Evergreen anarchist workshop halted after blogger's camera thrown off balcony

what is really the truth?

Is that anarchists are cowards. They pick on an old man, and then run away. If they had any courage, they would have stayed and fought it out. To smash something and run is the mark of a Grade A Coward.

Haha oh my god, I would have laughed so hard if you shot those cowardly punks in the face. JUSTICE!

THIS JUST IN: FILMING A GROUP OF COMRADES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND CALLING THE COPS WHEN BEING TOLD NOT TO DO SO MAKES YOU A PUNK ASS TROLL

I have no pity for the masses.

The drones will throw your camera off a balcony? What are you even trying to say? Your garbled sense of justice and fondness for your Rights is really quite strange for someone posting on an anarchist website. It is almost like you have no idea what it means to be anarchist...

bloggers are like the enemy, man! anyone who tries to document a public event is like totally asking for it, man. And if we run away afterwards because someone who has called the cops, instead of staying there and fighting it out like the true revolutionary radicals that we are (totally man!) that doesn't mean we cowards and losers and anger freaks! It just means . . . uh . . . like . . . wow, man.

For folks like yourself, the 2nd Amendment was included in the U.S. Constitution. The fact that photojournalism is a constitutionally protected activity at public events means little/nothing to you. The only remedy for those who take it seriously is, by your own admission, is to prevent force w/self defense. Moreover, the criminality you condone, invites scrutiny. Public events, in law, permit reporting and photography by definition. Your response, in essence?--f*ck the law. So when the law f*cks you back, don't seek public support. But, invariably, you do. You unabashedly advance a double standard argument and expect it to be persuasive.

"You might get a fist in your face there."

Enjoy your total marginalization. Everyone except the people inside your little ghetto think you are a bunch of cowards, mental cases and wankers.

been trying to find it as well

Search for mason county blog.

Quite a number of readers of this blog have managed to find it. Notably, the police don't like their photographs taken either. The difference is violently inclined anarchists suppose they have some form of designated minority status/privilege. The strong armed robbery which took place at the TESC event is ample evidence of why the photographs of those who attend such events are of public interest and reason for acquiring them. It's the same reason why banks photograph people who enter. The lawlessness officially promoted at these public events makes attendance newsworthy. The threats leveled at photojournalists make it doubly so.

I agree with you somewhat but if this guy was well known and had stated intentions of filming people to turn it over to the state I think him being barred from the event was just fine? Now just random press that actually wanted to document the event, sure whatever.

Please, that sounds right out of the "liberal's guidebook to responsible radicalism" By Hip Lebewitz. I'm thinking more charter school madrasa...

Anyone have a link to the blog?

The vast majority of the public believes it is *you* and your apologists who are the @ssh*les. You want a tool and Amicus has declined to be one. For you, this makes him personna non grata. But there's a reason why it's said a reporter has no friends...at least a serious one who isn't given to be a propaganda device. Condoning criminality, assault, theft, and strong armed robbery makes one an @ssh*le in most people's mind. The law is fairly clear in this regard. The response of many anarchists and their academic mentors?--"F*ck the Law!" There you have it. Violent anarchists virtually demand the use of force, then complain of it. They promote 'smashing the state' and all they believe are associated with it, but complain of the brute police power of the state in preventing force & fraud. When analyzed, their argument devolves about who they 'like' or consider an @ssh*le. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution nominally protects @ssh*les (Larry Flynt may be an example) and unpopular minority views/positions. In fact, it also protects photojournalism under the 1st Amendment guarantees. But all that's like water off a duck's back to violently inclined elements wearing the anarchist label. Worse, many who deny such violent tendencies wearing the same label, openly condone/defend those who don't.

Amicus. You really have too much time on your hands. You need to go do something other than post comments on this thread. It's a nice day. Go outside and walk around. Go eat a sandwich. Try to make some friends.

Shit, I'm gonna hold all my meetings in cemeteries from now on. Anarcho-goths FTW.

Yes, it's ironic the 'smash the state' crowd wishes to utilize state sponsored facilities as its podium. The public library is another example. And then there's the radical TESC professors who have the State to thank for their generous salaries and privileged positions in the community who are contemptuous of their benefactor and urge their acolytes to destroy the very system upon which they're propped. The photojournalist being pilloried here has no such links to the state or privilege and must rely on his own wit to survive. An argument can be made it is the 'privileged' in this instance attacking someone from a very poor working class background who doesn't kowtow to their preconceived notions in how he reports and documents these events. Faces? What about faces? Amicus believes faces and identities are an important part of virtually every story. He doesn't publish a travel log or promote tourism. He's an investigative photojournalist. He doesn't attempt to obscure this fact. That doesn't mean he's a 'spy' for the police or state. It means he's an independent journalist bent on informing the public. If you have a problem with that, so be it. But it won't alter the fact or his dedication to the principle.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. This Amicus Curia dipshit explicitly stated a few months back (maybe even a whole year?) that he intended to play private eye with his video camera and document the activities of anarchists for the sake of turning evidence over to the cops and trying to publicly release incriminating information.

