As the crowd gathered on Saturday night at Col. Summers Park in anticipation of the annual World Naked Bike Ride—not everyone in attendance were there to have a good time. Photographer Aaron Wessling was on the scene and witnessed a dust-up between a couple of homophobic/nude-hating Christians and the WNE crowd. According to Aaron, the crowd was largely ignoring the protesters who were spewing the type of hell-fire and brimstone evangelism that is so easy to either mock or ignore. HOWEVER. When the Christians pulled out a Pride flag and started spitting and stomping on it? That’s when the fun stopped.
- Courtesy: A.E. Wessling Photography
The Christians were taken to task by the woman pictured above, and when pushing and shoving started, a NUDE ROLLER SKATING HERO thrust himself into the scrum, yanked the Pride flag away from the bigots and disappeared into the crowd, who happily protected him. As Aaron said in his Instagram tag, “It was beautiful, and frightening, and powerful, in so many ways”
Aaron has more pictures of the incident (as well as the money shot of our nude roller skating hero ripping the flag away) and some very interesting thoughts about what it all means, which you should check out right here.
Nude Roller Skating Guy and “Ride Bikes/Plant Trees” Woman: PORTLAND SALUTES YOU. (And bigots can just hit the bricks.)
Follow Aaron at @aewessling
My favorite thing about that photo is how the guy with the bullhorn and the one holding the sign are both checking out the crowd.
@jarhead – You deserve a lot worse than that.
The amount of aggressive, high-testosterone, homophobic behavior one displays is directly proportional to the chances that one is a closeted, self-hating knob-gobbler.
Jarhead seems to be the only one complaining. Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences. Give it a try around me sometimes and let’s see where that gets you.
Jarhead is correct (at least in principle, I have no idea whether he’s correct about the specific charges). If your response to speech (even distasteful speech) is violence, you’ve lost the moral high ground.
Jarhead, how likely is it the rainbow flag was actually purchased by the religious protesters? Do you really think they spent their money on it? Of course I don’t know the answer, but it’s a pretty safe guess it was taken from somewhere. Maybe the religious protesters should file charges against the rollerblader? They likely know better. While I’m not for violence, in this case they asked for it.
Jarhead is right about some things, but mobs can, and do, suppress free speech without violating the First Amendment. The First Amendment is only concerned with state action. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that private events (like a parade, or a bike ride) can legally exclude people whose message they don’t approve of BECAUSE of the First Amendment. Ironically, that principle was laid down in a case upholding the right of a parade to exclude gays. In any event, no First Amendment issue here….
No, not a first amendment issue, just one of assault. You can suppress speech by shouting down the other side (happens all the time with the Westboro nutters) but you can’t inflict violence. I can’t believe anyone would think it’s ok just because the people that got assaulted are deeply unpleasant.
“they asked for it” and the nekkid people are still immoral for having provided it.
I’m just sorta curious what kind of asshats would want to show up and protest the protest in the name of religion.
I ended up with this flag ! Would be happy to give it back to origal owners! Not joking…
Jarhead and ohno are completely correct. Now, that doesn’t mean it is going to get them any sympathy in the Merc comments section. They might as well have been trying to talk rationally about Portland’s growth, the transportation network industry (gasp!), or the gentrification topic that nobody in Portland understands (can’t believe I even said the “g” word out loud!)
Pretty sure Jarhead, JTR, and ohno are the 3 protesters in the photo.
At least they know how to get their flag back now.
Why must I be one of the protesters, SuperTrooper? Because I think violence is an inappropriate response to speech?
From the pics, it looks like the nudist was on the receiving end of a punch, not the other way around.
He was definitely being agressive, but describing it as violence is a bit of a stretch dude.
I’m guessing you’d probably defend the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest at the funerals of dead soldiers too.
Why is it a stretch? It’s described in the linked page as a “brawl”, a “melee” and a “scuffle.” It says the nudist skated toward the back of the protester and they both went to the ground. How is this not violence? What level of injury has to be sustained for it to be violence, in your view?
