On the burning of an American flag at #OccupyMaine this morning

Published at thePhoenix.com

Calling it "a symbol that no longer serves its purpose," OccupyMaine protester Harry Brown burned the encampment's American flag at the stroke of 8 am Monday morning, as the city's clock tower rang out the deadline for Occupiers to remove their "structures and belongings" from Lincoln Park.

He may have been referring specifically to the camp's tattered flag itself, to the American flag as a guidon for democracy, or even the beacon of hope that has been "the republic for which it stands" (as the Pledge of Allegiance has it), is unclear - and likely intentionally so. It could equally be all three.

As the flames licked at Old Glory, TV and newspaper reporters and photographers watched and recorded, for what will surely be oft-repeated descriptions of what happened. The coverage is less likely to discuss what it meant for Brown, though he spoke his mind clearly and repeatedly.

And certain to go uncovered is any suggestion that the mainstream media should have offered the same sort of breathless reporting as the American republic itself and the ideals for which it has stood for centuries were torn to shreds, and then burned to the ground by those in the halls of power.

#OccupyMaine wins, begins packing up

Published at thePhoenix.com

OccupyMaine can claim victory, even as it prepares to remove its encampment from Lincoln Park. On Wednesday, Maine Superior Court Justice Thomas Warren ruled that the encampment is expressive and therefore is protected by the Maine and US constitutions. However, he also ruled that safety concerns expressed by city officials, as well as worries about damage to the park and access to the space by others wishing to use it, are reasonable limitations on the expressive protest, and so the encampment must end.

That in itself is a major victory (especially since the city not only claimed in court that the encampment was not expressive, but also defied reality and a City Council vote in support of an Occupy petition to oppose corporate personhood and claimed that protesters were not doing anything other than camping), but Warren went further.

He left open several doors for either the Occupiers or other future protesters to use to defend their expressive encampments.

First, he ruled that one reason he upheld the city's safety concerns is that the Occupiers did not voluntarily undertake to follow the city's rules, but rather asked for permission to stay and promised to come into compliance if that permission were received.

Second, he ruled that if the Occupiers wanted to seek a city permit to conduct a non-camping protest either in the overnight hours or on a 24-hour basis, and if that permit were denied in a way that infringed on free-speech rights, the group could come back to court.

And third, he suggested that the Occupy proposal for a "free speech zone" could be successful if it were "‘a Hyde Park Corner' open to all viewpoints" as opposed to a place that one or another group would have permission to occupy for a period of time.

While the decision explored whether the Maine Constitution offers additional protections for free speech and assembly, beyond those in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, Warren found it did not. However, none of the parties in court - not the Occupiers nor a supporting brief from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, nor the city - addressed one aspect of the Occupation that is explicitly protected in the Maine Constitution in a way that is not included in the federal one: that they people "have an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it."

It is surprising that the direct-democracy self-sovereign General Assembly did not claim protection under this clause, as they were instituting government (and/or altering, reforming, or totally changing it) specifically because of concerns about their safety and happiness.

Warren's decision can be appealed, but likely only after OccupyMaine's full case against the city is heard and decided, and the protesters cannot stay in the park any longer. (They also have to decide whether or not to continue the lawsuit, which could cost thousands of dollars, even if attorney John Branson continues to donate his services.)

Clearing out the park

As it stands now, by Monday, February 6, at 8 am the Occupiers must have removed everything from the park that they don't want considered trash. The Occupiers themselves can stay until 10 pm, when the park closes, according to a notice from City Manager Mark Rees.

What happens at those times remains to be seen, and was the subject of a very long and well-facilitated GA Wednesday night.

The city originally planned to give the Occupiers two days, but the Occupiers asked for more time and got two additional days, plus a conditional offer of a longer extension if the progress in the existing time is significant.

How much the group is able to clear out is unclear, since the Occupy coffers are empty. "I have more receipts than I have money," finance workgroup member Rachel Rumson told the GA last night. "I haven't received a cash donation in over two months."