This business is unfinished...and it likely always will be. You are your own worst enemies.

oh come on in was posted in this same thread

how would you know this? otherwise, you are making a fine-sounding pronouncement that is nothing but empty, pure hot air.

every time one of you pathetic bellowing mentally damaged anger freaks tells me to die -- I become more and more resolved to live as long as possible. That's what's called a losing tactic on your part, DIPSHIT.

I don't think you can make the case that any of the coverage of public events conducted by Amicus has turned a profit or any income whatsoever. And if it had, it would be immaterial. That you're saturated w/hate is self evident. People have every right to meet/associate to discuss whatever the wish, though not to plot/conspire criminality. Amicus has no desire to chill anyone's 1st Amendment rights. You can't say the same. If folks want to engage in private discussion, they're free to do so in private venues. Public events in public venues are open to any/all members of the public and may be documented at will. It's an important and precious right of the public belonging to everyone in the commons. You may not wall off the commons to the public, even temporarily, or the press. The public has a right to know what is going on in its midst in these public arenas. It's understood criminals have no respect for the law or the rights of others. Ironically, as with so many anarchists, they liberally inveigh their own rights.

You got to drink beers and get high -- without bothering the university you all go to? Whoa, that's anarchy, dude!

A *private* house was the appropriate forum for the kinds of restrictions anarchists wanted to place on the event, not a public State institution such as TESC. Sociopaths walling off portions of the commons are their 'private' fief is inappropriate, illegal, and telling.

Universities are boring as fuck and we look like hypocrites for wanting to use them. Glad you guys had fun though.

So the next time you protest a Nazi or white power thing don't complain when they treat you the same. You know you are making the same exact argument that those assholes use. I guess that makes you rigid uptight political assholes too. How does it feel to become what you believe you are standing against. Then again you are simply a bunch processed cum of upper middle class bourgeois Anglo Saxon whitey who have no real identity just like the Nazis and white supremest fuck tards.

In this world, we are all salmon, fated to be eaten by a large bear of fucked by you know who. It's SAD SAD SAD sad that some of them are disabled. You may be right, tho.

Ok amicus. We get it. Anarchy will never work.

Go post somewhere else.

original sin by another name. I do agree though that anarchists could never accomplish anything near the atrocities caused by the government, 1 there are tens of them and 2 they wake up an hour too late.

THE A-TEAM'S ANGER/NIHILISM AND MACHO MAN PROBLEMS ARE VERY REAL AND THEY MAKE US GREAT

Nobody is "walling off the commons", they're ensuring their personal safety. Anyone is welcome to anarchist events as long as their presence doesn't endanger the participants.

Your rambling about the nature of humanity and society is really neither here nor there.

No, you're not exactly stupid, just uninformed. The state's meaningful meetings are behind closed doors, records of high-level diplomatic activities etc stringently controlled as top secret. Corporate secrecy is the norm. Logging and mineral rights sales are increasingly backroom deals, wherever the public attempts to intervene in nominally public auctions. So what if it's a nominally public event? Ideologically pure adherence to the idea that property is theft would be absurd when it gets in the way of substantively combating such theft. If the anarchists don't want media scrutinizing them it's because they realize their message will be garbled, as much as it is that there is a genuine imperative to hide from oppressive state apparatus. If you think otherwise you do not understand CoIntelPro, the Cleveland 4 and the numerous other examples of FBI surveillance and entrapment. Here's a start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVEBflfRGk

Arguing with anarchists about 'rights', Constitutional law, and property is a bit like urging a pig not to play in the mud. Still, the fact you take pictures hardly makes you an expert in the legal aspects, as your description of your personal biases reveals. The lack of an expectation of privacy in public spaces is reflected in the fact of surveillance cameras at almost every corner and entryway, whether it be a bank, Wal-Mart, courthouse, welfare office, or public transit bus. These automatic devices photograph, video record, and store audio recordings of even whispered conversations. The police don't like their pictures taken either. Anarchists aren't alone in decrying being photographed (Hollywood celebs come to mind). But then, anarchists *DO* take pictures at all kinds of public events/demonstrations whether those photographed object or not. Double standard?...it wouldn't be the 1st one.

The ACLU has sponsored a number of videos that can be seen on Youtube discussing photographers rights. The guy who was assaulted has posted many links to these on the Mason County Blog over the years. The press is the ONLY occupation actually named in the U.S. Constitution to be protected (1st Amendment). Anarchists routinely complain of how their 1st Amendment rights are violated when the state attempts to erode their right to speech, association, and political belief. The same 1st Amendment also protects PRESS activities. The purpose or editorial policy of the photojournalist is irrelevant from a legal perspective. There is no difference when it comes to the right to photograph between a sidewalk, park, college campus, city hall, or any other area accessible and available to the public. Some ill advised law enforcement officers have, like you, argued this in court and lost...especially in Washington State. Even the feds had to back down from their position of interfering with the photography of federal buildings. That you don't like this fact is immaterial as a matter of law. What is material is the willingness of violent street elements to trash rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The circular reasoning employed here is 'f*ck the law'...except when its convenient to whine about how anarchists are being persecuted. Why should the state, if you'd care to explain, be any more restricted in how it handles self declared enemies than what those enemies argue should be the 'standard' (no law). Thus, these same self styled anarchists argue the law (as in the case of the photojournalist) should be treated as moot. So be it. Then do not complain when the state follows suit, as it surely will and already has. Arguably, anarchists supporting such lawless/violent behavior are the totalitarian's best friend/enemy--a boon to his/her argument even more liberties must be curtailed/eliminated in order to preserve safety and public order. The nation, as a whole, is sliding into the abyss of fascism and totalitarianism of the skids anarchists themselves have greased. Their argument?: We had to destroy the country to save it.

