Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why does Occupy not support either free speech or free elections?

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 1:59 p.m. EST by hotrod02 (21)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

First, I would like to say that I do not support either Bachman or Gingrich. I do not agree with their message and wish they would stop running.

However, while I do not support either of them, I believe it is important that they be able to deliver their speeches to the public in an uninterupted manner. The reasons for this are obvious which are free speech and a free electoral process. As part of a free and open election process candidates should be able to make speeches whenever they like to anyone and they should not be interupted. We need to hear what they have to say so we can come to an informed decision.

So why does Occupy not support free speech or free elections? Why do they constantly interupt the Presidential candidates?

If you answer this thread, please do not answer with a question. Thank you.

47 Comments

47 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

Folks,

Occupy is a movement which only a small percentage of the United States population is involved in. You might see large crowds on television, but thats just thousands of people out of a population of 350 million. Opinion polls demonstrate that only 35% of the general public agree with Occupy. While they might agree with the message, they probably will not agree with some of these more radical forceful protests such as interupting public meetings or candidates who speak.

Please do not tell me the majority of Americans support this because they don't. Please do not tell me they have a right to obnoxiously interupt a candidates speech or tell me that they are just practicing free speech because they are not. When you yell down someone else, that is not free speech. That is, however, infringing upon another person's rights to free speech.

You dont like it when the police drown your message out with their actions. Do you think its right for you to drown out someone else's message? What makes you think that your way is the right way for everyone involved? What makes you think you know how best to run my life or the lives of others?

It is this type of thinking that makes me question the movement more then anything else.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

so if the people dont like something,, its still ok for the government to act.. but conversely if a candidate doesnt like something its not ok for the people to act? there are so many ways to hear a candidates speel interrupting a public speech is the right of the people to demand the truth from a candidate.

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

At least they have been allowed to participate in the debates, not so for Gary Johnson, arguably one of the best Republicans to run for president in my lifetime.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

The corporate media can ignore OWS only for as long as we allow them to do so. Why is the voice of a few candidates who are funded by corporations more important than the voices of millions of citizens across the country?

Is it because their "message" is more important?

Is it because their agenda is more aligned with corporate interests?

Is it because they spend millions on television advertising?

Occupiers didn't prevent anyone from speaking, we just tried to get a word in edgewise in a media in which we are either ignored or denigrated.

OWS is the biggest thing since the Civil Rights movement. CNN - which pioneered 24/7 news coverage - has all but ignored us. Go figure.

CNN = Corporate News Network

[-] 1 points by lisa (425) 8 years ago

OWS should organize debates with the candidates, the candidates who refuse to come and discuss things will show their true colors then. Disrupting their conferences accomplishes nothing. Nobody's points get heard.

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

Everything you have stated is your opinion. However, let me address the things you are saying.

Occupy represents their own interests and not millions of Americans across the country. They do not have a right to infringe upon the free speech rights of others...they do not have a right to interupt or malign an open and free election process. It doesnt matter what you think or believe, you have no right to infringe upon any person's right to free speech. You have no right to malign an election process.

If you want your rights respected then please start by respecting the rights of others.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

the election process is owned by the people .. if they want it changed , it can be changed. change does not happen by following the status quo

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Everything you have stated is your opinion. (DUH)

OWS has as much right to freedom of expression as those who can purchase time on corporate media. Money is not speech, despite what your Supreme Court decided in Citizens United.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Because at some point you have to make an attempt at making the lies stop.

200 years ago they would have been tarred and feathered. That's illegal now.

So we do what we can.

It's not like the MSM gives Occupy equal time to respond.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

In the absence of any alternative, people running for public office ought to at least discuss the real problems that face the vast majority. If they refuse to do that, they deserve to be called out, especially when we apparently have no other choice. That is what free speech is all about. If money is free speech so should tents be.

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

However, when you force the candidates to address something, then you are infringing upon their free speech rights. It seems to me that Occupy only respects their own right to free speech, but when it comes to others, they do not respect that right.

If Gingrich wants to talk about sex, drugs and rock&roll then let him speak about that. If he wants to sing a song like Herman Cain then let him. Whatever he wants to say...has to say...let him say it. Let the man speak. If he addresses the "real issues" or not then that is his free speech right to do so.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

this denial of addressing what is really at hand must be brought to the fore front of every speech a candidate makes. there are other ways a person can send a message without giving a public speech. he has millions of dollars to spend for that if they wanted to avoid the public.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

People who choose to run for public office have a responsibility to address issues of relevance and importance to the people they hope will elect them. Should they fail to do so the people have a free speech right to respond.

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

I agree, everyone has a free speech right to respond to anyone they wish. However, they have absolutely no right to infringe upon the rights of others for any reason. They have absolutely no right to interfere with an election process.

Please do not tell me they have a right to infringe upon others rights. They do not and the majority of people in this forum and the general public would disagree with that.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Ya really think that a majority of people on this forum would defend the right of the political dwarfs currently contending to become the Republican nomination for President to spew their reactionary garbage and avoid the real problems that confront the vast majority of Americans?

