Wikipedia

User:Krista.EH/sandbox

< User:Krista.EH

Response to Peer Review:

Thank you Kelly for thorough feedback, I really appreciate it. As I add more sources and information, I'll be sure to go back and edit clarity issues. I know it requires a decent amount of cleaning up right now. This draft was just compiling and attempting to organize the mass amounts of information that I found. I do agree on all of your points made, so thank you!

Review notes (Kelly Shen):

Good job finding solid sources!

Overall I think you have some solid info, but your points could be more concise and have more clarity - I tried to point out a few places where I felt like ideas could be combined, or sentences I was confused about, and I think it would really help to carefully go through and make sure all your ideas are clearly expressed.

Re: Michael Moore

Maybe less direct quotes, paraphrase more? For example. the major "should come and face the General Assembly" doesn't seem like a super impactful direct quote, you could simply mention how he tweeted regarding how the mayor should respond to the people as a whole rather than just Moore himself.

Re: Anarchism and the Occupy Movement

Lead:

"make demands from" --> make demands on

Principles/Practices section:

"By striving to practice a direct democracy to eliminate any hierarchy in the movement and to avoid representative structures demonstrate the anarchical characteristics of the Occupy movement."

^ this isn't a complete sentence..? - I think you are trying to say that Occupy demonstrates anarchy principles by striving for a direct democracy, as this eliminates hierarchy and representative structures.

This Principles paragraph overall seemed a bit wordy to me and could use some general restructuring - your first sentence states how questioning institutions matches anarchist values, your second sentence states that leaderless movement matches anarchist values, 3rd to last mentions self-organization and mutualism, and the 3rd sentence labels 5 values that match anarchist values.

Along with that, I think your 2 sections contain good info but overlap with each other - for example, you touch on direct democracy in both paragraphs. Maybe worth considering combining them together, and structuring it along the lines of

first sentence: Principles x, y, z demonstrated in the Occupy movement match anarchist values.

middle stuff: more detail about how these values are demonstrated - Principle x means ____, and was demonstrated through ____[what you mention in Practices pertaining to this value]__.

final sentence: Although Occupy embraces some values of anarchism, the movement does not label itself as anarchy because of differences in ideology and motivations to act.

Re: Occupy and the First Amendment

I would consider ordering the sections as Occupy Cases, Constitution, and Background Cases last - the latter 2 sections support the connection between Occupy and the First Amendment but the Occupy Cases section holds the meat of what this article is about.

Lead:

The first is that sleeping and camping is symbolic expression which is protected by the First Amendment. The second is that their camps are public forums where occupiers are using expressive speech.[1] Within the context of Occupy, sleeping overnight is protected by the First Amendment because the sleeping is a form of expression.

^ repeating what you said 2 lines above

Try combining sentences, a lot of short sentences that make it a little choppy to read (you didn't use a single comma in this paragraph).

Occupy Cases:

If I understand correctly, this section gives examples of where the first amendment failed to protect protesters, as there were other loopholes/laws used to undermine the movement? (in DC, health concern allowed government to remove occupiers; in NY, flyers prohibiting camping etc. forced occupiers out) If so, I would also include examples where using the first amendment successfully protected the occupiers.

in the New York case:

"and that symbolized" --> and symbolizing.

^ I was somewhat confused by what you are expressing about this case - it sounded at first like the protesters were able to label their occupation as a form of assembly protected by the first amendment, but ultimately they were still kicked out?

Proposed Edits for Michael Moore

edit

Plan: Add more information on Moore’s involvement with the Occupy movement. Intend to add his influence and his own views on the movement and its goals. Also, plan include criticism of his involvement.

Existing:

Moore was an active supporter of the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York City and spoke with the OWS protesters on September 26, 2011.[65] On October 29, 2011, he spoke at the Occupy Oakland protest site to express his support.[66]

Edited:

Moore was an active supporter of the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York City and spoke with the OWS protesters on September 26, 2011.[65] Moore expressed his gratitude to the protestors in New York for being the start of a huge movement.[2] On October 29, 2011, he spoke at the Occupy Oakland protest site to express his support.[66] In his address to the Oakland crowd, Moore’s references to the Oakland mayor brought on boos from the crowd. He encouraged protestors’ efforts and thanked them for their perseverance.[3] When informed that the Oakland mayor would like to see him, Moore reinforced the leaderless movement by tweeting “I am not #OccupyOakland” and that the mayor should face the democratic General Assembly.[4] He believed that the government was forming a kleptocracy out of democracy, and the young adults who decided to take action struck a nerve in the hearts of Americans which sent shock waves throughout the country.[5][6]

Proposed Edits for Anarchism and the Occupy Movement

edit

Plan: Add Occupy’s principles and practices of direct democracy. Also add more information to the lead to help specify some points.

