[...] The Georgetown Voice reports: The October Rebellion, an umbrella group of protest groups, launched an unscheduled march through Georgetown Friday night. The march started at Washington Circle and ended when police cordoned off protests and released them in small groups. According to police, a young woman was hit in the face in front of Wisconsin’s Abercrombie and Fitch and was taken to the hospital. [...]

so you’re sour because you were thrown out of a space for being a reporter? sorry not everybody’s comfortable with their politics and everything they believe in being analyzed and written down like it’s some sort of fucking science experiment. you should maybe try getting a life rather than documenting those of others like they’re yours to be exploiting.

i love the “screw you and your free speech” response from “hmmmm.” i guess if woodward and bernstein had “gotten a life” the world would be a better place. god, i hate my…oh, you know that already.

Will, thank you for pointing out the contradictory actions of these protesters. When I heard two of the participants this morning on DC-101, I realized that they had no idea what they were marching for. “The World Bank hurts small countries.” “We should forgive the debt.” If your problem is with the World Bank, why not march at the World Bank. This “protest” reminded me of a recent anti-war protest on the National Mall. There, a friend pointed out the hilarity of the protest: “Hmm, lets listen to punk rock music and smoke pot. That’ll end the war.” If you’re going to protest lending money to poor countries, breaking windows at Starbucks and Abercrombie and Fitch only serves to portray you and your group as ignorant. And if you want to bring media attention to your cause, be ready to be filmed and photographed while you’re needlessly breaking the law.

“sorry not everybody’s comfortable with their politics and everything they believe in being analyzed and written down like it’s some sort of fucking science experiment.”

Wow, the utter insanity of this statement made my head explode.

So let me get this right: people are here to make their opposition (to a political body specifically and a economic structure generally) known and felt though confrontational and criminal demonstrations, but how dare you actually investigate and report on what it is that they think.

This statement only makes sense when you realize that these protestors are here for their own benefit, perhpas to “purge” themselves of their comfortable middle or upper-middle class childhood or to make themselves believe they are a heroic protestor against the bougeois, or whatever.

The only effect they truly seek is in their head.

what none of you are taking into consideration is that the media was only unwelcome in the convergence space. of course the action itself is going to be filmed and reported on - that is, as you say, part of the point.

however, at the action, people were prepared to photographed, they knew they were being photographed, and they were able to maintain anonymity. as journalists, you should know about consent - and walking into a room, taking pictures and notes without announcing yourselves as media is NOT getting your subjects’ consent.

beyond it being immoral, coming into that room without stating your intentions puts everyone who was there in a place of legal vulnerability, which is certainly not the action of an unbiased reporter.

i would also like to point out that, before leaving, the reporters agreed NOT to publish any photographs or descriptions of the inside of the church - trusting them, we talked to them a few more times throughout the night, only to see that they had no intention of keeping their word.

right, but you photographed people who weren’t speakers without saying any such thing, which is not ok. and technically, the meeting wasn’t public - it was on private property, and even if it hadn’t been, it’s immoral to take record of people without even their knowledge, if not their consent.

and how are we defining “violence”? the woman who got hit with the brick - yes, that was unacceptable, and many if not most of the protesters from that night feel that way. but property damage - is that violence? since when should we view “violence” against corporate property as a moral issue alongside violence against people, of the sort that the international monetary fund is consistently guilty of?

(and when the cops try to run us over with motorcycles, is that more morally permissible than a smashed window?)

it’s one thing to provide a low-risk avenue for people to be involved, but the anarcha-feminist bloc collaborated with the police (which was not even necessary to prevent arrest). not only is that far from constructive in any way (resistance as permitted by the state? huh?), but it is also a blow to the “muscle of democracy” - it is the appearance of a protest with the workings of a theater piece.

if you don’t want to or can’t risk arrest, of course that’s legitimate, and there should still be a way for you to participate. but it can be done without empowering the agents of what you claim to be protesting.

“saying any such thing, which is not ok.”

Yes it is. Because…

“the meeting wasn’t public - it was on private property”

…the meeting was held in a public place (it’s not a question of private property, it’s a question of access. If the room is open to the public, it is a public place. And since when are people like you so friendly to the idea of private property and exclusion anyway?)

