I don’t think we can say they were having their rights trampled on this one. The city ordinances are one aspect, then there is the fact that they were very openly broadcasting their plans to riot and attempt to physically disrupt the convention. I am not sure if that falls under the old “scream fire in a theater” situation, but I think it comes close enough for government work (pardon the pun).
Of course, part of me would like to see them actually attempt it. I can’t take them seriously because for all shouts of “anarchy” and “riot” and “revolution” they seem very tame. I mean really, panic attacks? This was supposed to be a riot and you had people who couldn’t handle being corralled by the cops for a couple hours? How do you take people like that seriously? A protester is being cuffed and the “rioters” surround the police and…
pull out camcorders?
I was never a fan of the 60′s radicals (not even close), but they at least could put on a riot and a protest I could take seriously even if I thought their reasoning was flawed (a vast understatement there). You want headlines and change? And you want to try it violently? Then you need to do better than this. You are going to have to top Kent State and start charging National Guardsmen. Not that I am pushing that, but if you can’t even toss a bag of urine and your response to being trapped by the police on a street is a sit-in flashing peace-signs then you need to drop the anarchy bit. This isn’t even “anarchy-lite”.
Maybe a year in Somolia or a tour in Afghanistan or attending a Pakistani Madras would make them appreciate real anarchy and real violence and real oppression. Or at least give them some new fashions.