Existing lead:

Many commentators have stated that the Occupy Wall Street movement has roots in the philosophy of anarchism.[1][2][3][4][5] David Graeber, an early organizer of the movement, is a self-proclaimed anarchist.[6] Graeber, writing for The Guardian, has argued that anarchist principles of direct action, direct democracy and rejection of existing political institutions are the foundations of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Graeber also believes that radical segments of the civil rights movement, the anti-nuclear movement and the global justice movement have been based on the same principles.[7]

Edited:

Lead

Many commentators have stated that the Occupy Wall Street movement has roots in the philosophy of anarchism.[1][2][3][4][5] David Graeber, an early organizer of the movement, is a self-proclaimed anarchist.[6] Graeber, writing for The Guardian, has argued that anarchist principles of direct action, direct democracy and rejection of existing political institutions are the foundations of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Graber associated Occupy with anarchism ideology because of Occupy’s refusal to make demands on the existing state. If Occupy had made demands, it would be reiterating the legitimacy of the people who made the demands. By refraining from making demands, Occupy is refusing to legitimize the existing political structure of the United States. [7] Graeber also believes that radical segments of the civil rights movement, the anti-nuclear movement and the global justice movement have been based on the same principles.[7]

Principles and Practices

edit

Occupy does not label itself as anarchist.[8] However, John L. Hammond attributes three core Occupy beliefs and practices – horizontalism, autonomy, and defiance – as also being anarchist values. He also notes that Occupy’s emphasis on the experience of occupation aligns with the principles of libertarian anarchists.[9] Horizontalism, meaning an equal distribution of power, is demonstrated in the Occupy movement through the creation of a direct democracy that eliminates hierarchy and representative structures.[10] Occupy operates using mutualism and self-organization as its principles.[8] The General Assemblies practice direct democracy using consensus to the extent of practicality.  Outside of the General Assemblies, Occupy protestors have organized into decentralized groups.[8] Occupy’s practice of horizontal organization rejects the legitimacy of the existing hierarchical political structure in the United States.[8] By questioning institutions like the existing state Occupy is demonstrating both autonomy and defiance. [11] Occupy demonstrates some of the values of anarchism, but Occupy does not identify as anarchist because of differences in ideology and motivations to act.[8]

Add New Page: Occupy and the First Amendment

edit

Plan: Create a new article with focus on how the Occupy movement challenged the First Amendment and used it to protect its protestors. Include background information about cases defining First Amendment rights, how this applies to the Occupy movement, and how the cases have been resolved.

Occupy and the First Amendment

edit

Lead

The Occupy Movement has challenged the definition for First Amendment rights. Municipalities have attempted to enforce ordinances that prohibit overnight activities in order to remove Occupy protestors which has led to judicial cases where occupiers use their First Amendment rights as justification for protesting.[1] An enumerated right within the Constitution grants “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”[12] Occupiers have used two main aspects of the First Amendment to support their requests for preliminary injunctions. The first is that sleeping and camping is symbolic expression which is protected by the First Amendment, and the second is that their camps are public forums where occupiers are using expressive speech.[1][13] The Supreme Court examines how and why Occupiers chose their sites for protest and how Occupy is communicating its dissent to determine constitutionality.[13][14] Occupy believes that sleeping in tents and eating communally are both vital parts of their protests that represent the type of society that they are trying to establish. Occupiers argue that name Occupy is a signifier for the importance of physically occupying space to convey their message. [15] The government is targeting the where and the volume of the occupiers' protests rather that what is actually said by implementing permit requirements rather than just banning their speech.[16] Overall, state legislatures have not had unanimous decisions on the Occupiers’ right to occupy.[17] In all Occupy cases, the right to free speech has been assessed, leaving out the Assembly Cause and focusing on expression.[18]

Occupy Wins

edit

Portland, Maine

edit

The City allowed occupiers to peacefully protest in Lincoln Park for two months. When the City Council decided to require a special permit to continue occupying, the General Assembly attempted to find a working compromise. The City Council rejected the occupiers' permit application which led a group of five occupiers, called the Legal Working Group, led by lawyer John Branson to file a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction.[19] The injunction was denied thereby upholding the restrictions on time, place, and manner, however, Occupy Maine prevailed in successfully defining camping as expressive conduct which is protected by the First Amendment.[19] The restrictions placed on occupation were intended to protect the health and safety of the public and protect the public space from any damage.[20] Since the restrictons did not target the speech of the Occupiers, they were upheld by the court.