The group has promised to raise money to help restore Lincoln Park, and may need to spend some funds to rent vehicles and storage locations for anything they may remove from the park for later use.

The city is providing a large Dumpster to the encampment for disposal of trash, and will take care of emptying the Dumpster when the park is cleaned up.

Staying or going?

Also in question is how many of the protesters will leave voluntarily. It seemed that many attendees at the GA were prepared to practice nonviolent civil disobedience and stay, with one member specifically saying he plans to get arrested; others expressed desire to help support the image of the movement by requiring the police to come in and remove them, for the sake of publicity.

Group members agreed that each person's decision was an individual, autonomous one, but also agreed that protecting the common resources - particularly the OM Dome (whose owner has said he wants it back if the camp is ever dismantled), the contents of the library, and the food in the kitchen area - required removing those community structures from the park.

The food will be donated to a local food pantry, and Occupy members will store the library materials safely until a permanent home is found.

Continuing activism

The group will continue its activities bringing attention to injustices in Maine and around the country.

On Friday, February 3, at noon at Senator Snowe's office at 3 Canal Plaza, ther will be a protest against NDAA, which allows indefinite detention of US citizens without access to the courts, and the Enemy Expatriation Act, which could allow the government to strip people of their US citizenship.

Also Friday, there will be a full-page advertisement in the Portland Press Herald discussing the campaign contributions of Maine's congressional delegation, and a movie night at the Meg Perry Center.

And on Tuesday, February 7, at noon in the State of Maine room in City Hall, there will be a People's Press Conference to object to cuts to heating assistance for poor and elderly Mainers.

Other events are being planned. 

Occupy Watch: Citizens overwhelmingly support Occupy encampment

Published in the Portland Phoenix


As OccupyMaine's request to stay in Lincoln Park is considered by a Maine judge, it appears the Portland City Council's decisions (which the judge is reviewing) were based more on individual councilors' views and less on constituent complaints than elected officials have let on.

Based on the results of a Freedom of Access request for citizen communications with Portland city officials, as well as testimony in public hearings, far more Portland residents (and people who live in nearby towns) expressed support for the OccupyMaine encampment than opposed it.

The public testimony is well-recorded as having been overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of the encampment; now a review of constituent correspondence shows an even split. That alone suggests councilors were being selective when saying during December's city meetings that they were hearing a lot of opposition from the public.

The Portland Phoenix has reviewed all the emails sent by the public to members of the council, and between councilors and city staff. The Phoenix also requested any notes or other records from phone conversations councilors had with constituents on the subject of OccupyMaine, but received none.

A simple tally of correspondence of those writing to express an opinion either way on the OccupyMaine encampment at Lincoln Park shows an even split: the councilors heard from 22 people or groups in opposition, and 21 in support.

The breakdown is as follows: Opposing the encampment (though frequently saying they support the Occupy movement's message, as well as broad First Amendment rights) were 17 Portland residents; one each from South Portland, Cape Elizabeth, and Westbrook; one person who did not specify a place of residence; and the Portland's Downtown District group.

Supporting the encampment (as well as many of Occupy's larger messages) were 13 Portland residents, five people who did not specify where they live, and three groups (the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, the Social Action Committee of the Allen Avenue Unitarian Universalist Church, and the Maine's Majority/61 Percent group).

• Some messages show thoughts of city staff and councilors on the Occupation.

City attorney Gary Wood on November 10 wrote to councilors, "It seems apparent at this point that my hope for the Russian defense (i.e. winter) is not going to be particularly successful with at least some of these protestors." On December 9, Wood closed another memo to councilors by saying, "I have to say that OccupyME is aptly named in my opinion and that of the many other city staff that have been working on this issue."

