need to work harder to spread and bring others by word of mouth, social media, and favorable media coverage, to bring others in. We can't let this one blemish ruin our day in the sun.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

Here's hoping that October 15th will bring big support for OWS.

[-] 1 points by winklewankle (32) 13 years ago

Viva la resistance!

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

They kept a politician from speaking. I agree with them. The real test will come when Ron Paul attempts to speak or Alex Jones. Their reasoning for not letting Congressman Lewis speak was that they did not want some one that was "bigger or more valuable then any other human being". Now, if Ron Paul, Alex Jones, or any other talking head attempts to speak this movement will die. It will be nothing but hypocritical.

I hate to say it but i have a bad feeling the OWS movement, while growing in numbers is quickly going down the toilet.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

The Occupy Wall Street protestors already allowed Micheal Moore, Rosanne Barr and more big names to speak. It is not about WHO they are! It is about WHAT they are!

What they are is human! They are just as entitled to speak as any other human out there regardless of their social stature. This is not just for the poor of America! This is for ALL Americans to stand up and say, "I have a voice".

Occupy Atlanta didn't do that. Congressman Lewis wasn't there to endorse or fund the occupation. He was there to lend support to it, because he is also an American hero for civil rights.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

I see it for what it is. A bunch of Paul fanatics attempting to hijack this movement and turn it into a political football. You are right about them letting Micheal Moore, Rosanne Barr speak, because they want Liberal and Progressive support. They refused this man because of Ron Paul's stance on the Civil rights movement and wanting to repeal the civil rights act... Let's say I'm wrong though. You will still have to do a who hell of a lot of damage control on this one because this is a VERY respected man, especially by Progressives and Liberals.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

I know! That's my point! The damage control on this needs to be done! People occupying Wall Street need to step up and said that they didn't agree with their actions.

Not that those Atlanta protesters don't have a right to say their opinion, but that the OWS protesters don't support that opinion. To show that they are diversified.

OWS needs to stop acting like they're all in unison and just work with the fact that everyone is different there!

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

This doesn't stop me from supporting the OWS movement. I still believe in it.

I have very VERY strong views on Libertarians, Ron Paul and his supporters. Not many of them are good. I don't care though. I will stand with Libertarians and even Ron Paul if this movement addresses it's original goals. I will put aside any differences to work with any one that wants to end the corruption of our government and Wall Street.

This political BS needs to stop though. We know what the problem is let's work together and fix it... Before it's to late.

[-] 2 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

I'm still a supporter of Occupy Wall Street.

I agree. I think the entire concept of labeling needs to stop. It's disassociating and divides individuals.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

If we divide over petty issues, they win. This could be our one and only chance to fix this broken system. I hope we don't screw it up over something like this.

On a side note, I'm not upset in anyway that they didn't let him speak. I'm pissed off because i know what not letting him speak will do to the OWS movement. =(

[-] 1 points by andrenwarhol (12) 13 years ago

People do as they will. You cannot change that. I think perhaps that's what the movement is really about. The heart wants what it wants and the hearts of those in Atlanta did not bade him the right to speak. People may or may not accept that, but it's what happened.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

I agree that people are more than entitled to say what they want to say! Obviously, these people do not understand that.

Does that meant that Occupy Wall Street protestors aren't going to disagree with these actions just because people will be people? Whether you like it or not, MOST people hate what Occupy Atlanta did and many will make no hesitation to associate Occupy Wall Street with that.

[-] 1 points by andrenwarhol (12) 13 years ago

They can associate all they want. They can tell whatever truth they wish to believe but at the end of the day it's still about what the hearts of the people want. No matter what it's about all of us.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

That's the problem. "Hearts of the People". Really poetic, but it does little to specifically state what that really means.

What does the "Hearts of the People" want? There is such thing as being too vague and it's easy enough to say it but what would you really like to see happen out of this? Because some way or another, somebody is going to come out of this unhappy with the decision.

[-] 1 points by andrenwarhol (12) 13 years ago

Do you honestly think/feel that people want to cause pain and harm to others simply because or is it out of fear and ignorance? Everyone would rather be happy but you can only be so without such shackles. The only way to remove them is through education and understanding. People need to communicate more and try to have a conversation. If it were not for this lack of communication things would be much more coherent and less "vague" ;)

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

What does that have to do with the "Heart of the People" and what it wants?

A lack of communication obviously brings about ignorance, which often creates fear. What happens when everyone is aware and isn't afraid of the government anymore? What then?

You're going to have to address the issues of what really needs changing.

[-] 1 points by andrenwarhol (12) 13 years ago

I have my own issues, you have yours. I am a sovereign individual because I allow no one, not others, or any "god" to govern me. I wish to live in peace with my fiance without interfering parties dictating me. Freedom. We have none of it if we're not educated and willing to take the power into our own hands and learn how to wield that power for our own good and for the good of those who bade us represent them personally.

