[subego]

"You're brave enough to have an opinion, but not brave enough to show us your face?"

"Are you kidding? Why should I let the government identify me and put me on a list of undesirables?"


The NATO summit is going on right next door, so we've heard this argued a bunch of times over the past few days.

What's MacNN's opinion?

[gradient]

I think it's fairly irrelevant, tbh. Whether or not someone has the balls to face the repercussions of voicing their beliefs doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of their beliefs.

[subego]

Perhaps, but isn't a protest about more than merely declaring your beliefs to be valid?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Seems kind of klanish to me

[lpkmckenna]

I have mixed feelings about masks at protests.

Before the era of ubiquitous public surveillance, participating in a public protest was effectively anonymous. Now, with all the cameras, our right to protest has been tainted. Masks restore the anonymity that we once had.

Moreover, masked anonymous protesting is the only way for some people to protest at all. For instance, if not for the Guy Fawkes masks used to protest Scientology centres, it would be impossible for people being oppressed by the hateful institution to participate.

But it's very clear that masks are being used by some very bad people to commit crimes during protests. I read a horrible story from the other day that masked students in Montreal were entering classrooms, spray painting the walls, and verbally-assaulting their fellow students, and there were complaints that women were being grabbed by masked protestors and being dragged out of the classroom. And there are reports of Molotov cocktails and of course fires and window-breaking.

But this is an intractable problem for protesting. Trouble-makers will always use protests as a screen for lawless behaviour. How do we protect the right to protest while still deterring lawlessness?

I think making masked protesting illegal is a very dangerous track. I think laws against masked protesting should be activated only after hooliganism has manifested itself at that particular protest. Montreal has clearly reached that point already, but a different protest should be free to employ them, up until it becomes an issue there. I think that's a reasonable balance.

The Harper Gov't is considering legislation that will ban masked protesting in all instances. I think that's out of line. But given what's happened at the G20 summit and now in Quebec, the Conservatives will probably have the public support for this law. Then it will go to the Supreme Court, as it should.

And a law against masks will be pointless if hooligans just start wearing fake facial hair, hats, and wigs. And that way, they won't be easily identifiable as potential trouble-makers, and things will be worse.

[subego]

Whatever I feel about my question from the OP, I feel the notion of making it illegal is so out of line it never occurred to me as a possibility.

[andi*pandi]

laws against masked protesting - masked = laws against protesting

[gradient]

Originally Posted by subego 

Perhaps, but isn't a protest about more than merely declaring your beliefs to be valid?

It's about showing support for those beliefs, yes. If we consider that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, then does it matter if we can put names to the faces?

That being said, I've been to protests and have never covered my face as it doesn't quite feel right to me personally, but I can respect that some people, depending on their personal and work situations, can face unfortunate blow-back if it were known that they took part in a protest against policy X, where their family and/or employers support the policy.

The problem is the trouble-makers, of course. I have zero respect for those types, but don't have anything really productive to suggest on how to go about weeding them out that wouldn't infringe on the rights of the honest, law abiding citizens (which make up the vast majority, obviously).

[gradient]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

laws against masked protesting - masked = laws against protesting

Eh?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Eh?

laws against masked protesting - masked = laws against masked protesting

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

"You're brave enough to have an opinion, but not brave enough to show us your face?"

You mean most forum posters?

[ghporter]

Protest with Guy Fawkes mask (or a Nixon mask, or a Captain America mask) and you make one statement. Protest in a ski mask, and you make a VERY different statement.

To be honest, if you're afraid that "the government" will put you on a list or something for being at a protest, wouldn't that same logic lead you to believe that they're tracking all avenues to that protest, and notice you when you put on the mask? The whole anti-government paranoia thing seems to be very selective and very poorly thought out, especially in this sort of case.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

"You're brave enough to have an opinion, but not brave enough to show us your face?"

"Are you kidding? Why should I let the government identify me and put me on a list of undesirables?"


The NATO summit is going on right next door, so we've heard this argued a bunch of times over the past few days.

What's MacNN's opinion?

Emotionally, I seem to knee-jerk to it negatively (what are they hiding?) but upon further reflection, we value our ability to participate in democracy with anonymity, so why not protesting?

[subego]

**** corporate America!

And the police!

Yes I would like fries with that!

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Emotionally, I seem to knee-jerk to it negatively (what are they hiding?) but upon further reflection, we value our ability to participate in democracy with anonymity, so why not protesting?

I certainly don't begrudge them the right, but I think the knee-jerk reaction is noteworthy.

I think if the goal of a protest is to win hearts and minds, emotional reactions are worth noting.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think if the goal of a protest is to win hearts and minds, emotional reactions are worth noting.

