On Jun 11, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Patrick Cook wrote: > When I say > "anarchist" groups, I mean groups who openly admit they have NO > INTENTION > WHATEVER of complying with the law while they conduct their event) > and give > them as much bad publicity as possible.
Hi Pat, Well you certainly popped up with an interesting topic :) I see a few issues here: 1) public safety issues can result in new laws aimed at specific groups (e.g., bike laws in NYC) Sometimes these laws are introduced without due process and are just used to arrest people and then drop charges long after the event (and after a long hassle, confiscation of property and possibly legal costs). 2) this approach seems a bit like convicting people before they commit a crime. Stating that one does not intend to comply with the law is not the same as saying you are going to break it and that's not the same as actually breaking it. 3) labeling this specific set of people as "anarchists" sounds a bit like stereotyping. I know a lot of folks who think of themselves as "anarchists" but may not agree with the statements of actions of the groups that concern you. I think we need to be careful about labels. how do we deal with these and other aspects about bad publicity? markus -- http://tools.ourmedia.org/blog http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