Columbia, South Carolina

edit

Occupy Columbia’s injunction against the government was granted by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie. Judge Currie defended occupation as a First Amendment right. He attributed occupation as "the only effective manner in which Occupy Columbia members can express their message. He granted the injunction questioning the state policies' application to all people and groups.[19] Occupy Columbia's claim that their First Amendment right to protest in public spaces had been violated led the judge to deny the city its assertion to qualified immunity as an Appellant.[21] This led to Judge Curries decision to grant the injunction against the city.

Boston, Massachusetts

edit

Judge Frances McIntyre granted a restraining order requested by Occupy Boston against the city. Occupiers feared that they would be forcibly removed by police without notice as occupiers in New York had been.[22] Occupy Boston had to overcome the obstacle that the city had not tried to evict the protesters when they filed the lawsuit.[23] Except in the case of violent protests, Occupy Boston was allowed to remain in Dewey Square.[22]

New Orleans, Louisiana

edit

Mayor Mitch Landrieu's administration ordered police to clear Occupy NOLA's encampment in Duncan Plaza.[24] The police distributed flyers stating that the City had an obligation to protect public health and safety, and this was to be done by clearing the encampment.[25] Twelve hours later, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey granted Occupy NOLA a temporary restraining order against the city to allow them to resume occupying the plaza.[24] One of Occupy's lawyers, David Finger, believed that Judge Zainey's decision proved how "no one is above the law, even the city of New Orleans."[24] Before a permanent injunction was ruled on, Occupy NOLA argued its case by providing evidence on how complete eviction was not necessary to appease the city's complaints.[26] Although the restraining order against the city was only temporary, by granting it, Judge Zainey helped to boost morale of the movement.[24]

Occupy Loses

edit

New York, New York

edit

Occupy protesters in New York were looking for a space not limited by curfews and symbolizing their occupation as reclaiming “unequal economic structures.” Zuccotti Park’s close proximity to Wall Street led the protestors to choose this as their site of occupation. Zuccotti Park is a privately owned but publicly accessible space created as a visually aesthetic enhancement for the public’s use with few regulations regarding the space’s intended use. The protesters labeled themselves “occupiers” to emphasize their First Amendment right to assemble for a politically fueled protest. The protesters used their occupation as a form of speech, protest, and assembly to display these rights. Despite constitutional labels, the occupiers were ultimately removed for being in violation of new rules implemented during their protests.[19] These rules included the prohibition camping, lying down, and storage of personal property all of which the occupiers were violating. [14]

Naomi Wolf's arrest at the cite of Occupy Wall Street demonstrated the power of the city. She questioned a police officer's account of conditions listed in the occupiers' permit. Her arrest was for obstructing pedestrian traffic.[27]

New Haven, Connecticut

edit

U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz had extended a temporary restraining order against the city's police and officials to prevent them from forcing the occupiers to leave their encampment.[28] The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut found that the Occupiers’ tents and sleeping in them were forms of expression as a part of Occupy New Haven.[1] The court used the Clark test to find that the ordinance in New Haven preventing the occupation did not infringe on First Amendment rights because the occupied space was a public space that was under the jurisdiction of New Haven’s ordinances. The court also found that the third part of the Clark test passed because the availability of permits to apply to use tents was accessible even though Twitter and Facebook were found to be insufficient ways of alternative communication.[1]

Washington, DC

edit

In the District of Columbia, McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza, both federal parks, were occupied. These parks are under Congress’s jurisdiction, so the National Park Service and U.S. Park Police have the power to execute orders from Congress regarding these parks.[14] Health officials viewed the tents used in protest as living accommodations which were subject to health evaluations for housing and restaurants. Rats, lack of good water, and dirty dishes were cited as health violations of the occupation that were potentially harmful to the Occupiers health.[14] By brining up the issue of health and living accommodations, Congress had the legal backing to remove Occupiers.[14]