On November 21, replying to an email from Acting Police Chief Mike Sauschuck saying that OccupyMaine members had contacted police and assisted them in locating two missing teenagers from Buxton who had visited the encampment, then-councilor Cheryl Leeman wrote: "For me, that's it!! Time to formualte a plan for transitioning folks out of the park with a specific deadline. I believe we have been very patient, but harboring 2 fourteen year olds and drunken fights, numerous calls for service. This has gone way beyond 'free speech', it has become an unauthorized tent city that no longer represents the original mission of the group, 'Occupy Maine'. IT is now a public safety issue of serious concern." Councilor John Anton replied, "I would love to have this discussion with the council in public."

After the council's December 7 decision to refuse to work with OccupyMaine to find a way the encampment-protest could continue, the city's most progressive councilors kept wrestling with the idea. On December 9, Councilor Kevin Donoghue suggested that banning free speech at night on public property collided with the laws allowing people to walk through the city's parks; that is "effectively saying transit [is greater than] speech," Donoghue wrote to Mayor Mike Brennan.

• And there were hints about how an eviction might happen, if and when it comes.

On December 14, councilor David Marshall (the council's lone supporter of working with OccupyMaine) was fatalistic about the outcome. He wrote to Rees, Sauschuck, and city human-services chief Doug Gardner, suggesting a means of carrying out an eviction with less conflict than other cities have seen. "With probably the most humane tactic used so far to evict Occupy protesters, the City of Baltimore offered bus rides to the shelters during the eviction process from the park," Marshall wrote, providing a link to a Baltimore Sun news story on the event. "Hopefully we can borrow this tactic from Baltimore's playbook. Although, I am not sure that riot gear is necessary," he continued

On December 16, Rees responded supportively, specifically saying the city DHHS people should be "present to transition (homeless) people to our shelter system."

Sauschuck was more reserved, writing the same day that "due to the potential safety concerns at the scene I would recommend that officers facilitate the transfer of folks to different locations. The locations in question will depend on the time frame we make contact with the individuals. Just as an example if we are forced to move them out and the decision is made for 8 in the morning on a Sunday then the options would be completely different then another day and time. We're certainly onboard with making this as easy and humanitarian a process as possible."

Online Freedom: White House pans SOPA

Published in the Portland Phoenix


Maine's congressional delegation appears to be in a holding pattern while attempting to form positions on two bills that address widespread copyright and trademark violations via the Internet. The bills are controversial because they would make online censorship much easier, more effective, and harder to combat.

Over the weekend, the White House issued a statement objecting to the provisions of both the Protect IP Act of 2011 (pending in the US Senate) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (pending in the House) that would allow sites alleged to host or assist violators to be effectively blacklisted and technologically cut off from the Internet almost entirely.

Here's an example. Let's say that a person posts a video to an online forum without permission from its owner. (We're sure you've never done that.) Under existing law (the Digital Millennium Communications Act), the copyright owner can contact the forum's administrator, demonstrate that someone had violated the owner's copyright, and specify where on the forum the violation occurs. The law would then require the administrator to remove the offending post or link.

Should SOPA and the Protect IP Act pass in their current forms, any person — whether they were or were not the copyright owner — could file a motion in court and receive a judge's order specifying any or all of the following four restrictions: 1) require all US sites and search engines to remove all links to that entire site; 2) ban US online-advertising services from serving ads to that site; 3) bar all US payment networks from conducting transactions to or from that site; and 4) require US Internet service providers to block customer access to the site.

The sweeping restrictions, coupled with the fact that a complainant need not prove ownership of the copyright allegedly being violated (nor any requirement that a copyright violation be proved), have aroused the ire of the Internet community, with free-information sites like Wikipedia and Reddit planning to turn their pages black this week in protest against the bills.

The issue will come before the Senate first; the Protect IP Act is slated for a procedural vote this week. Senator Olympia Snowe's office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on her position; Senator Susan Collins's spokesman, Kevin Kelley, emailed to say "Senator Collins is still reviewing the bill and has discussed the issue with folks on both sides."