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 8 years ago

My question is - is even more specific. There is a solution that can literally change the world. Moreover, if this decision is included in the electoral program, in practice, the victory will be assured. Why this decision, no one takes their own blueprint? And it is - the Truth!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/key-to-great-victory/

[-] 1 points by JimiNixen (25) 8 years ago

I think there are some good points here. The 99% movement, is going to have to include some people that support republican candidates. Else, you are back down to 100%minus 1% minus % that republican.

But, the bigger issue, needs to be respect for the free flow of ideas. We will never gain wide-spread public trust and support through supressing speech through interruptions.

Popular ideas, can only be over come by more popular ideas. The Free Flow of Ideas will always be a 99% issue...

-Jimi

[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 8 years ago

The RepubliCON Party represents the 1% NO, if, ends or butts! The Libertarians are just pissed off RepubliCON's that smoke pot & sadly, there appears to many of them involved with OWS! The OWS Movement actually have been very tolerable of them!

[-] 1 points by JimiNixen (25) 8 years ago

Hi RockyJ

First, thank you for your toleration of the Libertarians. Again, I don't know how you get to the 99% number without them.

Just so I understand the math, while I understand the definition of the 1%, 1% highest income. Who are the 99%?

From your post, it seems that everyone the supports the republican party, isn't in the 99%. So, are they part of the 1%? Or, they just don't count?

Take a republican voting family (both parents have similar political views) with 3 children, that has a household income of $60k/year and lives in sub-urban America. Are they in the 1% or the 99%?

-Jimi

[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 8 years ago

Family would be the 99%. When I think of 1% I think of Koch Brothers & others like them who have bought our politicians for greedy purposes & to destroy our planet (Big Oil, Gas & Coal) for their own personal gain & promote their selfish ideologies such as Ayn Rand or far right Evangelical (so called Christian) religious beliefs!

[-] 1 points by JimiNixen (25) 8 years ago

Ok, so if the Family is in the 99%, what issues that are important to this family does OWS represent?

I've posted here what I think is the first step: http://occupywallst.org/forum/recapture-the-message-the-stock-act/

-Jimi

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JOHNUSACITIZEN (62) 8 years ago

It's NOT Occupy, it's individuals acting on their own accord... and yes, somewhat uncivilly.

If these individuals happen to participate in Occupy, well.. all are welcome.

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

How come when an individual police officer makes the decision to use force on a protester then you come down on the entire city and police force? However, when a few Occupiers make a bad decision by interupting a candidate for office then it was a few rogue people who do not represent the whole?

Remember, the general public isnt stupid. They see these things and public opinion can quickly turn. If this was my group, then I would take responsibility and apologize. People respect you greater when you take ownership and admit a mistake.

[-] 1 points by JOHNUSACITIZEN (62) 8 years ago

I take responsibility for my own words and actions, not those of others.

Your statement: "If this was my group, then I would take responsibility and apologize."

...seems to imply you don't consider yourself a part of this group.

Is your life so empty and meaningless?

You have my pity, but no agreement... I won't even touch "Remember, the general public isnt stupid". OK, I will touch it.

WE THE PEOPLE, the general public are not stupid, HOWEVER WE EXTREMELY IGNORANT.

Our society is complex and dynamic... most give up trying to grasp it.

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

Why do you think my life is "empty and meaningless"? You dont know me. If these are the types of characterizations I can expect out of the Occupy movement, then I dont think they will be lasting too much longer...

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 8 years ago

Last I checked the NYPD was not an autonomous affinity group of people with loosely shared beliefs going after a common goal. Rather it is a very organized hierarchy which ultimately answers to their superior offices who answer to politicians who answer to the people.

That being said, most comments i have read seem to be against the wrong use of the police force, and the wrong action of specific officers, not officers in general.

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

Last I checked, each officer is an individual person who makes their own decisions. The officers are not robots connected to a centralized computer like Robocop or the Terminator. I am one who believes the majority of officers conducted themselves with restraint. In all of the videos I watched, the protesters made many profane comments and even reached out to push the officers on many occasions. If someone was calling you profane names to your face, how much restraint would you have?

I would say the majority of officers in these protests have acted remarkably despite an obviously hostile protest crowd. There were a few officers who made an arbitrary decision to use a greater amount of force then was called for...i.e. pepper spray. No one has been killed by the officers unlike in other countries like Syria. I have only seen a few serious injuries nationwide and no injury seemed permanent in nature.

The NYPD has to commended because in the past protests like these usually resulted with hundreds of people in the hospital. That didnt happen this time around. The NYPD is not an oppressive police force. For an example of an oppressive police force then go to Syria or Egypt.

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 8 years ago

i think in general you and i are actually in agreement. Still the NYPD as an organization aught to hold who use uncalled for force responsible.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

free speech must be for everyone. when a government interrupts the people from sending a message.. then it is the duty of the people to interrupt the government candydates in the same manner.