I’d defend the Westboro nutters’ right to not be assaulted as a result of protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers.
This isn’t difficult. No amount of violence is acceptable in response to speech.
If it was reported as a brawl and/or melee by a photography blog, and you took that at face value, so be it. From everything I’ve read and heard, the situation as reported, was pretty overblown.
So, if a Westboro protester was calling your deceased loved one a murderer and baby killer during their funeral service, you’d just turn the other cheek in the name of free speech?
That’s pretty admirable of you, hypothetically speaking.
Yes, we’re discussing the incident as described in this article and the blog that was linked. There doesn’t appear to be a police report or another news source that doesn’t draw from this article or the blog. The event could be completely fictitious and we could still use it to have a reasonable discussion about why you think it’s acceptable to respond to speech with violence.
What I would or wouldn’t do isn’t relevant and attempting to make it personal isn’t going to change my answer. If I did respond to speech with violence, I would be wrong.
I’m never a fan of discussing issues in a black or white format. I look at this issue as a right vs. rights standpoint.
Yeah, the Jesus Freaks have the right to speak their minds on the subject, but is it really right for them to go antagonize a group they disagree with, knowing nobody will take them seriously and they’re just going to ruin someone else’s good time.
They pissed some people off and had a flag forcibly removed from their possession. If the ratio had been reversed, I suspect the nudists and gays might not have been so lucky in terms of the final outcome.
You keep bringing up irrelevancies. I agree wholeheartedly that it would possibly have been much worse had crowd demographics been reversed. We don’t even have to speculate, we have real examples of that happening (and continuing to happen).
That doesn’t justify a more mild form of violence just because the crowd is favorable in this instance.
You don’t have to agree with the theists. I don’t, I think their religion would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. You don’t have to defend them, or condemn the crowd, or condemn the rollerskating nudist or even feel badly about it happening.
All I really suggest is that you oughtn’t celebrate this as some kind of moral victory. “They asked for it,” as someone stated earlier in the thread, is a disgusting idea to hold, unworthy of people otherwise genuinely committed to equality and freedom.
It’s getting hard to even take this supertrooper person seriously. These assholes didn’t ruin anybody else’s good time….they were three ignorant fools in a crowd of many, spewing the same old tired bs that was not surprising to anyone. Ride or roll by, tell them to fuck off (or that you would love to fuck them…which is pretty effective) , and go about your partying. Why even give them the satisfaction of knowing that they are pissing you off? What if the flag grabber guy would have gotten his ass handed to him and knocked out by one of these losers? Then you would be crying that it was a hate crime, but the law would very likely be on the side of self defense. Moral of the story is that sometimes you need to grow up, take off your faux “hardcore revolutionary” pants and realize that most situations call for a more measured and intelligent response (see the “fuck off” suggestion above)….which also usually ends up being the safest and most effective way to handle things.
Should anyone be taking you seriously JTR?
And please forgive me for omitting “trying” from my “ruining their good time” comment. They were trying to ruin the event.
And I love the way you and oh no consistently act as the arbiters of what is and isn’t relevant. That’s why I don’t take people like you seriously.
Well, that and your brilliant “fuck off” theory being a safe way to handle a disagreement. See how far that gets you outside the Pearl chief.
The only point I’ve been trying to make is violence in response to speech is unacceptable. If you agree, great, we’re done and let’s go get a beer.
If you disagree, then you should explain why and your hypotheticals so far have, in fact, been irrelevant to that end.
If your point isn’t aligned with either of those positions, I don’t know what discussion you’re involved with but it’s not one I’ve been participating in.
Fine. I’ll go along with your bold assertion that violence is almost never the appropriate response to a manner of speech you disagree with or don’t respect.
Again, I think people are conflating the level of “violence” that occurred at this event.
So if you agree that things could’ve been much worse if the tables were turned, then why make such a staunch defense of a completely common sense statement?
Gee, you shouldn’t get violent if someone says something you don’t like. Well gee, you shouldn’t stick your dick in a meat grinder either. Fairly obvious assertions, right?
