With the Sun set, and but a handful of Occupiers still defiant and entrenched on the steps, amidst signs that a few were returning, having found a place to secure their goods, without reason or cause a "White Shirt," well known to the Occupants for his open displays of anger during the prior two week stand-off, approached an individual standing on his own on a middle level step.
The Occupier, Richard Lynch, know within the chat streams as "Angry Pacifist" -- a personal statement of his deeply held philosophical beliefs -- had been with the group from the beginning. Resting at his feet was a sign that he carried, with his pseudonym on it, continuously during the past seven months of Occupy events.
The senior NYPD officer aggressively charged towards Lynch without a word of warning then forcefully seized his sign and began to run off down the steps where he eventually discarded it in a police vehicle. Shocked by what occurred Lynch cried out, in a not unreasonable volume and fashion given the circumstances, only to then face the enraged officer lunged back at him threatening to arrest him.
This was no idle threat as moments later the officer escorted Lynch as he took him down the stairs and outside of the barriers separating Federal land from the City's streets, where he was subsequently turned over and taken into custody by the Park Police who were the sole enforces of the assumed rules allegedly violated. This marked the first and only instance in which the Park police were engaged in an arrest of a citizen.
Although their subsequently taking him into custody was out
of character with the approach of the Federal Park Police throughout the week,
their treatment and handling of him, in stark contrast to that of the NYPD
officer, was both professional and courteous.
He was charged among other things with violating the newly imposed noise
regulations, uttering a sound above 60dB after 8 p.m,, although no decibel
reading was ever taken, and taken to a holding cell on Staten Island where he
would spend the night and into the next day.
Once again the services of the streamers proved invaluable, perhaps no more significantly than to the legal fate and well-being of Richard Lynch, as the events were captured live as the unfolded and stored in a video archive by another streamer who arrived later in the day and remained, as the other three retired for the night to get some long overdue rest, as the sun went down over Wall Street and what may have appeared to some as the last vestiges of a dying protest played their hand. This time it was another New Yorker named Tim, whose stream is entitled Timcast, who captured the historical moments for all to see and judge for themselves. Without these video archives Lynch would have faced his charges with no more evidence than a "he said / he said" dispute - arguments that even juries of one's peers tend more often than not to find in favor of the authorities assuming that they would not lie.
What a difference a day makes indeed.
What is of significant concern to anyone observing these events carefully and with a critical eye is the troubling, and clearly unlawful, idea of imposing a new set of rules -- designed primarily to limit speech and explicitly suited to the particular successes of the ongoing demonstration -- and thus the arbitrary change to the rules in the middle of the game. Even more troubling are a few facts that stand out when reading the document carefully.
While the origin of the content of these rules is clearly a legitimate source, taken from the Code of Federal Regulations applicable to a National Memorial, the specific limitations are clearly taken out of context and applied in a manner unintended by the actual Code. Unambiguously stated on page two of the document supplied to the Occupiers is the fact that the specific limitations referenced fall under "activities that require a permit."
A requirement that although offered to the Occupiers on Monday afternoon, was rejected on both principle and practical grounds and never subsequently required for their presence and the recognition of their free speech and assembly rights by the Park officials. Signing a permit for free speech, they believed, would be selling that fundamental right short and doing it injustice -- implying that one needed to be granted permission in order to exercise the right. Additionally indicating that, thereby, it would be recognition of the government authorities legitimate power to either deny the permit or limit arbitrarily those rights.
One other practical consideration was that in signing on to such a permit a single individual would be accepting personal liability for the group. The Occupiers also continuously chanted and held signs, apropos to the historical significance of their location, that "The Bill of Rights is Our Permit."
So no permit was sought or signed and none required before the Federal authorities publicly declared and accepted that the activities of the Occupiers were those covered under the First Amendment with its legal guarantees and protections. Yet when reading, for example, the specific language of the new noise regulations it becomes clear beyond question that these are only applicable to activities that legally, thereby, required such a permit before being authorized.
The same held true for the claimed limitations on the use of video and still-photography as well as being the direct source for the language referring to leaving property "unattended." Although in this latter case, contrary to the statements and practices of the officers, such unattended property would not be disposed of as trash but instead would be merely "impounded for inspection." The rule was clearly referencing the legitimate concern, not at issue in this context, of public safety and also clearly implying that the property rights of the owner remained intact and that they would be reunited with their property so long as it did not, itself, constitute a contraband item.
Perhaps most troubling in the double-speak and sleight-of-hand attempts of government officials to dupe the citizens using the false garb of claimed legality is revealed when looking to the details of the noise regulations which were used to arrest Lynch in clear violation of several of his rights (not only of speech and assembly but others such as the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, the right to property, and the right not to be disposed or that property or liberty without due process of law to name a few of the others).
The explicit language, which makes reference to the permitted decibel levels and what constituted "audio disturbances" that were then applied to the new "Quiet Hours" substantially more restrictive than the applicable City laws to the area, also is clear as to its intended target.
That target absolutely was not intended to be any form of speaking let alone First Amendment protected political speech of a protesting citizen. The language of the Code establishes these particular restrictions specifically for cases where either an individual or group seeks to employ a radio, public address system, or other amplified device and wishes to get permission to step outside of the normal limits for a limited and specific period of time and a particular purpose -- such as the holding of concert or other entertainment event that seeks the prestige and atmosphere provided by the context of a National Monument.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