Oakland, California

edit

On October 14, 2011, Occupiers set up tents Frank Ogawa Park which came to signify violence when the Occupiers renamed the park after an African-American man shot and killed by police in 2009, Oscar Grant. For Occupiers, the ideology of the space was crucial to their protests.[14] The American Civil Liberties Union helped occupiers in Oakland through litigations to protect their rights.[19] Mayor Quan followed the mayor of New York's example of prioritizing the public's safety over the occupiers' First Amendment rights and cleared the encampment.[29]

Rhetoric of the Constitution

edit

The right of the people

edit

This phrase in the Constitution is also found in the Second Amendment's operative clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Search and Seizure Clause in reference to "all members of the political community" and not "an unspecified subset." Intratextual analysis has revealed that the right of assembly is to promote individual participation in collecting with others not necessarily to protect against identifying with an association.[12]

To assemble

edit

The definition of assemble in dictionaries from the time the Constitution was written focus on "heat-of-the-moment gatherings" without regard for group identities. In each other reference of assemble in the Constitution, it is referring to in-person gatherings.[12]

Peaceably

edit

Peaceably focuses on the lack of disturbance. It supports an emphasis in the Assembly Clause on physically gathering rather than abstract associations.[12]

Background Cases

edit

In Texas v. Johnson, a law banning the burning of the American flag was found to be unconstitutional because flag burning was an expression of a message. The Court found that the government cannot restrict speech based on content.[13] This helped to further define expressions protected by the First Amendment which was then used in cases dealing with Occupy.

In 1976 United States v. Abney, after a veteran was convicted for protesting treatment by the Veterans Administration by sleeping in Lafayette Park, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a regulation implemented by the National Parks Service which prohibited camping.[13] This established camping as a constitutional form of protesting.

In United States v. O'Brien, the Supreme Court included assessing the interests of the government against interests of free speech as a factor in determining restirctions' constitutionality.[1][30] In Spence v. Washington, the Court used a factors test to determine if conduct is to be considered symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment. The court first had to determine whether or not Spence intended his actions to be communication. The second factor that the court looked at was the clarity of the message under the circumstances. [1][30]

In Clark v. Community for Creative NonViolence, the United States Supreme Court had to apply the O’Brien balancing test to overnight sleeping in national parks as a part of demonstrations. The Court came to the conclusion that the restriction was constitutional because the regulation defined camping as “the use of park land for living accommodation purposes such as sleeping activities.” Since this did not reference speech, it did not violate the First Amendment by restricting communication or clarity. It did not ban sleeping everywhere, so there was still available alternative ways of communication for the demonstrators to utilize thereby passing the three parts of the O'Brien test. Furthermore, the Court found that the National Park Service was intending to promote the government’s interest in keeping a clean park for the public.[1]

In Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, the Supreme Court was tasked with developing categories to determine if a space was public or private to prevent any discriminatory enforcement of doctrines. The Supreme Court categorized public forums as places that “have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.” The Court deemed it appropriate for a state to enforce exclusion of content when it can prove that “regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.”[1]

In the case of Thomas v. Chicago Park District, the Supreme Court determined another guideline for regulating speech in a constitutional way. The Court determined that ordinances requiring application and approval for permits to held rallies were constitutional because everyone needed to go through the same process for a permit no matter the reason.[1]