This city, and many of its inhabitants, are so out of touch. There were some minor acts of aggression at this event. Maybe if you’re one of the people that got a nick or scratch during the scrum, you could speak to the level of “violence” you experienced. Anybody else should just STFU and drop this completely self-manufactured fake outrage over the abridgement of free speech.
And feel free to bring up the irrelevancy of my commentary (again), but at least I’m not fabricating opposing positions for self-serving purposes.
See “All I really suggest is that you oughtn’t celebrate this as some kind of moral victory…”
Nowhere in my comments have I even come close to doing so.
It’s not a particularly bold assertion, it’s what civilized people accept as basic decency. That you seem to think there’s some threshold where violence in response to speech is acceptable is what troubles me, and I’d really like to know more about that. Where’s the threshold, in your view? What speech can I produce in public without fear of assault?
If it were common sense or obvious, we wouldn’t be discussing this. I’d’ve said “No amount of violence is acceptable in response to speech” and you’d’ve said “Correct” and we would’ve fucked off out of here ages ago. But you haven’t said that and every word you say on the topic seems like an attempt to avoid answering. I can’t tell if you don’t think it was violence at all, or it was violence but some extreme low level not worth mentioning, or violence but it was justified because the protesters are hateful, or violence but it was justified because it would’ve been worse if the make up of the crowd were different. What is your actual position?
Someone got tackled in response to their speech. This isn’t exaggerating some level of violence. Go tackle someone out on the street now and claim to the responding officer that it wasn’t violence. It is violence. It isn’t lynching someone for their skin color or burning an embassy because someone drew Mohammed, but it’s still violence and people have not only failed to condemn this but are actively celebrating it. If you’re not one of them, great, but I don’t know what your argument is then.
Look at these comments:
“Give it a try around me sometimes and let’s see where that gets you.”
“While I’m not for violence, in this case they asked for it.”
Or from the blog and its comments:
“Some heaped praise on the man who captured the flag.”
“If being happy a bigot homophobe got tackled by a rollerskating naked man is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.”
“I’d gleefully laugh at the po sumumabtch who got tackled.”
“Violence is the last line of negotiations and is mandatory against stuipidity.”
“When ignorance and hate cross the line it is our responsibility to illustrate the line. This was an act to stop violence and stand up (after the tackle) against hatred.”
There are clearly people that are pleased with some non-zero level of violence being used, and that’s disgusting.
And maybe if you stopped attributing comments to me, like those you noted above, we also would’ve “fucked off out of here ages ago” like you said.
Dude, I’m all for the non-violent/pacifist ethos you’ve espoused here, but that Kumbaya mindset only takes you so far in the land of reality.
What happens when you hit a beehive with a stick? What do all animals do when they feel threatened? Fight or flight, right? Well, those protesters stirred up the hive. I’m not justifying or reveling in the aggressive actions of the gays and nudists, I’m simply saying I understand the reaction on a biological/natural level.
If you walked into a predominantly black neighborhood and started dropping N-Bombs, sure they don’t have the right to beat you half to death, but common sense dictates that you probably shouldn’t exercise your right to free speech in that situation.
Democracy is messy my friend. Don’t mistake the principles contained in the Bill of Rights with how the world actually operates.
This little fracass was small time. And it amuses me to no end to hear people jumping to the defense of a few religious whackos who stirred the pot intentionally and suffered the consequences. Not the consequences they deserved, but the consequences they should’ve expected.
The true gem here is that you’re defending the rights of people who would gladly deny others equal rights under the law. They just believe that their actions are justified by a higher power.
If freedom of speech is what you’re defending, maybe you stop to consider the fact that the protesters would be more than happy to deny gays equal rights. That’s akin to silencing their collective voice.
Did you honestly just compare the naked bike crowd to a beehive and/or an animal? We’re semi-highly evolved primates with a reasonable degree of intelligence (broadly speaking), we should demand better.
If the reverse had occurred, would you seriously say “They should’ve expected it, fight or flight, shouldn’t have exercised their free speech in that situation?” That’s what the theists said (say) in those scenarios. Do you really want to be like them in this regard?
