[sklyarov-chicago] Protest Organization

[Nate Riffe]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Michael Cannon wrote:

> Answer inline
> --- Laurence O Garfield <lgarfiel@students.depaul.edu>
> wrote:
> > Unless of course you look like a group of whacko
> > neo-commie hippies who
> > haven't noticed that the 60s are long over.  That
> > only serves to hurt your
> > own cause.  You want people to have a GOOD
> > unconscious image of you and
> > whatever your cause is.  If you play into the
> > stereotype of left wing
> > anarchists with no real purpose in life except to
> > whine about things, then
> > that is exactly what people will think of you, and
> > they will dismiss you
> > out of hand.
> > 
> > --Larry Garfield
> > 
> 
> GRRRR...oh, well, Momma said if you don't have
> anything good to say, don't say anything at all...and,
> Larry, I didn't resort to name-calling...is
> 'neo-communist ex-hippy' to point out that the
> korportions of America OWN this country now and tht we
> count for nothing?

Larry has his own special brand of sarcastic satire.  You have to
understand that he's not calling anything names.  He's doing a satire of
the people on the street called all of us names.  Live with him for a
year, then you'll understand.

Anyhow, he has a point, and I agree with it.  The "tried and true" protest
tactics that you're suggesting are the sort of thing that will invoke
images of all the crazy (and a few not so crazy) political causes of the
sixties in the minds of our audience.  It's all about marketing.  We need
to present ourselves as average people, with an average opinions.  That
way, the average people we meet on the plaza will think "Wow, this is
really upsetting average people... like me!"

> 
> BTW, I'm a registered Republican.  Voted for McCain. 
> Both times.

Relevance?

> 
> Now, on to the 'something nice.'  The major threat to
> the man in the street is that things that they do now,
> that are 'assumed' rights are not rights at all and
> that, as laws change, they criminalize behaviour.  A
> classic example is the history of drug laws in this
> countrey, another is the DMCA and its effect on
> current and future technology use.
> 
> Why this aversion to putting the blame where it
> belongs?

Politics.

>  The corporate interests of this country
> drive the politics and legal structure.

Except when we're the ones doing the politicking.

>  It was true
> in the time of the Haymarket riots, it is more true
> now.  The DMCA was passed by and for the corporate
> interests.  If you don't like it, realize the reality
> of the situation:  to repeal it, you must fight the
> corporate interests.  If you don't want repeal, and
> you don't want to hold the people responsible for
> Dmitry's arrest RESPONSIBLE FOR DMITRY'S ARREST, then
> what are we protesting?

I personally would like to see the law repealed, too.  The people who are
responsible for Dmitry's arrest are just now coming off of a media
high.  It is not wise to attack when you're opponent is strongest.

> 
> Goals need to be set NOW, be made unchanging and
> clear.  The current international goals seem to be:
> 1.  Boycott Adobe - the site is still alive - that is
> one group, allied with the namesake goal of this group

You were working on a detailed history of Adobe's involvement.  How's it
coming?  I think that if we're going to tell people to boycott Adobe, we
need a detailed accurate history of their behavior to give to them.  
Without that history, Adobe is merely protecting their legal rights, and
there's no reason anyone should think they wouldn't do the same thing.  
The history needs to be pretty well tied to Dmitry's case or it will only
make people wonder why we're protesting the two together.

> 2.  Defeat Mueller - somewhat deprecated, but ditto
> the above in essence

Mueller is an executioner of the law.  Unless he's done some really nasty
shit, he's just doing his job.  Just like with Adobe, we need some
explanation that we can pass out to people who ask, and people will
ask.  And also, just like with Adobe, it needs to be related to Dmitry's
case.

> 3.  EFF - their goals are bureaucratic ones and they
> have their own agenda : repeal of the DMCA, among
> other things...follow the links

If you don't like beauracracy, then you're in the wrong country,
bud.  Perhaps you ought to look into a nice condo in Columbia, where
everything that goes on really is somebody's conspiracy.  You can't change
the system by throwing it out.  We live in a beauracracy, we'll just have
to deal with it.

> 4.  EPIC - ditto above, and more

Ditto.

> 5.  Free Sklyarov - easiest to understand, our
> namesake...most moral position...except we're allied,
> based on the international movement with all the
> above...and slashdot, and cryptome and...well, you get
> the idea.
> 
> Just a some thoughts from a guy who does this
> (marketing/sales of technology) for a living...and has
> been pretty damn successful...

This isn't technology.  This is law and politics.  People are used to
revolutions in technology, they happen on pretty much an annual basis, but
they like their laws and politics nice and consistent.  Making us out as a
bunch of revolutionaries WILL NOT WORK in this context.

> You can only be successful with the public if you get
> their attention  and WAKE THEM UP....

Standing in the plaza with a sign will get people's attention.  Many
people won't be interested in what we have to say, and that's ok.  We will
not do anything obtrusive.  We will not present ourselves as
revolutionaries.  We will not present unrelated issues at the same
protest.  Do I make myself clear?

-Nate

> 
> Mike
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Michael Cannon wrote:
> > 
> > > 'Out in left field crazy' on a banner is not
> > always a
> > > bad thing.
> > >
> > > Remember, in leafletting/banner protest (without
> > > walkabout), the goal is to engage the public in
> > > discussion/conversation and give them a leaflet,
> > while
> > > getting an agreement from them as to the injustice
> > of
> > > the situation.
> > >
> > > Anything that gets them to stop, take a leaflet
> > (or
> > > walk up to you and ASK for one) is a good thing.
> > >
> > > Finally, when you're leafletting, the aim is to
> > have
> > > the person walk away with the concious AND
> > unconcious
> > > conviction that the situation you are promoting or
> > > opposed to is 'unjust.'  You want some 'Rage
> > Against
> > > the Machine,' and some conviction of purpose, as
> > they
> > > walk away.  Better yet, you want them to DEMAND a
> > > leaflet.
> > >
> > > But first you have to wake them up.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://www.freesklyarov.org/ -- FREE DMITRY!
> > sklyarov-chicago@ufo.chicago.il.us
> >
> http://ufo.chicago.il.us/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sklyarov-chicago
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.freesklyarov.org/ -- FREE DMITRY!
> sklyarov-chicago@ufo.chicago.il.us
> http://ufo.chicago.il.us/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sklyarov-chicago
> 


------------------------------------------------((\))<----------------------
Nate Riffe			Help Dmitry Sklyarov find freedom in the so-
inkblot@geocities.com		called "Land of the Free."
                  http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010719_eff_sklyarov_alert.html