A Note from the Mercury’s Editor: Restraining the Police

Comments

1

So inspired by this article that I just set up a monthly donation. Keep up the great work!

2

As always, thank you Steven!

4

Weird, it looks like my comment didn't post for some reason. So here it is again: If the police follow the lawful procedures to order an area cleared, journalists (bit of a stretch when talking about the Mercury but let's go with it) and legal observers (self nominated cosplayers) are not above the law.

5

For a different take on all those peaceful protests
AP: Portland, Oregon, city of protest, reels from nightly chaos
https://apnews.com/bf30b131c23b5292c9b07c29313a8c0e

6

Thanks, man. Ditto the no joy; if I were able to join the protestors, I would be the person with the sign stating I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M STILL PROTESTING THIS SAME SHIT.

I upped my donation recently, and it's a financial stretch, but I'll do it again. Without independent media, there is no democracy, and this is no exaggeration. So sincerely, thank you.

7

I'm not a believer of the "street response" they are trying to divert the funding to. I want illegal camps and illegal drug activities enforced!

8

This was on the whole an excellent article Steven. Please keep up the important work you are doing holding our police accountable.

4: Your response is the predictable totalitarian response of a media that consistently claims it has greater first amendment protections than the rest of us.

We either all have a 1st amendment right to peaceful assembly, or we live in a totalitarian state. Once those in the media start claiming special first amendment protections beyond other citizens, the natural response of thugs is to start a 1st amendment debate over "who exactly qualifies as the protected media," which is exactly what you did. If we all enjoy the same first amendment rights to peaceful assembly than your "who qualifies as the media so deserves first amendment protections from illegal arrest" becomes moot. Once the media starts engaging in "but we are the media, so we are entitled to special 1st amendment privileges" they not only lose the support of regular citizens who feel their 1st amendment rights are just as important, but start us down this rabbit hole of "well who qualifies as the media."

On the national stage we have seen this play out with Julian Assange. The State has explicitly argued that we was not actually part of the media so does not deserve the 1st amendment protections they do. Sadly, the very media that won pulitzer prizes for reporting on the information he provided is now sitting by and implicitly allowing the state to make this argument.

And when the state comes for the "well your not really the media" group, why should they expect regular citizens to stand up for them when they implicitly bought the State's narrative that some people get more 1st amendment protections than others?

9

@8 - Try reading it again or ask an adult to help you.

10

@9: If you have an actual comment to make, try to make it. I doubt it could be more ignorant than your comment I responded too.

Then again......

11

@10

pcashman sounds like one of WW's pets who they allow to run feral on their site.

Hopefully, the Mercury will not be repeating their mistake.