Second District Representative Mike Michaud's spokesman, Ed Gilman, said in an email "We are aware of the concerns that have been raised, and the congressman looks forward to reviewing the final bill when it's available."

Chellie Pingree, 1st District Representative, seemed most on top of the matter. She said through spokesman Willy Ritch's email, "SOPA sounds like it has a noble purpose — stopping online piracy — but the collateral damage from this vaguely worded bill could be significant. I'm convinced that the sweeping language that is used in this bill could have a chilling effect on free speech online. The penalties are overly harsh and it sets up a system in which big entertainment or Internet companies could use the threat of harsh government penalties to effectively stifle competition and innovation."

Occupy Watch: Court looms; camp signs missing

Published in the Portland Phoenix


OccupyMaine has filed its comments on the city's reality-detached answer to Occupy's lawsuit (see "10 Fun Things in the OccupyMaine-Portland Lawsuit," by Jeff Inglis, January 13), and a hearing on the Occupiers' request for court protection from city eviction is scheduled for next week.

The outcome of the hearing will shift the Occupation into a new phase. Either it will become a rare Occupation that has received court shielding, or it will turn into an unauthorized encampment that the city may attempt to clear out. Some Occupiers have said they will leave if a judge rules against them; others have said they will not leave, even if staying means defying a court order.

Portland officials have been peaceful, though bureaucratically aggressive, in attempting to remove the encampment; if the city wins the case and some Occupiers defy an order to leave, what happens next will be of great interest to all concerned about free speech and use of public spaces.

The police attitude toward the protest is in some question, following a mysterious situation over the weekend, summarized in a Facebook post at 8:34 pm Sunday that begins "Every single sign from Lincoln Park was taken." All the signs along the park's fences were removed. It wasn't just handmade signs; wooden signs, professionally made banners, including one for Maine Veterans For Peace, and an American flag were taken down.

"The only thing that was left behind was the exit signs that we had put up at the city's request," says Occupier Jennifer Rose.

It's unclear when it happened, since nobody was caught in the act, but Occupiers who were in the encampment say it likely happened in the midafternoon on Sunday, just before the 3 pm General Assembly, which happened at the Meg Perry Center. (Because most of the stolen signs were on the fence along Congress Street, they are apparently not visible on surveillance cameras at the county and federal courthouses; the Occupiers moved nearer those cameras in October following a bomb attack on the camp, specifically in hopes of catching or deterring future troublemakers.)

Rose, who discovered the theft, says she called the police when she noticed the signs were missing. She was told that the city had not taken them down (this position was repeated by city spokeswoman Nicole Clegg on Tuesday), and that officers would come to the park to take a report.

Some time later, when officers had not yet been by, Rose called the police again, and was asked to come to the station. Between 8 and 9 pm Sunday, she did that, and spoke to two officers, including a lieutenant, whose name she did not record.

The lieutenant "told us first that anything left in a park becomes public domain, so the signs can't be stolen," Rose says, noting that when people lose their wallets or phones, or leave picnic baskets unattended to play elsewhere in a park, they don't give up their ownership of those items.

The officer also told her the encampment was "in the park illegally without a permit" — a conclusion that is undecided, pending next week's court hearing — and suggested that "some citizen took it upon himself to take everything down."

Noting that it is considered theft if campaign signs are removed from public parks, Rose says the political nature of Occupiers' signs should afford them the same protection. But "We were not even allowed to do a police report on it," she says.

Clegg, the city's spokeswoman, said Tuesday that the encounter at the police station was "a respectful conversation" that included a section about whether the signs were abandoned property, but mostly involved the officers' attempts to determine who owned the signs and how much they might be worth.

OccupyMaine's lack of an official leader "made it awkward for the police" to take a report from someone they weren't certain was the owner of the signs, Clegg said. Nevertheless, it appears that the city is acknowledging things should have been handled differently: Clegg said that Acting Police Chief Mike Sauschuck will be contacting John Branson, the attorney representing OccupyMaine, to offer to take a report from a representative of the group.