I know the protesters are horrible people and we’ve seen what they do when they’re in power. Because I think civilization is a real thing, that means I can’t shrug my shoulders and say “well, they should have expected that” when someone assaults them. They should have expected it, yes, they probably were expecting it. They might have gone with the explicit intent of having something like this happen. It’s still assault and no one should think that’s acceptable. If nothing else, demand better from your own side. Someone whose position on issues of equality is presumably not dissimilar from my own or yours tackled a protester and his fellow crowd-mates not only failed to intervene but cheered him on and hid him from view when authorities (briefly) searched. Be appalled.
Looks like it might be video of the incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE0uP8B5OUQ
It’s an expression dude, but there are similarities to group response based behavior. Accept or deny, your call.
And if the reverse happened, I would ABSOLUTELY say they should’ve expected it. Again, not that they deserved it, but they should’ve expected it. And I wouldn’t excuse that behavior either. Maybe that’s where the disconnect lies.
I assume you believe that I give the gays a pass on this. Wrong. If the evidence merits arrest and prosecution, so be it.
Neither of us are in a position to make demands of anybody’s behavior in such scenarios. We can only appeal to their decency. But group psychology is far different than individual psychology.
It only took 3 of those goons to go down to the event and stir the pot. Neither one of those losers would’ve had the guts to go it alone. Now throw in a couple hundred people on the opposite end of the spectrum getting harassed by those dimwits.
Your expectation/demand is that they take the morale high road? You know what they say? You can hope in one hand and shit in the other. Which hand do think will fill up first?
Reality vs Philosophy here. I like philosophical debates/exercises, but reality ultimately trumps all.
What do you mean “see how far that gets you”? , as it relates to riding by and telling them to fuck off. You are delusional of you think you are going change people like these guys’ minds by attacking them or stealing a flag, you ignorant douche. That is my point – they aren’t worth any more than a “Fuck off” any more than the Westboro assholes are who you seem to be so enthralled with. Your little “pearl” comment makes zero sense. You are trying way too hard to make a point that there is no way you actually believe in if you have one ounce of sense at this point.
And nice use of the term “the gays”, you asshole. True colors coming out, eh?
JTR,
Per usual, you’re ascribing motives to me that are patently false. Not once did I mention that I think that type of behavior would change anybody’s mind.
And secondly, I’m don’t see the need to apologize for referring to individuals in the gay community as gays. Nice attempt to paint me as anti-gay though you f’n dunce.
Anybody reading our comments will realize that you’re simply trying to smear me. You might wanna rethink who the delusional one really is there buddy.
Furthermore JTR, you strike me as the type of moronic hypocrite that rails against how PC we’ve all become, but can’t wait to pounce on a perceived non-PC comment (no matter how far off-base your perception may be).
So basically no one got to run it up the flagpole?
So you know for sure that those who confronted those guys were homosexual and a part of “the gays” moniker you prefer? Who knows, maybe they were also part of “the Jews” or “the mesicans”, or “the darkie lovers”…..all common sayings to you I am sure. And, btw, I’m the least PC person your coddled, ignorant, millennial ass is going to confront in your short stent living in this town.
Finally, your whole waste-of-the-internet, panty wasted rants were based on the premise that taking that flag was principled, purposeful, and the right response. So yes, you did think it was a good plan, mind changing or not.
Learn to step away back into the comfort of your sister’s basement when you are virtually destroyed on a comment section. This is getting kind of sad…
Looks like oh no had enough of your ass-backward ass, and I have had the same. See you on another comment section in which you crap out of your fingers onto the keyboard.
Paragraph 1: You left out the asians dude. Don’t be discriminating against groups that you think I’m bigoted towards man. That’s not cool.
Paragraph 2: Yet another fabricated premise you’ve bestowed upon me.
Paragraph 3: Typical cheap-shot comment trying to over-compensate for your intellectual inferiority.
Paragraph 4: Typical comment drawing another commenter into the fold to justify your pathetic and overly defensive drivel. (somewhat sexist too)
Did I miss anything? You’re weak dude.