March 4, 2011

Who started the restriction of access to the Wisconsin Capitol, which the state court judge has ruled unconstitutional?

If you were critical of Meade and me for refusing to wait in line and insisting on walking right into the Capitol building, then you need to read the judge's order, which says that the restriction of access "violates the State Constitution."

Instead of meekly following instructions — which, oddly enough, the anti-Walker protesters did — we felt immediate outrage and expressed it. If you are one of the many people who criticized me and Meade for selfishly jumping ahead of a line, it's time for an apology.

Let me remind you what happened. I started it. On Saturday, February 26th, the day with the largest crowd, there were "'about 70,000 people' at the Capitol, but they were mainly outside":
I walked right up to the nearest door, and a "volunteer" in an orange vest told me to go wait in a line to go in some other door. This door was for... I didn't quite catch who the special people were who got to go right in the door I'd walked up to, but I said, "This is a public building. You're saying there are 2 kinds of people — ones that get right in and ones that go wait in line? Who are you?" He was obviously not a uniformed city official. I was all "Who are you?" and "How dare you!" and, after a few seconds, I (and Meade) got right through that door.

Once in, I said "How dare they!" about 10 times. Sorry, Meade didn't video that. You've never seen video [of me] as emotional as I was right then. I got outraged for myself and for all the people that were out there waiting in that line. I was outraged about them for 2 reasons: 1. Because they were treated as second-class citizens who had to enter through the subordinate door, and 2. Because they meekly accepted their subordination.
I couldn't tell if the protesters had set up the blockage themselves or if they had somehow colluded with the police, but I was truly outraged that private citizens were assuming the authority to restrict access to the public building.

The Washington Post reports on the ousting of the overnight-sleeping protesters:
The protesters demanded to see a written copy of the order before they would go. University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling read the order to the crowd, eliciting cheers when she read the judge's determination that the state had unconstitutionally restricted access to the building.

"We won this battle," said former Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager, who represented unions that had challenged the state's decision to limit building access. But she also told the demonstrators they needed to leave.
From my observations, it seems that THE PROTESTERS THEMSELVES were doing the initial blocking of the door, without the police, so I'm irked by this righteous exulting. On February 26, a guy wearing an orange vest with the word "Marshall" sharpied on duct tape tried to keep me and Meade out. There were no police there at all. I call bullshit on Lautenschlager's "we won." Read the facts I observed directly and rebut the inference that the protesters initiated the access restriction.

Now the police WERE there the next day, when Meade arrived at the same door (the King Street door). Inspired by my resistance the previous day, Meade insisted on walking right in. When he got home, he said to me "I almost got myself arrested." He caught it on video, which is embedded in the post "Meade is New Media." He confronted the police, demanding to know by what authority they were telling him that he could not walk right into the Capitol.

When Meade moved to push through the door, one of them accused him of pushing a police officer. I believe that was an attempt to intimidate him into going over and waiting in the access-restricting line. The implication was that they could arrest him if they want, so he'd better get super-compliant right now. A protester who assumes Meade is a typical protester tells Meade that the police are "on our side." That is, the protesters seem to be colluding with the police in the access restriction, which seems to be why they are waiting in line. But Meade isn't with them, and he's not interested in facilitating the collusion. He's on his own.

Here's the video Meade took on February 28, 2011. Listen at 1:03 for Meade's mocking: "Ah, here are the sheep, obeying orders from the police." At 2:55, he's confronting the police about their system. At 3:34, he encounters a legal observer and questions him about whether the exclusion from the building violates constitutional rights.

In short, Meade and I recognized the access restriction as, initially, a private wrong, committed by the private-citizen protesters, and, the next day, a violation of rights by the police. When the police took over the access-restriction policy, the protesters continued to support it, because — I assume — it served their interests. One of the protesters urgently attempted to clue Meade in that the police were on the protesters' side and that he should meekly submit to the line ritual for the good of the collective.

This is what it looks like to me, having experienced it directly and through Meade. If you don't accept my characterization, PROVE ME WRONG.

