ModernDemagogue

So I get protesting a lot of things that are wrong with our society, but I don't understand why you protested this?

On July 6th, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a verdict upholding the law, the previous injunction was lifted, and then arrests etc made.

This ordinance seems to have been written at the behest of the local community because the event was increasing vagrant and homeless traffic in the neighborhood. Now, while that is not a very neighborly way to behave, people have a right to make laws that are not unconstitutional; while perhaps there should be a higher standard, in this country, none exists.

As to Police discretion, in this case, I'm not sure that they have any such option. Generally an Officer can exercise discretion when there is no obvious harm to the State or another member of society, for example speeding tickets, etc... They can also mediate on site between two opposing parties and propose a solution amicable to both parties, in lieu of handing out arrests etc...

But, when a harmed complainant requests an action (filing a report, opening an investigation, making an arrest where there's enough evidence to support it) the Police have to comply. Similarly, if a neighborhood has had an issue with something so much so that they have gotten a law enacted, and then likely communicated to the Mayor and others that they expect it enforced, the Police are likely instructed not to use discretion, and if they're given a legal order, they have to follow it or be out of a job — that's why they're called the Police: Policy Enforcement.

To me, the issue is not the Police, but a citizenry which would ask for such a law, as well as Mayors, City Councilmen, and others, who would see it enforced; and thus the Police are not the ones which need to be targeted.

Additionally, it strikes me that it would be fairly easy for the Church and Food Not Bombs to not be in violation of the ordinance. 1) Apply for a damn permit, if refused initiate a legal battle on the grounds of refusal, 2) Claim they weren't expecting more than 25 people, 3) Put up some fucking signs that make it clear what the speech is given that was one of the criteria stated in the 11th circuits ruling

I know nothing about the area; its economics, its demographics, but in NYC there are things you can do in Parks, and things you cannot do, and almost any organized event requires a Permit; and if you do it without a Permit, you get arrested. Some parks you're even extorted into paying fees for, and you always have to appear before a Community Board as well as the Parks Department. If you tried to do this in Central Park, you would be arrested within minutes — only potentially in the Barrio in Queens where everyone was cool with it would you get away with it.

I seem to share a lot of your political views, ie End The Fed and things like that, so I just don't get why you would take issue with this.

Why not get a permit? Why not feed them at the Church?

Edit: If anyone would like to read the text of the law: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:00ylHtIhFboJ:www.baynews9.com/static/articles/images/2010/Chapter_18A-1.doc+City.+Code+of+the+City+of+Orlando+§+18A.09-2&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgq8hMzWP6lic46lMTjSEFbI3o3Ge2XbKqGavfmDRlIB1Al8UO5ddmqx_X01zZoXRW8RXQznv0l0Iu1Qd1FkaIrdRVkOslzCG-uNaMif2osgX4lb-nxURyVlhbZVCP-fRZS9EJI&sig=AHIEtbSe-7V4HoW2fvtOh_ELgTNjH03oLQ

It actually seems reasonable to me, the City is open to other options,

You have repeatedly defied the rule of western law. You lied about US activities in Iraq when you edited and titled a video "Collateral Murder" to misrepresent a lawful and responsible military engagement. You skipped bond in the UK when detained on sexual misconduct charges and processed for extradition. You assisted Bradley Manning in circumventing US security protocols and therefore committed espionage under US law. You have repeatedly lied about your actions, Wikileaks actions, as well as your legal case.

Why should you even be allowed to speak? If you cannot be bothered to adhere to our social contracts, why do you feel entitled to speech protections created by and enshrined in these social contracts?

Why should we trust anything a notoriously unreliable and faithless actor such as yourself says?

More gravely, at what point should the US consider you a hostile foreign actor and retaliate with military force? Do you indeed have some cache of documents of significant value protecting your continued well-being?

Finally, could you clarify and explain your and Wikileaks relationship with Russia's information services, as well as Vladimir Putin? Your repeated attacks on Western institutions without attack against Russian power-centers make you appear to be a Russian agent and I would appreciate you clarifying your position. Is there no corruption worth exposing in Russia?

Thanks!

Why do you think there should be internet freedom? Why do you believe it is important?

While bills like SOPA/PIPA were not perfect, I think that the idea of freedom of information (which is a component of the movement for a free internet) is inherently at odds with a capitalist economic system constrained by the physical scarcity of resources in the real world. A free internet made sense when it was for education and non-profit. Now that it is primarily used for commercial purposes, it needs to be regulated, and the government has the constitutional justification to do so.

Furthermore, governments, and laws, inherently restrict freedoms but often do so in a good and productive way. Many laws are bad laws, but most laws are by and large good laws, and keep our society functioning.

How do you propose to reconcile these realities? Often I just hear, oh, lawmakers don't understand how the internet, or technology, works. But as a young, technologically savvy, highly educated individual, who absolutely understands how the internet works, I just can't get on board with that. You appear to be advocating a type of internet libertarianism, and frankly, I think a lot of what goes on on the internet and has become status quo, should be or should have been made illegal a long time ago. Do you have any thoughts on this?

What are the economics of being the host of digital shows? Is the revenue actually there on shows like that to make a decent living?

The first difference is consent. Like most things in life, gathering information about someone with their consent is not very similar to doing it without their consent. In this case, the NSA's been doing things without consent, lying to keep it secret, and even sabotaging and breaking digital locks to do what they're doing.

But this just isn't true. You give consent when you use a cell phone system. You have no right to the air-waves, they're FCC controlled. Are we challenging this now too? You can use your own encryption systems, which you create, you can use. Internet cables pass through public commons and there never has been any expectation of privacy of unencrypted communication on the internet; only on landline phones, and even then, the meta data is not protected, only the content. I do not see how you make a distinction between consent in this case.

The second difference is that Facebook and Twitter don't have jails and police forces.

And the Police abuse their power as well. Often more than the NSA it seems. Why the outrage over the NSA, when you are much more likely to end up harmed by a Cop on a power trip?

By the way, that whole "discovering information a different way thing." You should look into Eliot Spitzer, and where they actually got that mysterious FBI Agent's Notepad naming him as Client 11. I'd say the NSA was likely involved in order to remove a Governor who would be deeply unfriendly in an economic crisis. Prove that, and you'll have plenty of support for your agenda.