

G20 Protesters Blasted By "Sound Cannon" - gasull
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/sep/25/sonic-cannon-g20-pittsburgh

======
idm
Here's a video from CMU TV of the sound cannon in action:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNcKexj2cYU>

I assume the reasoning goes: if you want to stand around, you need to have a
permit to do so... and you are free to apply for a permit, so there's your
freedom to peaceably assemble.

Here's what the Pittsburgh Police have to say about it:

[http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/html/spec_event_perm...](http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/html/spec_event_permit_app.html)

From Regulations
([http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/assets/special_event...](http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/assets/special_events_permit/Spec_Events_Regs_final_2009_fees_05-28-09.pdf))

II.k. First Amendment Activity. “First Amendment Activity” includes all
expressive and associative activity that is protected by the United States and
Pennsylvania Constitutions, including speech, press, assembly, and/or the
right to petition. For purposes of Chapter 471 and these Regulations,
commercial advertising that is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance or elsewhere
in the City Code is excluded from this definition.

II.p. Public Assembly. “Public Assembly” means a group activity including but
not limited to a demonstration, march, meeting, parade, protest, rally, or
vigil which involves the expression of opinions or grievances of persons for a
common purpose as a result of prior planning and which interferes or has a
tendency to interfere with the normal flow or regulation of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic upon the streets, parks, sidewalks, or other public grounds
within the City or does not comply with normal and usual traffic, regulations
or controls; or which occupies any public area open to the general public to
the exclusion of others.

So it seems like the kids standing around in the video would not have been
breaking the law if:

1) they were organized 2) someone applied 14 days in advance 3) they paid $125
for the application

But wait! On page 22, Exhibit A-3 provides examples:

"First amendment activity that does not constitute a Special Event (e.g. does
not block a sidewalk or close down a street). Example: Sidewalk protest in
front of the County Courthouse; Leafleting or gathering petition signatures on
Grant Street. Permit Required? No. Fee Required? No."

So, perhaps if those kids were standing on the grass instead of the sidewalk?
In that case, they wouldn't even need a permit. i.e. they wouldn't need
permission... i.e. they would be _free_ to assemble...

...and in fact, they would be free to assemble even if they were on a
sidewalk, according to Exhibit A-3.

So I'm confused here. In the video I linked, did they require permission to
stand around like that? Were they breaking any laws at all? Would it have
somehow been _more_ legal if they were organized, and had applied for a
permit?

Essentially, the question is: how could they have continued to stand around
without the police shooting them with the sound cannon?

EDIT: ...and another question: is it really freedom if you need permission?
For example, you never need to ask permission to say something, irrespective
of there potentially being consequences for certain kinds of speech (e.g.
slander, which might land you in court).

If your freedom to assemble is contingent upon anything (e.g. permission,
which isn't guaranteed) then it's not really "free as in libre," is it? ...and
if your freedom to assemble is contingent upon an application fee, then it's
not "free as in gratis" either. So is it free at all?

~~~
vaksel
pretty much you can peacefully assemble as long as noone causes trouble, the
second someone starts shit, you lose your right.

i.e. this whole thing started because a couple of anarchists lit a garbage can
on fire and rolled it towards the cops. At that point the cops pretty much got
open season to do whatever they could to everyone around. So a peaceful
protest of thousands of people can get disbanded because of a few assholes.
Which would make it obvious that getting a few provocateurs is the best way to
disband any protest you don't agree with.

~~~
idm
The "agent provocateurs" got a whole thread on the slashdot link - it's a
tactic that has been used more and more frequently, it seems. I was one of the
bloggers who identified the agents in the Quebec SPP protest (look up "put the
rock down man") - in that case, the ONLY violent actors were undercover police
officers. It ended up being pretty funny, in a gut wrenching sort of way, with
the protesters actually pacifying the police.

...but in the CMU TV video, there were no "anarchists." There were no burning
trash cans. That was a different part of town, on a different night.

~~~
vaksel
yeah that's what I meant, the rolling trash can happened across town, and the
cops used that as an excuse to crack down everywhere else

~~~
idm
Well - and I'm not implying that you necessarily subscribe to that
justification, but - I don't buy it.

There are already laws that grant the authority to shut down a town if it
erupts into riots. I can't cite those laws, but I bet the LA riots or
Hurricane Katrina would be cases where they were used.

~~~
rms
In this specific case, the action in Oakland, on the campus of the University
of Pittsburgh, on Thursday and then repeated almost exactly on Friday night,
unfolded because Schenley Plaza officially closes at 11PM. I have never heard
of this before and the Plaza certainly sees use after 11PM on a weekend night.

The protestors/students/bystanders were forced away from Schenley Plaza at
11PM, pushed deeper on campus. This led to an actual assault on the dorms of
the University of Pittsburgh. See this note about a poor, brave student
arrested for trying to keep her comrades safe from the police.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847898>

------
rms
I live in Pittsburgh, about a mile from the University of Pittsburgh. I have
an enormous amount of anger towards the police and the university
administration. The danger was created by the police and the university
administration bears responsibility for the failure to close the university
and adequately warn students about the dangerous police action. There's a
reason they call them less-lethal munitions.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=847898> is a note about a girl arrested
for holding the door to her dorm open. Really. Please read it; it's a good
one.

However, I have no anger with regards to the use of the LRAD device. It's
obviously a slippery slope (a greased volume control?), but it was used with
the volume all of the way down. The LRAD is safer and more effective than OC
gas, police batons, and rubber bullets. Unfortunately, on Thursday and Friday
nights, they stuck to the OC gas, batons, bullets, and lots of flex-cuffs.

I would be happy to answer specific questions about the G20 police action in
Pittsburgh. You can also see my comments on New Mogul. Also see my comments on
New Mogul. <http://www.newmogul.com/threads?id=rms>

The Post-Gazette has balanced coverage from the perspective of the
students/protesters/journalists. One of their journalists was arrested, along
with two from the Pitt News. [http://www.post-
gazette.com/pg/09270/1001203-53.stm?cmpid=MO...](http://www.post-
gazette.com/pg/09270/1001203-53.stm?cmpid=MOSTEMAILEDBOX) The Tribune Review
covers the broader security picture from the perspective of security
organizers.
[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsbur...](http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_645208.html)
In the scheme of these things, let's be glad no one died.

------
adriand
Barack Obama is fortunate that these demonstration repression technologies did
not exist during the time of Martin Luther King, because who knows if the
civil rights movement would ever have succeeded if they did.

~~~
abefortas
It's not a perfect comparison, but it's very true that civil rights protesters
were lucky not to face some of the "less lethal" weapons available now.

~~~
sachinag
Were lucky? I guarantee you they would much rather have had to deal with sound
cannons than the batons, dogs, and fire hoses that they did have to deal with.

~~~
vaksel
don't think so, batons/dogs/hoses put their struggle into a visual
perspective, you see a cop whaling on someone you'll start asking if the
reason they are doing it is justified.

You see someone running away from a sound cannon, you just shrug it off since
you aren't experiencing it yourself

~~~
JulianMorrison
Also, it may be harder to "tough it out" versus modern repression toys.

------
pmorici
"Officials of the company that manufactures the sound cannon say that ear
damage is only possible if someone manages to stand directly in front of the
device for an extended period."

So in other words they are trying to say if the protester gets hurt it's their
own fault not ours. That just seems wrong.

~~~
rms
That's an obvious lie, you suffer permanent hearing damage every time you go
to a rock concert without earplugs. I would strongly recommend fans of live
music invest in a pair of these. <http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/er20.aspx>

------
christofd
this isn't cool. in the last ten years civil rights have been diminished.