ADDED: UW polisci prof Howard Schweber emails a response to this post (and gives me permission to publish it here):
Anne,

I have to object. First, the requirements of using only certain doors and standing in line were not created by the protesters, and your "reporting" gives absolutely no evidence to suggest that they were. Second, your "calling bullshit" is about something else entirely.



1) Last Saturday protest leaders explained to me that the restrictions on entrances (only two open at opposite ends of the rotunda) had been set up by the police, and that the protest marshal's were voluntarily helping to enforce them to preserve good relations with the cooperation of the protesters themselves. This is what smart organizers do -- your claim that the restrictions "originated" with the protesters, as far as I know, is incorrect. You may have a good argument to the effect that private citizens should not assist the police in enforcing lawful orders--although that's a pretty longstanding tradition. And of course, if there were evidence that pro-Walker protesters were being treated differently than pro-union protesters that would be a different story, but I haven't heard anything to that effect.

2) All of which it has nothing to do with the story you are reporting, as I understand it.The restrictions to which the judge's order referred were not about closing doors and making people stand in line. As I understand it, starting this past weekend Capitol police would only allow individuals into the building if the were invited by a member of a legislative staff who came to the door to escort them, and each legislator's office was limited to 8 visitors. In addition, the police would let in precisely the number of persons that equally the number of chairs in a scheduled committee meeting. In addition, police told reporters that they would allow one person in for every protester inside who left. Those actions were what prompted the motion for an injunction -- not the selective blocking of entrances and requirement that people stand in line. I got this information from a reporter, Dustin Pedroia, who put his press pass in his pocket and walked up to a cop with a copy of the injunction, and was *still* denied entrance to the Capitol -- that's what gave rise to the contempt hearing..
3) Consequently, with all due respect, your "crying bullshit" is bullshit. The protesters cooperated with police to ensure that public access to -- and egress from -- the Capitol would be peaceful and orderly in accordance with content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. The fact that those restrictions might incidentally affect other members of the general public does not make them invalid, nor does the fact that private citizens voluntarily assisted in enforcing their terms. The purpose of those restrictions, finally, was to control the flow of traffic, not to limit access. By contrast, the administration's subsequent efforts were to prevent access to any significant number of people. That was the subject and purpose of the injunction, and that was the claim of "victory." I don't care whether one agrees with the protests or not, it is no more truthful to describe the organizers as authoritarians limiting their own supporters free speech rights than it is to characterize them as union thugs.

In other words, this ain't the 60's. No one is throwing bombs or even rocks. These are middle class protesters assembling to make a political staement, not agitators looking for a confrontation. And they are Wisconsinites: they stand in line, they cooperate, they like to keep things peaceful and benign. They're just like that. It is quite true that the protesters are not free speech absolutists or insisting on exercising their rights to the fullest possible extent -- but that's because that's not what they are protesting about (this is also not the Berkeley Free Speech movement.) Antagonizing the police in the name of First Amendment absolutism would be childish self-indulgence for these protesters, both those who support Walker and those who support the unions. Cooperating with the police to ensure that large-scale protests can go forward over a period of weeks without any untoward incidents? That's for grown-ups. And if the police go too far? Go get a court order -- that, too, is the grown-up response.

hs
I'll respond to this later.

ADDED: My response is here.

256 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 256 of 256
AmPowerBlog said...

Linked. Includes viral video: "'If You Are One of the Many People Who Criticized Me and Meade for Selfishly Jumping Ahead of a Line, It's Time For an Apology'".

Chip S. said...

What if they were trying to maintain order so they could later stage a dramatic "storming" of the Capitol?

Shoemaker and Sofa King would probably like to have a word with you about assuming "facts not in evidence."

I'm kinda surprised that you don't think that there was a common interest in maintaining order.

Ann Althouse said...

jr565 said.."Ann, here is the policy as laid out by the Department of Administration NOT BY THE protesters. According to the Department of Administration, beginning at 8:00 a.m. on Friday morning, the following procedures will be in place...."

Well, that refers to Friday, meaning today. I'm talking about events that occurred last weekend!

"Employees who display their ID's may enter at the MLK entrance". This is most likely what they were told by the administration."

Obviously, you're not from Madison. I was at the King Street entrance, not the MLK entrance. These are 2 completely different streets downtown.