In Freeman v. Morris, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen of Maine allowed a regulation to displace protestors because allowing them to stay “would ultimately tend to suppress, rather than promote, the free exchange of ideas.”[17]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Howard, Claire (2013). "A New First Amendment Battleground: Challenges Facing Local Governments by the Occupy Movement and Proactive Responses to Future Movements". Urban Lawyer. Vol. 45 (2): pp.473-494. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  2. ^ "Michael Moore helps to "Occupy Wall Street"". Retrieved 2016-10-26.
  3. ^ Writer, Robin Wilkey (2011-10-28). "'A Watershed Moment In Oakland'". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-26.
  4. ^ International Business Times. "Michael Moore Shows Support at Occupy Oakland". International Business Times. Retrieved 19 October 2016 – via EBSCOHost. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ "The nation: delusional ramblings from Michael Moore on the now defunct or under-arrest occupy movement". The American Spectator. May 2012. Retrieved 19 October 2016 – via Literature Resource Center.
  6. ^ "Call to Arms". Rolling Stone. 10/27/2011, Issue 1142, p7-7. 1p. 27 October 2011 – via EBSCOHost. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  7. ^ Bates, David; Ogilvie, Matthew; Pole, Emma (12 February 2015). "Occupy: In Theory and Practice". Critical Discourse Studies. Vol. 13 (3): pp. 341-355. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  8. ^ a b c d e Gibson, MR (1 September 2013). "The Anarchism of the Occupy Movement". Australian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 48 (3): pp. 335-348. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  9. ^ Pittman, John P. (April 2015). "Red on Black Marxist Encounters with Anarchism". Science & Society. Vol. 79 (2): pp. 148–152. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  10. ^ Hammond, John L. (2015). "The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street". Science & Society. 79 (2): 288–313.
  11. ^ Rehmann, Jan (18 March 2013). "Occupy Wall Street and the Question of Hegemony: A Gramscian Analysis". Socialism and Democracy. Vol. 27 (1): pp. 1-18. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  12. ^ a b c d Brod, Nicholas S. (October 2013). "RETHINKING A REINVIGORATED RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE". Duke Law Journal. Vol. 63 (1): pp. 155-197. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  13. ^ a b c d Kunstler, Sarah (2012). "The right to occupy - Occupy Wall Street and the First Amendment". Fordham Urban Law Journal. Vol. 39.4: p. 989. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  14. ^ a b c d e f Schmidt, Sandra J.; Babits, Chris (April 2014). "Occupy Wall Street as a curriculum of space". Journal of Social Studies Research. Vol. 38 (2). {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  15. ^ Ofer, Udi (2012). "Occupy the parks: restoring the right to overnight protest in public parks". Fordham Urban Law Journal. 39.4 – via LegalTrac.
  16. ^ Radovac, Lilian (2014). "Mic Check: Occupy Wall Street and the Space of Audition". Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies. 11 (1): 34–41.
  17. ^ a b Hudson Jr., David L.; Brust, Richard (July 2012). "Occupy the Courts". ABA Journal. Vol. 98 (7): pp. 18-22. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  18. ^ Brod, Nicholas S. (2013). "RETHINKING A REINVIGORATED RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE". Duke Law Journal. 63 (1): 155–197.
  19. ^ a b c d e Marton, Janos D. (2012). "Representing an idea: how Occupy Wall Street's attorneys overcame the challenges of representing non-hierarchical movements". Fordham Urban Law Journal. 39 (4).
  20. ^ "Portland will order Occupy protesters to vacate - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram". The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram. 2012-02-01. Retrieved 2016-11-19.
  21. ^ "Occupy Columbia v. Haley and the First Amendment Right to "Protest" on State House Grounds - South Carolina Law Review Blog". South Carolina Law Review Blog. 2014-01-13. Retrieved 2016-11-19.
  22. ^ a b "Occupy Boston Protesters Win Restraining Order Against City". International Business Times. 2011-11-17. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
  23. ^ "Occupy Boston case a test of free speech - The Boston Globe". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
  24. ^ a b c d "Occupy NOLA will be allowed to rebuild encampment in Duncan Plaza". NOLA.com. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
  25. ^ "Occupy New Orleans to be Evicted". Daily Kos. Retrieved 2016-11-19.
  26. ^ "Occupy NOLA's chances for final court victory are slim, some legal experts say". NOLA.com. Retrieved 2016-11-18.
  27. ^ El-Haj, Tabatha Abu (2014). "ALL ASSEMBLE: ORDER AND DISORDER IN LAW, POLITICS, AND CULTURE". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 16 (4): 949–1040.
  28. ^ "Federal judge denies Occupy New Haven's request to remain on Green (video, photos, document)". Retrieved 2016-11-19.
  29. ^ Szolucha, Anna (2015). "Real Politics in Occupy: Transcending the Rules of the Day". Globalizations. 12 (1): 66–82.
  30. ^ a b LaSalle, Kristie (2012). "The Other 99% of the Expressive Conduct Doctrine: The Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Importance of Recognizing the Contribution of Conduct to Speech". Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights. 18 (1): 1–46.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krista.EH/sandbox&oldid=750680620"