Chaotic Fringe

I didn't go down to #OccupyPhoenix today because there may be an event near the end of the week I can attend. I have spent part of the day looking over some of the additions to their website. This has been a bit difficult because there is both their main website and various Facebook pages that are part of #OccupyPhoenix and information coordinated and updated between the two has been sketchy.

What I have found troubling in the sites have been the lack of precise wording on some rather important decisions by the group. Earlier I wrote about how I saw the wording for their forum which troubled me. It indicated if speech by a person was considered inappropriate they could not only be banned but their ISP could be made aware of their being banned because of inappropriate speech. Other people and I wondered what speech would rise to the level of 1) being banned by #OccupyPhoenix and 2) would get the person reported to their ISP. While what could be considered harassing speech might be understandable to a reasonable person, what would be speech so offensive that it would cause someone to contact the ISP? The reason I mentioned this was because there have been times when speech at #OccupyPhoenix events have been heated. In some instances people have been threatened not by the words someone has said but the passion of how they presented their speech. This has caused some to be unjustly afraid of the person or persons speaking. If someone repeated called someone retarded in a post, and let's say that person was actually mentally challenged, would that be hate speech, even though the intent of calling someone retarded was as a put down? Yes, you might think it's silly but when you have a broad definition of a legal matter, you are bound to get situations that will not fit into a neat box.

Take as an example something else I found on the website. #OccupyPhoenix as a Good Neighbor policy, which essentially means everyone has to be 'respectful.' The first line of the policy reads -

OPHX has zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol anywhere in Cesar Chavez Plaza

I have noticed, not so much with #OccupyPhoenix but it has been a major issue with others in the movement, especially noticed in Wall Street, that vegans are given special treatment. What I mean by that is that if you want to donate food, it is STRONGLY requested that it be vegan, as to accommodate them. Now, to this policy #OccupyPhoenix has put up, they say drugs and alcohol are forbidden but what about smoking? I have seen a lot of smokers at #OccupyPhoenix, so if someone is sensitive to smoke, what are they suppose to do? On it's face, of course I have no problem with the rule for no drugs or alcohol, but smoking not being in the mix might have some people wondering. And yes, I did see last week there was a sign about smoking rules, but at the same time I saw people smoking within the smoke free area.

Now, you might think a smoking rule a bit silly, a bit of nitpicking, but look at this next rule-

Zero tolerance for violence or verbal abuse towards anyone

This is very similar to the forum issue of free speech. When you have the man in the suit spouting his conspiracy theories and shouting at people, and to be clear he is not with #OccupyPhoenix, is he being verbally abusive to those with #OccupyPhoenix and others out to listen to them? When the Hebrew Israelites have been in the area talking at the Plaza, are they being verbally abusive? I bring them up because they are very passionate in their speaking, trying to get people to listen to them. Crowds have formed around them, and in most instances egging them on so people can laugh or stare at that they are talking about. Wouldn't that be considered harassment? How about when someone affiliated with #OccupyPhoenix curses at a videographer or, in the case of the Hebrew Israelites, are seen on camera provoking them. Isn't that being verbally abusive? How about when a group of #OccupyPhoenix people went to the steps of the Municipal Court and shouted at people passing by with a megaphone. Should they be removed for being verbally aggressive? I have a problem with something being so vague it is like what schools do across the country about violence, setting down a zero tolerance policy that is too draconian. People definitely know of issues where there is a zero drug policy but a kid is kicked out of school because they have an aspirin, or the situation where a kid brings a butter knife to school and they are suspended. One of the comments on the policy page has someone wondering if there should be zero policy for sexual harassment. You could argue it is covered in the verbal abuse section but the verbal issue isn't clearly defined, so there isn't a line, other than self preservation common sense, that will determine what is and isn't verbal harassment.

My fear is with these rules the openness and leaderless momentum that was the #Occupy movement in Phoenix is starting to get a bit rules oriented. When I was downtown last week it seems many issues I and other people had about the organization were getting worked through. Now I'm not so sure.