This is the kind of thinking that gives us the shitty political system we have today, though. You'll pardon me if I set my personal standards higher than my own gut reactions.

[subego]

That's asking a lot.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's asking a lot.

I'm sure i could say the same of some of your positions on other issues. On this you want to be more practical. On others you deem principle more valuable. Or am I mistaken?

[subego]

Am I abandoning principle here? That's an honest question.

My key principle is letting people do what they want. You would never catch me trying to make it illegal, and I'd seriously go to the mat for people's rights to do it.

OTOH, I have a secondary principle of being for effective communication, regardless of whether I agree with what's being communicated. I think a non-masked protestor is going to communicate their position more effectively to pretty much anyone. I think it's asking a lot for someone to trust a faceless opinion.

Somewhat in regards to hytecit's point (which was an excellent one) I don't consider much of the communication which goes on here to be faceless in anything but the strictest definition, in the same way a masked protestor wouldn't really be faceless if I were to have 10 years worth of debate with them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Am I abandoning principle here? That's an honest question.

I didn't say abandoning. However you're making the messenger more important the message.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

laws against masked protesting - masked = laws against masked protesting

I understand the implication of the original statement, I just question the logic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't say abandoning. However you're making the messenger more important the message.

Well, here's a perfect example.

I chose the word "abandoned" off-the-cuff. I didn't feel like you were attacking me or were being accusatory, but I chose a word which made it sound like I thought you were.

IOW, my message didn't mean dick in the face (heh) of my failure as a messenger.

[subego]

Originally Posted by gradient 

I understand the implication of the original statement, I just question the logic.

Slippery slope?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, here's a perfect example.

I chose the word "abandoned" off-the-cuff. I didn't feel like you were attacking me or were being accusatory, but I chose a word which made it sound like I thought you were.

IOW, my message didn't mean dick in the face (heh) of my failure as a messenger.

Terrible example. You're equating your inability to properly transmit your message with the superficial appearance of the person transmitting a message. If you can't get your message right, it doesn't matter if you're a well-groomed, well-dressed middle-class american or some fat shlomo in a gimp suit.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Protest with Guy Fawkes mask (or a Nixon mask, or a Captain America mask) and you make one statement. Protest in a ski mask, and you make a VERY different statement.

To be honest, if you're afraid that "the government" will put you on a list or something for being at a protest, wouldn't that same logic lead you to believe that they're tracking all avenues to that protest, and notice you when you put on the mask? The whole anti-government paranoia thing seems to be very selective and very poorly thought out, especially in this sort of case.

I agree. And I think that, in general, if what you're doing is illegal enough to warrant the use of a mask to protect your identity, then you're doing it wrong.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Terrible example. You're equating your inability to properly transmit your message with the superficial appearance of the person transmitting a message. If you can't get your message right, it doesn't matter if you're a well-groomed, well-dressed middle-class american or some fat shlomo in a gimp suit.

I'm not equating the mechanism, I'm equating the outcome.

[andi*pandi]

If we let laws about how we dress at protests become the norm, if we allow someone to tell us how to express ourselves, we are giving away one more facet of freedom. Just as terrorists have ruined air travel, petty hooligans who wear masks to commit crimes will ruin public gatherings. Why do we legislate the trappings, when there are already laws on the books against hooligan behavior (vandalism, theft, violence).

If guns don't kill people, then neither do masks, costumes, and wacky sunglasses.

Am I the only one who's read Vonnegut? No? Can noone else see a world where you have to show up in a grey-striped prison uniform to a "Publik Protest", sign in with your government ID on a razorblade covered thumb scanner, and then chant from the list of only 5 government pre-approved slogans for 15 minutues? And then a bell rings and everyone slogs back to the grey-striped factories?

No?

Perhaps that was a movie I read once.

[subego]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I agree. And I think that, in general, if what you're doing is illegal enough to warrant the use of a mask to protect your identity, then you're doing it wrong.

I've been to protests and marches where the numerous people in masks did nothing illegal.

This isn't just what I saw, this is the police reporting there were zero incidents.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not equating the mechanism, I'm equating the outcome.

...and I'm saying you're missing the point.

[subego]

Which is?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which is?

What the previous post said. You can ignore the mechanism, but that seems like a large thing to overlook.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by subego 

Slippery slope?

I guess, but I have a really hard time buying a slippery slope argument in this context. Any western government that tried to ban protesting would be in for a world of hurt. I just can't see it happening.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Protest with Guy Fawkes mask (or a Nixon mask, or a Captain America mask) and you make one statement. Protest in a ski mask, and you make a VERY different statement.

