The Occupiers Are Thugs And Criminals, Not Protesters And Demonstrators

I agree with Charles Cooke.

In Oakland, Occupy Wall Street protesters fought with police officers after vandalizing and breaking into City Hall, then attempting to take over a closed-down convention center. Yet, in the media reports about this violence, the occupiers are almost invariably described as “demonstrators” or “protesters.”

Demonstrations and protests are protected under the 1st amendment. Acts of civil disobedience are not necessarily protected but are often seen in a sympathetic light by the public at large. But these actions by the occupiers are not the sort of protests or demonstrations that fall under protected speech, nor is there anything “civil” about them.

These are rioters we’re talking about. Vandals and trespassers, thugs and looters.

Protests and demonstrations are inherently noble pursuits. Those words should not be tarnished by association with violent criminals who try to hide by hide our nation’s liberal allowances for speech while assaulting the property rights (among others) of their fellow citizens.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

    They are terrorist dirt bags.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    low life liberals , social parasites and obama voters

  • 2hotel9

    Freedom of speech does not include stealing, assault, rape, vandalism, and “occupying” the private property of law abiding citizens. Period. Full stop.

  • $8194357

    Cloward/Piven cannon fodder for the “cause”.

  • D E Sullivan

    Greetings:

    I live in the San Francisco Bay area, a couple of soviets south of what the locals refer to, for what ever reason, as “The City”, so I’ve had a bit of a catbird seat on the local “OCCUPY” activities. My conclusion is that a moniker more accurate than “protesters” or “demonstrators” would be “passive-aggressive civil disruptors”, but, hey, I realize that that’s kind of lengthy and, after all, this is the “Age of Spin”. If the country ever needed a long-running example of how “all animals are equal; some animals are more equal”, the PACDs have certainly provided it. I haven’t quite concluded who’s spending more time alternating between being back on their heel or tip-toeing through the tulips, the police or the media. They both seem determined to fulfill the wishes of their socio-political bosses at the expense of the commerce and free travel of the citizenry and in the furtherance of their careers.

    And, if you’re still with me, may I add a bit about “civil disobedience”? Back in America 1.0, when I was learning about it, it seemed that a crucial part that established its morality, was the submission to the legal consequences of the disobedience. That seems to have, how shall I say it, expired in the crush of life in the much more progressive America 2.0. It seems to me that our political rulers, especially in my environs, have degraded that aspect to the point where certain demonstrators seem to have established a “contract” of sorts that precludes any sort of dissuading consequence for their (repeated) behaviors. Act out on Saturday, get in and out of jail on Sunday, and, hey, it’s like being away for the weekend.

    • Roy_Bean

      I hate to sound like a broken record here but there is a method to the madness.  A government that wants to take away freedoms will always have trouble doing that if all is well in the land.  The best way to accomplish it is to get the people to ask for less freedom and never let a good crisis go to waste.  A huge example was 9-11, no one saw or really could have seen that comming but on 9-12 the entire population was asking for less freedom when they traveled.  Now 10 years later we have rioting in the streets, vandalism to public buildings, private buildings, churches, etc. and the Obama administration will not condemn it or offer to help.  They see a good crisis developing and they really don’t want to waste it by stepping in too soon.  Eventually the people will ask for less freedom of assembly, less freedom of speech, less freedom of the press, restrictions on the internet and the Obama administration will be right there to oblige.  This isn’t new, it’s happened before in other countries and it will happen here if we let it. 

      • two_amber_lamps

        “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
        –Karl Marx

      • $8194357

        (  They see a good crisis developing and they really don’t want to waste it )

        IMO, a “manufactured crisis” with Soros written all over it..
        Funny how the “all powerful” federal soviet came into being after the “manufacture crisis” of the “crash of 29″ and the spend your way out of difficulty economics for the next 10-12 years, no?
        Coincidence? I think not..

  • Howiseeit

    It does not appear that Obama objects to this type of behavior.  If you vote for this man you can accept personal responsibilty for enabling it.  Our Police Officers deserve a much better leader than Obama. 

    • $8194357

      Our military as well.

  • suitepotato

    We less need sex offender registries than we need society offender registries. These people should have their names, addresses, school and work histories, and offenses posted publicly. If they want to skip college or jobs to play at being criminals in the streets to make themselves feel powerful, let them pay the price for it. Let them lose the opportunities and cushy lives they’ve risked to be ingrate assholes. Let it follow them around for the rest of their lives. Let those who didn’t act like this have the opportunities that otherwise would have been theirs. Let them have the poverty they claim they suffer but really don’t. You want to call having $200 sneakers, $300 coats, $600 iPads, and $400 iPhones while going to $50,000 a year colleges poverty and then assault cops and destroy property belonging to the public trust? Fine, you deserve to see what real poverty is. But first, a lengthy prison term.

Top