So the other day I received this email shortly after an article I wrote appeared in RI Future (I’ve only edited it due to some sentence breaks:
Sam;
Publishing the contents of the OP discussion list serve on -line with links at RI Future blog is a violation of our safety/security policies.
Of course, anyone is free to criticize OP, publicly or on the list itself, but exposing the discussion list to the public is not acceptable.
Unfortunately, this is seen by OP as a serious infraction.of our rules for the list. We have had to ask members of the press to leave the list for that exact reason – they wouldn’t respect OP confidentially on its’ list..
We’re requesting that you remove yourself from the OP discussion list.
solidarity;
[Name Redacted]
Well, I’m a good sport, so I fired back this:
I’m sorry, I thought Occupy was committed to a higher level of openness and communication; you know, that the 99% should be able to see the 99%’s list. I’m sorry that’s not the case. Go ahead and remove me.
Sincerely,Sam
Which lead to this reply that I’ve since sat on:
Sam; I hope this is just a misunderstanding. When people post to the OP discussion list, they have to have a certain level of trust that their posts will not be published in the [public] media (certainly not without their prior permission). That’s just common sense. In the past, people have been targeted by the government, employers (lost jobs), and been the subject of harassment for belonging to social protest movements like Occupy. For instance: there’s currently a war on public education, a war on women, and a war on the middle class, designed, engineered and promulgated by both parties – a broad austerity and state security agenda that we’re opposed to. We have teachers, students, and working people in our movement – people who could be targeted and hurt from exposure. In case you haven’t noticed, the US is not really a ‘free’ society anymore. Publishing the contents of emails from the OP list is wrong on so many levels and has nothing to do with any perceived ‘higher openness’. That’s not the same thing as publicly criticizing OP’s tactics or ideas. The right wing does that all the time and we’re perfectly capable of publicly defending our ideas and tactics, but we draw the line at intentionally opening up our people to potential harassment, intimidation, and reprisals. We don’t really want you to leave the list, but do need your promise that you will not publish or publicly expose posts, discussions, threads, etc.from the OP list. If you will make that commitment and agree not to in the future, we’re perfectly happy to have you stay on the list and participate in OP activity. If you feel that you can’t agree to this, then we will have to agree to disagree and you will be removed.
There’s a lot to unpack in that statement. There’s a lot I agree with. I mean, honestly I didn’t need to share this list. As long as I could quote people (even if it’s anonymously) Occupy Providence benefits. The more I can see and read what they’re thinking, the more they benefit. And I’m with the writer on a number of points; austerity is the best example.
But there’s a lot I disagree with here. First, that the United States “is not really a ‘free’ society anymore.” I disagree. That’s a philosophical, personal disagreement, but I think the experience of Occupy sort of proves that. Police have not been hunting down its members. Occupy members have not been disappeared. Certainly, many were infiltrated by police, and the Department of Homeland Security was involved in coordinating crackdowns. But frankly, if police officers are competent, the police already have the names of everyone who ever signed on to Occupy Providence’s email list (enough people were getting those initial emails that it seems impossible to maintain security. Besides which, Occupy Providence ended with a negotiated decampment when the city was within its legal rights to forcibly clear it away.
The other thing is this break from the past and even from the present. This large disconnect about civil disobedience. Occupy often claims to draw inspiration from sources as varied as the Civil Rights Movement or the Arab Spring. But what it reminds me of is Take Back NYU. If you don’t remember it, or haven’t heard about it, here’s the embedded student reporter giving his thoughts after it ended. There’s also a good “7 Errors” post. From the slogans (e.g., “Occupy Everything”) to the tactics, to the organization, TBNYU is far more Occupy’s predecessor than any Arab Spring Revolution or Civil Rights Movement.
In the past, yes, social movements have been subjected to government and private harassment, intimidation, and reprisals. But you know what: they faced those down. Otherwise, this doesn’t happen. Or this. Or this (warning: contains filmed murder). See, a social movement lays down its life in pursuit of a higher goal. In fact, every time an act of intimidation happens, you protest it. If a member is fired due to their political beliefs, you go and protest their workplace and draw attention to it. If government harasses your members, you protest the department harassing them. Or you do something drastic.