To be honest, if you're afraid that "the government" will put you on a list or something for being at a protest, wouldn't that same logic lead you to believe that they're tracking all avenues to that protest, and notice you when you put on the mask? The whole anti-government paranoia thing seems to be very selective and very poorly thought out, especially in this sort of case.

What message you're sending is irrelevant. The 1st amendment protects the right to send a message period. It protects against the government being able to dictate what sorts of messages are being sent. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater by dictating how people must dress at a protest - even if we don't like their message.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What the previous post said. You can ignore the mechanism, but that seems like a large thing to overlook.

That depends on the scope of the claim one is trying to make.

The scope of my claim is you can't really separate the message from the messenger. I'd say the masked protestor and my mischosen word are both examples of this.

If the point I was trying to make was "some people are huge assholes", I could come up with wildly different mechanisms for why person A is a huge asshole versus person B, however the difference in mechanisms has no bearing on the validity of the claim.

If anything, the vast quantity of mechanisms by which one can reach the same result is evidence for validity of the claim.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

or some fat shlomo in a gimp suit.

You know, I think you mean schmoe or schlub. Shlomo is a name.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by gradient 

I understand the implication of the original statement, I just question the logic.

I'm pretty sure it was just a dumb joke. I got a chuckle out of it.

You are just over-thinking it.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've been to protests and marches where the numerous people in masks did nothing illegal.

This isn't just what I saw, this is the police reporting there were zero incidents.

That's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that if you're a protestor who wears a mask to conceal your identity out of fear of getting caught, you're doing it wrong. If you're wearing a mask to make a statement, that's a different story.

[stupendousman]

Protest is freedom of speech. We have the right to protest. However, that right does not exempt us from any being judged by others for that speech.

Newspapers do not allow anonymous letter's to the editor for this reason. People will say and do outrageous things if they have the assumption that no one will know that they are responsible. The Klan is a great example. If you don't have the courage of your convictions enough to stand behind your "speech," then you have nothing worthy of protection and it's clear that your goal is to be disruptive instead of standing on your personal principles. Like "fire" in a crowded building, you have no protection from actions designed to be disruptive which is why there laws against this sort of thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

"You're brave enough to have an opinion, but not brave enough to show us your face?"

"Are you kidding? Why should I let the government identify me and put me on a list of undesirables?"

"I don't like tear gas"

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What message you're sending is irrelevant. The 1st amendment protects the right to send a message period. It protects against the government being able to dictate what sorts of messages are being sent. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater by dictating how people must dress at a protest - even if we don't like their message.

I didn't say I was for banning masked protestors, but rather that I see a major difference in what their presence says about their messages. I'd like to see a crowd of people (both sexes) protesting at the Republican convention, all wearing dresses to show solidarity with women and fighting against rolling back the gains in equality women have gleaned over the last several decades (which I think is at the heart of some Republican "ideals"). That would truly be a "message."

But wearing a mask specifically to hide one's identity really should be reserved for a situation where there is really a chance that being identified (in a PEACEFUL protest) would be harmful to the individual. Make the mask's message fit the issue. Otherwise one would look like just another crackpot that probably wears a foil beanie at home...

[subego]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

That's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that if you're a protestor who wears a mask to conceal your identity out of fear of getting caught, you're doing it wrong. If you're wearing a mask to make a statement, that's a different story.

I apologize if I'm misreading you here, but I don't think the people I saw in masks were making a statement, and I dont think they were worried about being "caught", since they didn't do anything illegal.

What they wanted to do (I presume, we didn't chat) is not get on a list of people government agencies feel it's appropriate to spy on.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"I don't like tear gas"

I've never been gassed, but my assumption is a bandana in bandit configuration is nowhere near as effective as crumpling it and holding it in front of your mouth and nose.

I'd imagine neither is as effective as a disposable painter's mask, which you can put on once the canisters start flying.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That depends on the scope of the claim one is trying to make.

The scope of my claim is you can't really separate the message from the messenger. I'd say the masked protestor and my mischosen word are both examples of this.

I don't see how. My entire problem with your previous post was you chose the wrong words, not who you were. I immediately separated the message from the messenger.

Anyway, if our perspectives on how this should be handled differ, I'm not sure what more there is to gain here.

Originally Posted by subego 

You know, I think you mean schmoe or schlub. Shlomo is a name.

Oh boy. Shlomo makes me think of the three stooges. I always assumed it was an insult. Also, does anyone even name their kids shlomo?

Learn something new every day.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Anyway, if our perspectives on how this should be handled differ, I'm not sure what more there is to gain here.

I'm not sure we even got to how things should be handled.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Also, does anyone even name their kids shlomo?

