Can demonstrations be anywhere?

[nancylebov]

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/409784.html is one of the many sources pointing out that there was no legal way to do an effective demonstration at the DNC.

What I'm wondering is whether many of the purposes of a demonstration (which I believe to be proving that a whole lot of people are willing to go to the trouble and risk of showing up) can be served by putting the demonstration anywhere. A demonstration has more impact if the people you're trying to pressure can see it in person, but that's become unlikely unless the demonstrators are willing to take large personal risks.

On the other hand, people's ability to record, prove, and broadcast a demonstration have improved a lot. The mainstream media doesn't always pick up hot news from the blogosphere, but sometimes it does. So, is it plausible that demonstrations no longer need to be physically near the people they're intended to impress?

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

One of the primary features of a protest, the ability to garner new members on the spot, has been eliminated by fencing them off into "Freedom Zones". Online protests assist in this.

But there *is* some important element about showing up, in person, and doing something -- a sense of community, and of shared risk, and visibility. Perhaps it's just that documenting it should be done internally. What if every person there brought a pocket camera that does video ($150 or less nowadays), and uploaded it to YouTube, and then told everyone they knew about it? Personally I suspect DDoSing the news bureaus with a barrage of calls and emails of individual YouTube videos might be a viable alternative.

Or maybe it'd just be another "Oh, fuck, the internet is here" moment; easily forgotten.

[twistedchick]

It all depends on who you are trying to influence and what the backlash/sidelash may be from other people. I'm thinking of the antiwar protests in the early 1970s at Columbia University and other universities across the country -- they weren't anywhere near DC where the decisions were being made, they affected millions of people, and they made national news because there were coalitions of different groups working together -- which is something you don't see much of these days. It wasn't just stopping the war and ending the draft but the Free Speech Movement and the Yippies and any number of other groups. Their shared messages were stronger than their individual ones.

I also think that the mechanisms of protest have not developed much, not enough to counter the ways that officials and police have found to stop them. Police in DC set up snow fences and ride bikes to herd protesters into places they can't get out of, then arrest them for being immobile and not getting out of the way (among other things -- this was done during the World Trade protests, I seem to recall.) At other times, police are much more like the Chicago cops who bashed in heads with nightsticks rather than just arresting people. This is like the Raj's response to Gandhi -- and people have to ask themselves if they are really willing to be killed in order for their message to be heard.

[zenlizard]

Me? I just suspect you want to instigate Niven's "Flash Riots".

[malkingrey.livejournal.com]

I've never been completely convinced, myself, that demonstrations per se actually accomplish anything beyond making those doing the demonstrating feel like they're doing something about the situation.

But I freely admit to having been a cranky cynic and general doubting-Thomasina about such things for decades.