Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The Deafening Silence

Watch this video, via Steve Hanson, of recent events at the State Capitol:



Those people weren't creating a disturbance. They weren't disrupting proceedings. They were sitting there peacefully. The fact that this is going on in Wisconsin, that this is going on anywhere in America, is simply intolerable and outrageous.

And for the conservatives and the Republicans who see this and have nothing to say, then I say to you that you have not one damn thing to say about the protesters at all, whether they be #wiunion or #occupy. Your deafening silence in this assault on the Constitution and on the principals of this country says more about you than any words could ever express.

While I cannot and do not condone some of the reported behaviors of some of the #occupy protesters, I would still rather stand with them than anyone who sees this and either condones it or accepts it in their silence.

And while your silence says everything I'd care to know about you, pictures are still worth a thousand words, silent or otherwise:


19 comments:

  1. Let the Sewing Machine Protest begin!

    Seriously, people shouldn't be removed if they are sitting quietly, unless there is some evidence of a threat to safety. I also think they should be allowed to film and take pictures, unless they are using a noisy camera or a flash. We do need to know what is happening in our state government and while some of the media has been good about reporting, some stations and newspapers have not written the full story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks capper:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, they seem dangerous and disruptive....I wonder if I taped a gun on my shirt if I would be ok under the concealed carry...that is a right they are interested in protecting just not free speech!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who is that guy in the hallway that one can see through the oval window?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Your deafening silence in this assault on the Constitution and on the principles of this country says more about you than any words could ever express. ... [Y]our silence says everything I'd care to know about you...."

    To be utterly, utterly fair, under the present circumstances we can't be sure they were SILENT rather than SILENCED.

    Even if they have written their objections to the newspapers, the newspapers (owned by conservatives) may not have published them. If they wrote to the same TV or radio stations they listen to, well, "ditto".

    If they tried posting comments on blogs where their conservative remarks had been welcome, my, how surprised they must have been when those more questioning comments simply disappeared.

    That happens even here, Chris. Your own supporters' comments vanish right off your blog. I think you've been hacked.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Free speech can be restricted in areas where government is doing work such as the state capital. Btw, the law in question was passed by a democrat state assembly. Hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Anonymous 8:46 - I have no idea who that is.

    @Anonymous 9:22 - Actually they were removed per orders of Walker's DOA, who changed the rules. Remember that whole legal struggle in the Madison courtroom earlier this year?

    ReplyDelete
  8. There shouldn't be protesting inside the capital building just like there is no protesting inside of a courtroom, police station, or military base. These are places were the public sector has been tasked by taxpayers to get work done.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They were not preventing any work to be done. Obviously, the Republican legislators didn't wanted to be reminded that the people are watching and that they, the legislators, are violating the Constitution.

    The fact that you support these fascists acts says more about you than anything else. Sorry, it's still America and we are still a free people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Explain why signs are prohibited from courtrooms. If you can explain why these are different scenarios, then you have no case.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I meant to say if you cannot explain . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. As soon as you explain why you can have signs at a football stadium but not in a church.

    That has to be the most ridiculous attempt at a false choice as I've seen in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Your deafening silence in this assault on the Constitution and on the principles of this country says more about you than any words could ever express. ... [Y]our silence says everything I'd care to know about you...."

    To be utterly, utterly fair, under the present circumstances we can't be sure they were SILENT rather than SILENCED.

    Even if they have written their objections to the newspapers, the newspapers (owned by conservatives) may not have published them. If they called or wrote to the same TV or radio stations they listen to, well, "ditto".

    If they tried posting comments on blogs where their conservative remarks had been welcome, my, how surprised they must have been when those more questioning comments simply disappeared.

    That happens even here, Chris. Your own supporters' comments vanish right off your blog, while hostile or argumentative comments like the above remain. I think you've been hacked.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's only been happening to you, Raven. I would suspect that maybe there was a glitch with your server or something. But at least this one stayed up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree the citizens who attend the meetings should not interrupt. I think they should be able to film the proceedings if the constitution says they can. That way more people can blog about what is going on and we can find out more about our beautiful state!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Capper, it can't have been *my* server's glitch: all those comments had date-and-time stamps, my smiling face, and showed up in the "Cognitions" count on the article and main pages — then disappeared from said same later on. Those features are all located on your server, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous: what is the functional difference between a text printed on a T-shirt and a text on a page pinned to a T-shirt?

    As I recall, it's established case law going back to the 1960s that wearing text on T-shirts is a protected form of free speech. Students in (government-run) high schools and colleges were among the plaintiffs who successfully objected to government attempts to control citizens' visibly worn expressions of opinion — worn anywhere other clothing is normally worn.

    Similar rulings covered huge wooden "sandwich signs" and protest "picket signs" on sidewalks — but here we're discussing text the size of a T-shirt imprint, worn at the location of a T-shirt imprint... so how is that more objectionable than an imprinted T-shirt?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Raven, I don't look to the Walker Dept of Administration to make fine distinctions of law -- they have a hard enough time understanding the law as it is.

    Re: disturbing the Assembly: my understanding is that these people are in the gallery, which is not visible to the members of the Assembly who are in their chairs. The only people who can see them are the presiding officer and anyone else at the front.

    I'd say they need to learn some deep calming breaths so they are not disturbed by seeing actual citizens in the gallery. The signs surely are not even legible from the front of the chambers. Could it be that one or two of them (Kleefisch perhaps?) actually knows some of the statutory and constitutional rights the protestors have written on their signs? Could any of them have guilty consciences?

    Nah.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Raven,

    Do you have a link so I can confirm?

    ReplyDelete