This above has everything to do with the "Heart of the People".

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

it was an unfortunate choice fer sure.As far as "Anonymous" setting up occupy wall street... i'm a bit confused on that .. is it true? and if so, why were anonymous trolling us? etc.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

AdBuster brought up the idea and Anonymous rallied everyone for September 17th at Wall Street.

Anonymous wasn't trolling Occupy Wall Street to my knowledge. Many of the protestors wear Anonymous masks and are Anonymous.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

they sure claimed to be and acted like anons. hundreds of now thankfully deleted troll threads.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

You realize that Anonymous is EVERYONE, right? You are Anonymous. I am Anonymous. Anonymous is anyone on the internet.

So, being that's the case, do you honestly think that a bunch of idiot trolls, who claim to be "the" Anonymous (there is not actually an official Anonymous), are the Anonymous that started the occupation?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

i'm not saying or guessing. I don't know. I don't think anonymous started the occupation because its not their style and not their game. I think the occupation was astroturfed by democrats, in the hopes that it would rile up their base and lead to a strengthening of the left. Recent apparent findings of others seem to back up this self evident insight as people have tried to track down who actually is receiving or giving money to the movement. I think some left leaning one percenters actually started the movement- the evidence seems to suggest i'm right and that anonymous as the meta entity had little to do with it aside from being also USED as front cover for the actual left wing one percenter instigators. In other words. Occupy wall street is a false flag operation funded by wall street.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

Don't take my word for it. Go look into it. Anonymous started the Occupy Wall Street.

"Astroturfed by democrats"? Are you serious? LMAO!!! There are MANY people there who are not democrats in any way, shape or form!

Reality check!

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

seriously take some time and go look yourself. its not entirely clear whats going on esp after you try to pin down where the money is going to and coming from.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

Anonymous vows to attack New York Stock Exchange in support of Occupy Wall Street. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/anonymous-vows-to-attack-nyse-in-support-of-occupty-wall-street-protests.html

Anonymous' video from August 2011 telling people to Occupy Wall Street: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzmcZEehOo

There you are.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

thanks, ..

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

You're welcome.

[-] 0 points by SpongeBobPrinterpants (-5) 13 years ago

John Lewis has been part of the 1% for a long time.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

John Lewis also had zero respect for the tea party people when they occupied the Capitol during the health care debate. When they were yelling, "Kill the bill", he LIED and said they were yelling "n*gger" and said they wer spitting at him. What he didn't count on was that cameras were rolling and microphones were on and NOBODY yelled any racist slurs, nor did anyone spit. He's a liar, a hypocrite, and he doesn't respect free speech or dissent - unless he approves.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

They did not deny him the right to speak. They decided he could speak when they were finished with the agenda. He chose to leave. As a privileged member of the Democratic party, he's accustomed to people kissing his ass. Well, that didn't happen and he has to wait his turn to speak just like anyone else.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

I understand that perspective, in principle, but that's just lack of common courtesy.

He didn't have the time to stay. Is a person's right to speak limited to a specific time frame? Do people only get the right to speak from 1pm - 3pm, when they have that allotted in their agenda? That's a poor excuse for human rights, then.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

The rights of all of the people at that meeting had to be respected and they had a meeting and an agenda planned. He just didn't want to be bothered with considering their plans.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

And I understand that, but I'm just telling you how this is going to look when it's smeared all over the news faster than you know it. They have the video and that's all they'll need to make the protestors look like rude individuals who wouldn't let a man speak.

Instant turn off for a lot of supporters as you can see from the dislikes in the video.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

Nobody was "rude". He wanted to interrupt a meeting. He's a congressman and he's used to getting his way. What he got was the message that he was not any more important than anyone else and he would have to wait to speak.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

I agree he's used to getting his way. No arguments here, but do you think the news is going to use the part of the clip that shows he was interrupting their meeting?

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

Who cares what the "news" says? The mainstream media is nothing but the propaganda department of the establishment.

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

The people who already know are with us. It's the people who don't know that we need to try to convince. Unfortunately, those people get most of their media from the mainstream news.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

Those people are the sheep. They'll be at the mall during the revolution. Don't worry about them ;-)

[-] 1 points by nightingale (29) 13 years ago

They are still part of the People, though.

The real enemy of this revolution is ignorance and it's up to the protesters to show the ignorant the flaws in our system. Some may not care, sure. Yet, many of those people know something is wrong, but might understand and stand with us if they're shown the flaw.

We need numbers to make this work!

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 13 years ago

Look, Lewis is an asshole and a liar. Most people will probably be impressed that he wasn't able to waltz in there and take over. The Congressional Black Caucus will probably say, "racists!", but they always do. No biggie there.