As you all probably know the people who are "occupying" Wall Street are giving people mixed messages on what their true purpose of their protest is. They have no written demands of what they want to get out of the protests or what they want from corporations. One big idea they are advocating is that corporations, instead of claiming a profit, are saying they made no profit by giving huge bonuses to the CEO of the corporation so they don't have to pay any taxes.
Another purpose of their protests is to tell the government to make more jobs. One of their protest locations was to gather on many bridges across the country to send the message to remodel bridges to create more jobs. My opinion on this is that these jobs will be temporary and what will these people do after their job is gone and all the bridges have been remodeled? Plus our nation is already engulfed in massive amounts of debt, so in order to raise money for these projects to create jobs the government would be forced to raise taxes. This is a little counter intuitive because sure you'd have a job (temporarily) but then you'd also have to pay much more in taxes.
Another reason for the protest is to show that they are angry at banks who have money to give out loans but they don't want to take a risk on anyone right now in this time of financial crisis. This is further hindering our nation from recovering from our crisis.
In Constitutional Law we are learning about whether or not the Occupy Wallstreeters have a first amendment right to "occupy" parks with tents and sleeping bags. The first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abriding the freedom of speech" or "... interfering with the right to peaceably assemble". The occupiers' message of this protest was to occupy where corruption and corporate greed was occuring at the source. Therefore they are not actually camping, they're occupying which is a form of expression and assembly.
Do you think they have a right or do you think the first amendment doesn't cover the right to occupy wallstreet? Is occupying the same thing as camping in this case or is occupying part of their message - therefore part of their constitutional right.
I think they have the right, just as said in the first amendment, to a peaceful assembly. A peaceful assembly is what some of the true protestors are doing. They are the people who know what is going on and feel strongly about their independent views. They are the people who have the right to be there.
ReplyDeleteThen there are the people who either want to hop on the bandwagon without a clue about what is going on or the random people who just want an excuse to act out violently.
Because there are so many in betweens to these groups I don't think a distinct classification will ever be defined. But as long as the safety of the people and their property is not in jeopardy then there shouldn't be anything preventing them from protesting.
One of the things that you mentioned about the occupiers "not having a message" is frustrating and frankly, not true. I'll post a link to the article I will be referencing at the bottom of my comment. As far as their "unclear message," here's what an author from The Guardian ascertained:
ReplyDelete" I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.
That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.
The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.
The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create fake derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.
No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.
When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them. " [I encourage you to read the rest of the article because it really has some crazy information about the police brutality, too]
It's not that Occupiers don't know what they want (because they do), it's that the government doesn't want average Americans to know about the shady business that goes on.
Two things for you to consider: Over half of Americans get their news from television. Lobbyists are paying (with a specific case of an $850,000 contract) politicians and news programs to "smear OWS."
This may seem a little far-fetched. Consider this:
Why would Congress want Occupy Wall Street to just go away?
Congress, recently, has been investing in businesses and companies and make legislation for THEIR OWN COMPANY'S PROFITS. They're making laws and legislation to make this legal and easier for themselves.
In conclusion, to answer your real question, I think they certainly do have a right to protest especially since, so far, none of the protesters have contributed to the violence associated with the protests.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?fb=optOut
Money and politics are way too intertwined. I understand that it's the government's job to maintain our economy or at least they take it upon themselves to do so. The reasons these CEO's take such big bonuses is for one thing, greed. It's a tax dodge, instead of that money being taken from the company, the CEO can take that money and pay less taxes on it and then eventually feed that money back into the system. It's a smart plan, but ethically not the soundest.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the Occupiers have a right to fight for what they want and get their messages across. Overall they do have a message, or they obviously wouldn't be there in the first place. I think that many people just jumped on the bandwagon to say they were a part of 'Occupy Wallstreet'. People do have the right to protest, and there should be no punishment for using your rights.
ReplyDelete