Is the Notion of Public Space a Myth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Creighto
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of public space and its accessibility for protests, questioning whether true public space exists given the requirement for permits. Participants argue that if permits are needed, the space is effectively private or government-controlled, limiting the right to protest. Civil disobedience is highlighted as a historical means of enacting social change, suggesting that some protests may need to occur without permits to challenge the status quo. The debate also touches on the balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of the general public to use shared spaces. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a tension between regulation and the fundamental right to assemble peacefully.
  • #31
Granted, there are always differences in scale, culture, government, etc... but I find it interesting how we'd likely cheer for foreign protestors/youth to be as stubborn as possible in their movement when it's an ocean away (and they're not using it as an excuse to loot, of course).

But then the perception changes when it's in our back yard as we take more of a "Go Home, Already" attitude for the sake of public order. I'm kind of having the same opinion personally as I'd rather they opted for more constructive strategies, but if I were on the outside looking in then I might actually be more supportive of them stubbornly putting their "bodies upon the gears".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Mf9j8co70
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
ginru said:
But then the perception changes when it's in our back yard as we take more of a "Go Home, Already" attitude for the sake of public order.

Well, apart from this forum, I looked at Bloomberg's coverage of the event and the sympathy (from government, business, even wall-street) outweighed the negative remarks. To be honest, I found the both the event pretty decent and handled pretty well by the police.
 
  • #33
Echo 6 Sierra said:
I agree somewhat but had they better organization along with a more clear and concise argument of exactly what they felt needed to be changed (so we would all know) would you be more willing or able to tolerate their actions?

We accepted it without complaint for a month. That's actually pretty patient. The point is, demonstrating is only one step. If they are going to mean something they need to move past the demonstrating step and start talking.

A child who holds his breath until he turns blue may do so to get someone to pay attention to him - which is fine. But if someone asks what he's upset about, he'd better do something more than just keep holding his breath. He must learn to use his words.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
The point is, demonstrating is only one step. If they are going to mean something they need to move past the demonstrating step and start talking.

I fell about laughing when I heard an BBC interview with one of the London protest organisers, about the time they were being served with eviction notices.

She agreed with DaveC 100%, and described at length how they were setting up focus groups, working parties, subcommittees, etc, and planning to issue a policy document at some (unknown) future date.

Er, I thought these people were tring to change the way "the system" works (or doesn't work) ... :confused:
 
  • #35
I remember an offhand comment recently from one of the psudo-leaders/kingpins/adhoc chiefs of OWS mentioning about how hard is has been to reach consensus on what he thought were 'basic issues' of the movement and the journalist commented on the clip: 'now you know what it's like to be in government'.

The OWS croud have attempted to 'claim' public spaces as their own. I'd argue the exact opposite of the premise that the OP presented. The OWS folks are abusing the generocity of many organizations (governments and private park owners) right now, and it really suprises me that it's taken this long for evictions. The parks with these occupy campsites are unusable by other patrons. These groups have forced themselves into a public space and are not letting others make use of them. I wonder how many folks are dislocated that had a routine in Zucotti Park? How is one group monopolizing a public space making good use of it?

Without the public use laws that regulate these public spaces, what prevents me from putting up a structure in the middle of a National Park and living there? The occupy protests aren't much different.
 
  • #36
mege said:
I remember an offhand comment recently from one of the psudo-leaders/kingpins/adhoc chiefs of OWS mentioning about how hard is has been to reach consensus on what he thought were 'basic issues' of the movement and the journalist commented on the clip: 'now you know what it's like to be in government'.

The OWS croud have attempted to 'claim' public spaces as their own. I'd argue the exact opposite of the premise that the OP presented. The OWS folks are abusing the generocity of many organizations (governments and private park owners) right now, and it really suprises me that it's taken this long for evictions. The parks with these occupy campsites are unusable by other patrons. These groups have forced themselves into a public space and are not letting others make use of them. I wonder how many folks are dislocated that had a routine in Zucotti Park? How is one group monopolizing a public space making good use of it?

Without the public use laws that regulate these public spaces, what prevents me from putting up a structure in the middle of a National Park and living there? The occupy protests aren't much different.

When the "movement" was a handful of protestors camped out in a park - it really wasn't much of a concern to public safety or a health concern. However, now that the SEIU and other organizers have stepped into promote and coordinate events - the crowds should be much larger and will require greater controls - won't they?

http://www.seiu.org/

Given the source please label the next link - IMO.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/11/seiu-president-arrested-as-occupy-wall.html
"The president of the very politically active union, SEIU, was arrested last night at the base of the Brooklyn Bridge, while she was participating in the Occupy Wall Street protest.

Mary Kay Henry was arrested along with George Gresham, the president of 1199 S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East, and Kevin Doyle, the executive vice president of S.E.I.U. 32BJ.

Wearing white shirts emblazoned with “99%,” the three were among a group of 99 people who staged a sit-in at about 6 p.m. said the spokeswoman, Leah Gonzalez of S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East, according to NYT.

It appears that this radical union, which also had many rank and file SEIU members at the protest, is attempting to gain influence with the occupiers.

Of note, former SEIU president Andy Stern was at the White House 22 times in the first six months of the Obama Administration, making him its most frequent visitor."
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K