“it’s immoral to take record of people without even their knowledge, if not their consent.”

Well I can’t speak to its morality (and I detect no consistent and even comprehensible moral code in your or your associates’ actions and words). But it is certainly legal, both to take the photos and to publish them.

“and how are we defining “violence”? ”

It’s really easy; you see we have this thing called the legal system and the courts of law that have been around for centuries figuring out that question, and they’ve come up with a pretty good answer. You will not be able to understand it though because you’ve read too much marxist crap that equates private property (but not a church basement mind you!!) with violence. Nonetheless here’s a hint: weilding rocks, sticks, and shields is violent, or at least a threat of violence. Are the cops inherently violent? I hope so. But it’s a violence authorized and supported by society that is subject to oversight and control.

“but the anarcha-feminist bloc collaborated with the police”

Oh my god, please get your head out of your ass…

“If the room is open to the public, it is a public place. And since when are people like you so friendly to the idea of private property and exclusion anyway?)”

haha, yeah, that’s not how that works. point to the law that says that if my door is unlocked, my house is public. there’s nothing “friendly” about private property, which is exactly why i pointed out that, even though the meeting wasn’t legally public, that didn’t even matter as much as the basic decency issue.

“Well I can’t speak to its morality… But it is certainly legal, both to take the photos and to publish them.”

i must have missed the part where morality and legality became the same thing. i never said it wasn’t legal. but legality doesn’t make immorality acceptable, especially when these reporters claim to be sympathetic to the cause at hand.

“It’s really easy; you see we have this thing called the legal system and the courts of law that have been around for centuries figuring out that question, and they’ve come up with a pretty good answer.”

do you live in this country? how can you look at the way the court system works (see also: racism, bribery, etc…) and argue that violence is automatically what a conservative judiciary system says it is? i would really, strongly recommend THINKING FOR YOURSELF, instead of referring to the status quo as a defense without even analyzing it. “a bunch of politicians said so” is NOT an argument.

“Are the cops inherently violent? I hope so.”

uh, you hope the cops are violent? wow, i can’t imagine that you’ve ever actually had a run-in with them. since you’re so into quoting the objects of criticism, let’s look at ‘to protect and serve’ and see where violence is implicit in that.

“a violence authorized and supported by society that is subject to oversight and control.”

alright, let’s break this down. did you authorize them? did i? when was the last series of police elections or public referendums? hell, there isn’t even a false pretense of public influence over how the police operate.

who is this “society” who supports them? not, i would guess, people of color, working class people, or anyone else who is systematically targeted by the police force.

and what oversight or control are they subject to? the police are “overseen” by the police commissioner. they work on the same force for the same people. you might as well commission your own uncle to treat you without bias in a legal setting.

and if it’s so blatantly obvious, then, please enlighten me as to what the hell the message or purpose could possibly be of a “protest” or “act of resistance” which is only carried out under the compromise and supervision of the very entity that the participants are supposed to be protesting or resisting. explain that.

Stupid hippies.

“haha, yeah, that’s not how that works. point to the law that says that if my door is unlocked, my house is public.”

Ha ha indeed. That is how it works; it’s just that your house is not equivilant to a church basement. By open, I don’t mean “unlocked”; I mean it in the sense that all the public accomodation laws are written. Besides, journalists are allowed even freer range than the distinction between public and private. But then again, you don’t seem to like the idea of journalists period. You’d prefer propagandists; ones dedicated to your cause and subject to your editorial preferences. Hmmm, what current President of the United States does that remind you of?

And I didn’t say the legal system was perfect. I said it has come up with a pretty good definition of violence, which explicitly excludes the ridiculous notion that private property is equatable to a brick-to-the-head.

“not, i would guess, people of color, working class people, or anyone else who is systematically targeted by the police force.”

Are you fucking kidding me? You show me a resident of Ward 8 that doesn’t want more cops on his street. Of course there is a need to constantly be on guard for police brutality (e.g. the Rawlings case), but good luck finding anyone in Anacostia that doesn’t want a forceful police presence in their neighborhood.