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

I disagree with this greatly. Each time you interupt a candidate then you are interfearing with an open and free election process. If you are truly for Democracy, then you would not try to get in the way of our open and free election process.

Its also in really bad taste and people get tired of it after a while. You may think you are being smart by doing it, but it might turn public opinion against you. Do you think the average adult wants you interupting the candidates? The art of war says to choose your battles carefully. This isnt a battle you want to get into.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

yes i think the average adults wants to see an exchange between a candidate and those that disagree. most are sick to death of the platitudes and sugar coating .. they want the real issues addressed not just the same old standbys. they want to know just what nefarious deeds these guys are up to. not just look the other way anymore for the sake of the status quo

[-] 2 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

There is a better way to address the candidates then heckeling and infringing upon the free speech rights of others. Actually, I kind of support Gingrich in a way now because his free speech rights were infringed upon by the Occupy group. So you make other people feel sympathy for Gingrich and your original point becomes moot.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

there are not a lot of people voting because of personal feelings for the candydate so that is not a worry. heckling is not infringement.. the candydate can always address the hecklers and speak at his leisure hecklers are only pointing out issues the candidate doesnt want to address. and why? why do they not want to address these issues.. cause it will reveal the truth and they have something to hide. this is one reason for this protest to many like you that are willing to accept men of no integrity as your leaders..

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

If you are speaking and I come in with a bullhorn to drown you out or a crowd of people to drown you out then am I simply exercising my right to free speech? Do you believe if you simply address me then that would resolve the situation?

Just because you feel that everyone has something to hide doesnt mean you have a right to drown them out and infringe upon their rights. Those are just your opinions and lets say they did have something to hide, then would you still be justified in infringing upon their rights? It seems like you want to justify blocking the rights of others with speculation, conspiracy theories and opinion.

I am very happy we have a Supreme Court who can rationally look at these situations and make such judgements. My opinion is your logic is seriously flawed and I am happy we have a court system of educated and experienced judges who can make more rational decisions in that regard.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

did you know that the supreme court extended the power of 'public domain' to include giving the corporations the power to steal your land in order to profit? and you say those people are making rational decisions?

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

You state your opinions as fact. Obviously these are your opinions.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

this is a fact.The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer

The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of the early 2010 (over four years after the court's decision) nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $80 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, who would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its $300 million New London research facility, shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[11] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.[1

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 8 years ago

We have chosen this battle carefully. The enemy is the Wall Street bosses who pay themselves extraordinary bonuses and laugh at we, the 99%. The people have had enough. We're fed up to the back teeth. We want action now. We want these criminals bought to account.

[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 8 years ago

Why all they do is regurgitate the same old talking points? There is no real dialog its just the same old BS!
Don't raise taxes, cut government spending, reduce government regulations, women don't have a right to choose & less gun control, brown people are bad, gays shouldn't marry (got to keep their crazy base happy) & more blah, blah, blah!

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

While I may agree with your opinion, I still strongly believe the candidates should be able to make their speech freely without someone in the background interupting it.

Let them say what they have to say and they will be judged on the merits of their speech. As a free and open country, we have to make sure there is a credible election process and that starts with giving the candidates for office their free speech.

[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 8 years ago

OWS were just using their free speech rights too! It didn't shut Bachmann & Newt up! They still regurgitated their talking points before & afterwards. No real harm done! If anything, the recognition that the 99% are tired of listening to their same BS!

[-] 2 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

Interupting someone else's speech with your own is not "free speech rights". Your rights are only guaranteed until you start violating other people's rights...

[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 8 years ago

True re: rights. So how do you suggest we respond to the same old talking points & propaganda?

[-] 1 points by hotrod02 (21) 8 years ago

First, I would not call someone's free speech "propaganda". If that is what they want to say, then thats what they want to say. Let them express themselves freely without labeling or disparaging their speech. We live in a country where even Nazis who were once the enemy of the United States can hold marches and speak freely. Therefore, we should give that same courtesy to Presidential candidates.

There are many ways to address the candidates without resorting to overtly violating their rights to free speech and open/free election process. No one is saying you cannot stand outside with signs and protest or even out in the hallway. You can do other things such as write letters, put up a website, respond on their website, run for office yourself, etc. There are a multitude of ways to respond to the candidates.

[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 8 years ago

Anything that comes out of the republicon presidential candidates mouths is propaganda. There's no difference between them because they're just spewing what they're are told to spew because they are bought & sold! At least Huntsman has a thought in his head but no one listens to him because he won't play by their rules! Same with Ron Lawl, but he will never be nominated. Openly calling them on their shit is free speech! Even Michelle Bachmann recognized that with her little comment, "Don't you just love the First Amendment!" http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/10/8739200-occupy-wall-street-protesters-interrupt-bachmann-speech Give it a rest!

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 8 years ago

There is no dialog because their is a lack of ideas.

[Removed]