G20 Protesters Blasted By "Sound Cannon"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/sep/25/sonic-cannon-g20-pittsburgh

by gasull • 17 years ago

21 31 17 years ago

guardian.co.uk

adriand2• 17 years ago

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.

sachinag4• 17 years ago

You are an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

PieSquared• 17 years ago

I find myself doing this so often.

Please, please, imagine yourself talking to someone and saying that.

You do not say, in real life, "You are an idiot [because you didn't know this fact]" to people you have never met before.

This is the Internet. There isn't enough civility on it anyway - at least do your part and don't detract from what exists.

abefortas• 17 years ago

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.

sachinag4• 17 years ago

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.

pmorici• 17 years ago

"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.

kf• 17 years ago

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

idm3• 17 years ago

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...

From Regulations (http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/police/assets/special_event...)

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?

vaksel4• 17 years ago

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.

idm3• 17 years ago

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.

christofd• 17 years ago

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

rms2• 17 years ago

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... The Tribune Review covers the broader security picture from the perspective of security organizers. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsbur... In the scheme of these things, let's be glad no one died.

G20 Protesters Blasted By "Sound Cannon"

Related Stories