Your scenario of the Occupy @ Heritage Park is disingenuous. The audio of events surrounding that incident have been posted for anyone with an ear who cares to listen. Even, for sake of argument, your allegation were true (women were 'creeped out') it doesn't alter the right of a photojournalist (or any citizen) to take pictures in a public park, your rationalization notwithstanding. Again, a number of anarchist reject any notion of 'rights', inalienable or otherwise. You appear to be among them. But others very deeply believe such rights are self evident and inalienable. Moreover, they're willing to fight, as did our forefathers, to preserve them. You've gladly described yourselves as enemies of the country and society itself. Thus, you've defined yourselves as traitors, enemies of the people, and outlaws. In earlier times, you'd have been lynched. The rule of law allows due process and a 'defense' against such allegations--a procedure your scheme denies others. There's little enough difference between the game of 'snitch hunt' some anarchists play and the Salem 'witch hunts'. In this milieu, jacketing/labeling is tantamount to conviction.

"I have seen the enemy...and it is us!" -Pogo-

Leah Plante is an example of the tendency of anarchists to eat their own children without shedding one crocodile tear. Seeking social solace in their company is a bit like trying to keep a pet rattlesnake. Leah learned this the hard way and is now in hiding from her erstwhile 'friends'. What these black garbed misanthropes hate most is exposure and accountability. When challenged about actions such as smashing/destroying vehicles parked on streets, their apologists intone, "We need to be more 'selective'".

If one RENTS a public space (temporarily converting it to a private one), taking photographs in it is NOT illegal, but may allow the temporary tenant to charge admission or even provide for the orderly (a hierarchy?) presentations of the program. But that does not include assault, theft, malicious mischief, or mobbing no matter how 'popular' the idea may seem to your pals. Because you, et ux, support such force, it invites scrutiny/photography all the more. The public would very much like to know who is responsible for acts of assault, vandalism, strong armed robbery, and property destruction within its midst. Your contention that photojournalists wishing to document this and those responsible/associated carries virtually no weight except, perhaps, among your co-conspirators. The photojournalist assaulted wasn't disrupting anything. He was attempting to enter a public building on a public college campus which was holding what was advertised as a free event open to the public, including the disabled. You, hypothetically, might believe blacks or ethnic minorities, Catholics or police officers are 'disruptive', but that provides you no basis for excluding them from a public event held in a public venue paid for by the public. The incident revealed a failure on the part of TESC in its mission to provide a non-violent arena for the free, unencumbered, open exchange of ideas and opposing viewpoints. Thus it removed the source and proximate cause of that failure in this instance.

There will be other public demonstrations/events. There will be filming/photography with or without the permission of demonstrators present. What is seen/heard WILL be document and reported.

You're understanding of the law regarding photography is deeply flawed. See the PINAC (photography is not a crime) web site. Whether any given photographer has a hidden agenda regarding exercise of 1st Amendment principles is immaterial as it is a universal right belonging to all Americans. It is not, in law, qualified. We have a right to record/document what we can see, hear, smell, taste, feel, or impressions we gain from our senses. It's an inalienable right not subject to your approval, or your pals. In fact, it is a right guaranteed to minorities and the most unpopular (People vs. Larry Flynt). If you want to put those principles to a popularity contest, you'd best do so in a private venue. Your promotion of force to achieve your ends extra-judicially invites a response in kind. You won't attempt to test your argument in court because you know you're argument here is a sham.

Boring liberal is boring. Keep talking about rights and the ACLU and other shit that people have heard a million times, see if it gets any more relevant.

To be honest, there are things I would do if I loved Obama...for the love of Obama. But this post-ambivalence can only conclude in pure nihilist tragedy, such as life imprisonment, horrible rape and torture preceding certain death and worse horrible things that happen all the time. People generally don't risk their lives unless they feel all other possibilities are worse. I don't feel that and most people in the US probably shouldn't either.

The reality is there are people trying to hurt you, wolves in all sorts of clothing, having absolutely no interest in you the same way most of us in the industrialized world have no experiential concern for the suffering of others (we want to help, not trade places with them!). So there is no point in trying to be hard unless you are trying to defend yourself. Violence is a defensive strategy, love is the offense, no? So, yeah, I'll preach from my pulpit, but this nothing I have I am not sacrificing for Tito, Salassie, Peron or anyone else for that matter.