You also have to be protesting the right thing. The day after 38 Studios went bankrupt and the state announced a criminal investigation, I went and visited the Occupy table to learn if they meant literal “bailout” or if they meant paying back the loans. A protestor assured me that it was a bailout situation, and that Governor Lincoln Chafee was completely behind a bailout and had indeed wanted to bring 38 Studios to Rhode Island. News, I’m sure, to the Governor, who is on record opposing both the initial deal and any potential bailout. The other “protestor” didn’t know what we were talking about.
It infuriates me. Right now, other Occupy movements are blocking the fraudulent mass foreclosures on people’s homes. American labor is marching and organizing to defend their hard-won rights. There are movements in Canada and Chile protesting in support of education (the Canadian one has really begun to focus on debt). Arab nations are or have been in full-scale civil war over the lack of democracy in their nations. And what was the most recent thing that Occupy Providence did: setup an occupation across the street from a conference of lefty bloggers (although admittedly, they did turn out to protest on behalf of the tax equity bill). I think the really ironic part of the occupation was that though it was aimed at Netroots Nation, they were sleeping next to the Providence Journal‘s building; which is seeking $5 million from the city (Netroots Nation was estimated to bring in $3.5 million to the local economy). If Occupy Providence had turned to face the other direction, they would’ve looked prescient.
If Occupy Providence wants to eject journalists from reading its listserv, alright. Privacy is fine and good. But don’t expect me to sympathize with your members who are protesting social injustice if they don’t understand they’re going to be subjected to that injustice. Every time I write for RI Future, I make a decision; is speaking my mind more important than protecting my ability to be hired or to do a job? I’ve always said “yes, it is.” I’m fortunate enough to have an employer that respects that. But there is no guarantee that in the future I won’t be applying to jobs where the people don’t respect that; where my well-broadcast opinions will become liabilities. I’ve made that decision, and I understand that there is no possibility of going back.
Every time we go out into the public square to protest, we are making a statement: my individual fate is nothing compared to the fate of my friends, family and the society in which I live, and I accept the consequences of these actions. Those who try to mitigate this statement by attempting to shield themselves from the consequences create dying movements. Those who have the integrity to embrace it embrace a better future.
Sam- The polite note you received is common courtesy. Journalist’s report on the “public record” they don’t raid private discussions. Your infraction is an extreme version of why Rupert Murdock no longer has a broadcast license in England and his son and general manager are in jail, public is public and private is private. Rupert Murdock didn’t know the difference either. Accredited journalists respected this and those that weren’t sure asked.
“Security Culture,” the need to keep things private in an open movement, is and has been a matter of discussion and controversy. It sprang from the police repression of the Occupy movement. The arrest of journalists, including one from the giant corporate news photography organization Getty images, as suspected terrorists at the Chicago NATO protests along with the pre-May Day house to house raids on Occupy citizen journalists demonstrate how challenging openness is today,
On the 38 studio’s critique, journalists also usually start with the Press Release, which was there for you at the table if you had made a media inquiry. The de facto Bail Out is that Gov. Chafee claims Rhode Island tax payers have to pay is a “moral obligation” not a legal one. With the ongoing legal investigation we don’t know whose “fingerprints are on it yet.” Is it moral to have Wall Street rating companies holding the state of RI hostage with a threat of lowering our rating? Its Wall Street backed trickle down plan so let Wall Street and the elite bail them out, not us.
Also, was the insider deal moral in the first place? At the time that the EDC was crafting it, the grass roots activists wanted these loan guarantees to be smaller, under $100K, and targeted in distressed communities. This plan at its core reflects the myth that big corporations are the only “job creators” and that pandering will build a strong economy. Now we have only to look at Central Falls and Woonsocket to see the results of this bad thinking. Paying off Schillings debts only ads insult to injury.