“and if it’s so blatantly obvious, then, please enlighten me as to what the hell the message or purpose could possibly be of a “protest” or “act of resistance” which is only carried out under the compromise and supervision of the very entity that the participants are supposed to be protesting or resisting. explain that. ”

I couldn’t possibly explain it because I think your entire effort is a complete waste of time and DC’s resources. What’s the differnce between holding a sanctioned demostration and attempting a completely ridiculous attempt to “rebel” against Ambercrombie, or whatever. Neither will accomplish anything but to make the participants feel better about themselves. At least the former has the slightest glimmer of a chance of convincing people of the merits of their argument (but it won’t). The latter will neither achieve revolution nor convince anyone of any point other than the fact that too many middle class white kids have a guilt complex and have read too many misguided books that offer to assuage that guilt through the invigorating catharthis of fundamentalism. As in all fundamentalist groups, it is those lacking a strong sense of identity that fall most prey to the allure of brotherhood through confrontation.

Just be glad the worst you’ll ever be asked to do is spend a night in DC jail, not strap a suicide belt on.

umm… please cite the source of your idea that anacostia citizens want more cops on patrol. are you from anacostia? do you live there? where exactly are you getting this from?

also, i said specifically that journalists were, in fact, and important part of the action, and that my only qualm was their unannounced presence leading to legal vulnerability.

and as for the suicide belt comment, as badass as that might have seemed when you wrote it, that has nothing to do with this discussion at all. while you’re at it, go ahead and tell me that i hate your freedom.

and then, look up gentrification, neoliberalism, and racism. you’re in college, right? those are good terms to know.

That you would even need a citation to know that Ward 8 residents want more cops proves you don’t know shit about this town. Which makes sense, since you’re probably a local college student who is more concerned about reading the newest anarcha tract, or whatever, than taking an active interest in the city around you.

“journalists were, in fact, and important part of the action”

Again you’re still seeing journalists as part of your movement, which is why you feel offended when they expose the lame inner workings of your operations. Journalists should not be part of any action, because when they do become part of an action, they are no longer journalists, they are PR reps.

And is the suicide belt comment not germane? You claim to want to overthrow the state through lawless revolution. If you really cared about that, and were not just a poseur, you would strap on a suicide belt and take out some cops or relaxed-fit chinos, whichever it is that you’re so angry about.

And no I’m not in college. I graduated a long time ago. Which is exactly why I can see your group for what it is. A bunch of college kids looking to rebel who have grasped upon the empowering self-gratification of radicalism. Like I said, hopefully the worst thing you’ll face is a night or two in jail, which will be great essay fodder for your law school application once you move beyond your youthful rebellion phase to your “I’ll rebel within the system phase” which will soon pass into the mortgage payment phase. And before you know it, you’ll be engaged in some pointless discussion with some wide-eyed college student who will use phrases like anarcha-feminist and totally not be kidding, which will be incredibly amusing to you.

journalists were an important part of the action obviously means that press coverage was important the way that press coverage is important at ANY protest - it’s a public demonstration, the point is to have it reported on and talked about. i said nothing about journalists being part of “the movement.”

you’re obviously literate, try to respond to what i actually wrote.

and um, when people blow themselves up, they can’t exactly keep working for their cause, can they? because, you know, they’re dead and everything. logic, hmm.

and if you graduated so long ago, why bother trolling the undergrad student paper? you’re obviously above all of this, and the discussion itself was perfectly intellectual and civilized until you decided that the best way to display your post-grad maturity would be through generalizations, assumptions, and petty insults.

[...] neighborhood quaked as anti-IMF and World Bank protesters calling themselves the October Rebellion rolled down M Street and caused a ruckus. A young woman was hit in the face with a brick, but it was no Battle of [...]

[...] a short walk away, though, so you should go check out the controlled chaos of an anti-IMF march. I covered Disrupt Georgetown last year and nearly got arrested for it, so I’m uniquely qualified to show you a good time [...]

[...] the police asked them to stop using the drums, the protesters, incredibly, complied. What about the bricks, guys? Once the protesters decided not to make noise, the night became a peaceful midnight stroll [...]