Yiddish is both a blessing and a curse.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure we even got to how things should be handled.

As in judging the message or the messenger.

Originally Posted by subego 

Yiddish is both a blessing and a curse.

Mostly a curse. I can't believe that's a name. If anything itshould work both ways, like Buddy or Joe.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

As in judging the message or the messenger.

We're in rough agreement I think in terms of the ideal being to separate them. I know it's something I personally bend over backwards to try and do. Especially with some of the schmucks who hang out here.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Mostly a curse. I can't believe that's a name. If anything itshould work both ways, like Buddy or Joe.

Putz
Shpritz
Gevalt
Shpilkes
Schmaltz
Klutz
Shtick
Schmuck
Farklempt
Shiksa
Shmutz
Drek
Shlep
Chutzpah
Shtup
Nebbish
Schlub
Kibbitz
Farkakte
Schmoe
Nudnik
Meshugene
Shmooze

If Shlomo Lipschitz has to suffer so I get these words, then so be it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If Shlomo Lipschitz has to suffer so I get these words, then so be it.

Anti-semite.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I have mixed feelings about masks at protests.

Before the era of ubiquitous public surveillance, participating in a public protest was effectively anonymous. Now, with all the cameras, our right to protest has been tainted. Masks restore the anonymity that we once had.

Moreover, masked anonymous protesting is the only way for some people to protest at all. For instance, if not for the Guy Fawkes masks used to protest Scientology centres, it would be impossible for people being oppressed by the hateful institution to participate.

But it's very clear that masks are being used by some very bad people to commit crimes during protests. I read a horrible story from the other day that masked students in Montreal were entering classrooms, spray painting the walls, and verbally-assaulting their fellow students, and there were complaints that women were being grabbed by masked protestors and being dragged out of the classroom. And there are reports of Molotov cocktails and of course fires and window-breaking.

But this is an intractable problem for protesting. Trouble-makers will always use protests as a screen for lawless behaviour. How do we protect the right to protest while still deterring lawlessness?

I think making masked protesting illegal is a very dangerous track. I think laws against masked protesting should be activated only after hooliganism has manifested itself at that particular protest. Montreal has clearly reached that point already, but a different protest should be free to employ them, up until it becomes an issue there. I think that's a reasonable balance.

The Harper Gov't is considering legislation that will ban masked protesting in all instances. I think that's out of line. But given what's happened at the G20 summit and now in Quebec, the Conservatives will probably have the public support for this law. Then it will go to the Supreme Court, as it should.

And a law against masks will be pointless if hooligans just start wearing fake facial hair, hats, and wigs. And that way, they won't be easily identifiable as potential trouble-makers, and things will be worse.

Wow we have the same opinion. Like already said before the days of cameras it was safe to protest in the open. Today with all the cameras around and in the case of some organizations like ICBC having face recognition software to match people to protests it becomes a valid point to mask up to protect identity. Harper is going further then just making it illegal to use masks at protests, they are also looking at laws to monitor cell phones in protest areas to link back to protesters as well.

Vancouver has had its share of violent protests over the years, same with Seattle. In fact the majority of the masked anarchist bounce between Vancouver and Seattle for protests with the goal of violence and damage. Its those few select people that cause all the negativity around mask protesters. During the Olympic Protests in Vancouver, the WTO protests in Seattle, the Gx summits in both cities and other international trade summits that have lead to protests its always a small group of a couple dozen responsible for breaking windows, starting fires and causing serious problems. They made a bad mark on mask protests and most people just don't find it acceptable now to hide the face. I think BC even introduced a law for protesting with masks from the Vancouver riot in 2011.

I personally think people have the right to hide there face in a day when every thing you do is on camera.

[hyteckit]

No more protesting in masks.

The Internet Protection Act requires forum posters to attach their real name.

Internet Protection Act Would Eliminate Anonymous Online Comments In New York

[andi*pandi]

That is just not the internet's way.

I can see the reasoning: cyberbullying, spam, etc... but there are plenty of innocent things out there that I don't want my name on. My amazon reviews are even my nickname. My real name is valuable, and I give it only to important places like my bank, professional organizations, etc.

Assemblyman Murray admits to being cyberbullied himself two years ago during his re-election campaign. From The Legislative Gazette:

"Murray admitted to being a victim of derogatory website posts two years ago during his re-election campaign. An anonymous source posted on multiple websites that Murray committed acts of domestic violence against his ex-wife. The anonymous posts also said Murray's son was hiding from his father because he was being abused."

Murray was not cyberbullied. He's a grown person.
He was the victim of slander, perhaps, but a) don't take seriously things written in comments, and b) grow up.