Now on your last swipe at Occupy Providence, on the foreclosure issue, there are 2 facts you are apparently ignorant of. First, on his issue, OP worked closely with D.A.R.E. and people that identify with Occupy are still working with the. In other cities, larger ones like NY & LA there are “Occupy Homes or Occupy the Hood” groups that are focused on this issue, which is still the unprosecuted scene of the crime that brought down the world economy and is continuing to make us suffer.
Second, this was supposed to be a campaign after OP left the Peoples Park but these have been hard to maintain with out a central location. The core of people that are focused on this are still doing things through a variety of networks so anyone interested in this as an activist can still form a working group. This is a critical issue.
Finally, whatever your misgivings or disappointments in Occupy Providence or in the Occupy Movement, using your personal pain to quide your critique is not good journalism.
Okay, lots to unpack.
First, I’m not Rupert Murdoch hacking phones and to the best of my knowledge, Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant never held out to represent 99% of all Brits. (Also James Murdoch isn’t in jail.) I was invited to join the OP listserv, because I attended a general assembly and put my name on a piece of paper. Not the world’s most secure system. I published a link to a Google Group I was a part of, and that a great many people were able to join. Now, if your security systems are up, as they appear to be currently, then you’re fine, it’s just a link. But if they weren’t when I published it, then you let it be visible to the public. That’s on you.
I also try to never refer to my opinion pieces as journalism. They’re opinion, and I name them as such. I tend to put in at least one “I” so that people can see that it’s my opinion, rather than taking the stance of “objective” journalism by removing myself from the writing.
Now, if you’re worried that people now have the link to the Google Group, I’m not really sure how that’s a bad thing for an organization that’s for 99% of Americans. Certainly, you could argue that now anyone can apply to be a member, but you still have to approve them (and you should probably be verifying/meeting with these people anyways). At worse, it appears I linked to something which anyone that goes to a general assembly can join. Since you’re worried about the police, I’d say that if the police are anywhere near competent at their jobs, they’re already monitoring you and your Google Group. I outed myself as a security issue. I don’t think police will be that considerate. Although in Providence, you’ve generally had a great amount of cooperation from the police force (admittedly, you have also had violent confrontations).
To the 38 Studios issue: I did read the press release on the website. It didn’t explain whether it meant a literal bailout or simply paying back the loans Rhode Island guaranteed. However, your member I talked to thought it was the former, even when I offered that it might just be the loan repayment. Calling that a “bailout” is intentionally misleading. A bailout is what was offered to the banks to prevent them from sliding into bankruptcy. One does not put medicine into a cadaver, which is to say you do not “bailout” a bankrupt company.
You also seem to be confused about the “moral obligation” issue. Chafee isn’t claiming that we have these obligations, it’s the actual term for what the loan guarantees are. What’s been suggested is that Rhode Island could get out of paying the full cost of the loans ($112 million) by merely having Chafee introduce the bill to repay to the General Assembly. At that point, our “moral obligation” would be fulfilled, and we could then default on the loans. Our interest rates would go up a bit, but we wouldn’t have to be on the hook for $112 million which would result in cuts (assuming taxes aren’t raised).
To foreclosure, I specifically link to Occupy Our Homes in the article. I am aware of your contact with DARE (admittedly, I should have mentioned your work there as a path forward), and I hope you’ll expand on that, rather than focusing your time on occupying pieces of land that don’t serve any strategic purpose.
At the end of the day, you’ve missed the actual crux of my argument: you could be so much better than you are. That’s what really screws me up about OP. There is quite a lot of potential here. But when I get an email that essentially says “people could be hurt by participating in OP”, no matter how polite, my thought goes “well, no, duh!” That’s an issue in itself: people get hurt protesting the system because allowing the system to continue would hurt them more. The publicness and transparency of Occupy is very important, especially for a movement that was so very much about occupying the public square. Admittedly, you’ve stumbled (for instance, the day when there was an overly-long argument about whether or not to allow journalists to sit in at a meeting in a public park).
TL;DR: Get your facts right, get better.