Does middle America care about rights of protesters during G20 summit that were violated?

October 7, 10:21 PMMilwaukee Progressive ExaminerJerome McCollom

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Milwaukee Progressive Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

 Do we live in Iran? I have to ask because while viewing on the G20 summit protests  the only way I knew for sure it wasn't Iran but the US is that the audio was in English and not Farsi. Seeing police violate the rights of protestors, wasn't that fundamentally different.  I have to wonder, when did we as a society decide that our free speech rights aren't all that darn important anyway? Look, I understand that being a cop is a tough job. You have to go after murders, rapists, thieves etc. But tell me, do we really need the police to limit our free speech rights? I know that a protest down a street often needs permits in order to handle the balancing act of freedom of speech/assembly of the protesters  and the right of someone to get home from work by driving down a street. But, if a protest in no way interferes with the actions of non-protesters (such as driving) then I must ask what governmental or societal interest is it for the government to restrict that speech? Simply, there is none. Now, I have to admit  anarchists who are wearing hankerchiefs over their faces are dumb for doing so, it makes them look sinister in some sense. But, they have a right to engage in protests, even ones that might be counterproductive in their methods.

    The reason there are permits necessary for protests of a certain size is to balance competing interests.  If there is no other interest competing with a group of protesters then there is no reason in order to restrict or ban it. If someone commits violence or breaks a window, then by all means arrest them. But, the police and a police chief do not have the right to restrict ours (as a nation, a group and as individuals) freedom and ability to dissent from our government. Freedom of speech is not a privilege granted by the government but a fundamental right. Watching the police reaction to the protest I have to wonder though.

  The Pittsburgh chief of police seemed to on pure whims be able to decide when a protest was allowed and when it was not. In fact, when permits were given (as forced by court order) they were often violated by the police.  Although I do not agree with much or most of the content of the tea party protests I support their right to do so. That said I am very disappointed at the rightwing's  lack of empathy at the rights of a mostly left leaning crowd being violated in Pittsburgh.  I support the right of anyone and everyone to be able to protest with one's government. I might not agree with the merits of their speech but I darn sure support their right to make it. 

   An individual, Elliott Madison, who used twitter to inform fellow protestors of police movements during the arrest  has been arrested. Weren't we in the US (rightly) praising Iranian protestors who used twitter in Tehran when their rights were violated? The "rationale" of this arrest is that he was interfering in prosecutions. But that rationale assumes that those who are engaged in exercising their fundamental free speech rights are guilty of some crime. That is and should not be the mentality of a law enforcement arm in a free nation.