Man, start over. You are so far off!

Sofa King said...

If everyone in the crowd with a smart phone demanded to be let in because they were reporters for a blog, then there'd be no rule at all.

So what? Why does Althouse in particular care very strongly whether or not there's a rule in place?

Chip S. said...

Implicit rules, spontaneous order, whatever they might be called, by their very nature are not explicitly codified. So conjecturing about what they might have been no doubt fails to meet various demands for "facts in evidence." But the fact that those conjectured, implicit rules were subsequently codified does seem to provide some basis for inferring that they were the informal rules as understood by most people on the scene at the time.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...

He was simply relaying hte stated policy that most likely he was told to relay by his leaders...

"Most likely" is another assumption. But even if you're correct, that leads directly to Professor Althouse's question: "Who started the restriction of access to the Wisconsin Capitol, which the state court judge has ruled unconstitutional?" "His leaders", perhaps? We don't have any evidence.

And that directive was most likely given to the protesters so that they woulnd't impede business at the capitol building now.

"Most likely", not proven.

But if the very door that he said you shouldn't enter is hte very same wone that you now can't enter, and the very same door that the protesters stood in line at before entering is the same one they can say protesters can use to enter, then I don't see how it's much of stretch to suggest that they simply wrote down, so as to avoid any further confusion, what was already told to protesters.

What "you don't see" does not constitute proof.

She can not heed the advice and even question his authority, and he can respond "Lady, I'm just telling you what I was told. If yo uwant to go in the door, despite the fact that everyone is going through this other door, who am I to stop you".

It's a pity that he didn't say that. What he did say was -- Oops! He didn't say any such reasonable statement, he just let her through.

You might want to reread the last line of the Professor's post:

If you don't accept my characterization, PROVE ME WRONG.

She's behaving like a law professor here (imagine that!), challenging you to prove your case. You haven't proven a thing. You've offered a plausible alternativee characterization, but that's not a proof.

Chip S. said...

@SofaKing, Perhaps you're the guy who cut me off in traffic last week, who also felt that "So what?" was a sufficient justification of his behavior, at least as indicated by his single-digit salute. He, too, had no interest in other people's sense of highway etiquette, and therefore was fully justified in his actions.

I happen to think that limited government works best when individuals conduct themselves in the public sphere with a decent regard for others.

jr565 said...

Althouse,
Don't think it ultimately matter to you what door you entered. You wrote:
Instead of meekly following instructions — which, oddly enough, the anti-Walker protesters did — we felt immediate outrage and expressed it.
Would it matter who was expressing the intructions, the Capitol Building or the protesters, and if htey were expressing it because that is what they were told to do? What if the protesters were following instructions from their leaders because the leaders were getting instructions from the Capitol as to where they could legally have their protest? Do you know? Did you care? I get that you don't think the protesters had the right to dictate where you should go, but based on your assertions I don't think you think ANYONE had the right to dicate to yo where you should go, that all doors should be open for you, otherwise that istself was violating the state constitution.



"Let me remind you what happened. I started it. On Saturday, February 26th, the day with the largest crowd, there were "'about 70,000 people' at the Capitol, but they were mainly outside":
I walked right up to the nearest door, and a "volunteer" in an orange vest told me to go wait in a line to go in some other door. This door was for... I didn't quite catch who the special people were who got to go right in the door I'd walked up to"
So it didn't really matter what door yo uwent to, you simply went to the nearest one. And when told by the volunteer that you shouldn't use this door but that other door you got in his face. Because you weren't operating under the principle that this is the door you should have to go through, an not that other door (and if that were the case, please provide evidence) but rather, you shouldn't have to wait in line and could go through any door.


"but I said, "This is a public building. You're saying there are 2 kinds of people — ones that get right in and ones that go wait in line? Who are you?"
Again, you don't know the second kind of person who should be allowed in, but your premise seems to be that there shouldn't be such a distinction. If he said (as was later enumerated in the official policy) that employees can bypass the lines, wouldn't that invalidate the point that there are 2 types of people, one who has to stand in line and one who can go in the door.
I can certainly agree that it might be better to have heard that you couldn't enter the door by a security guard, as opposed to the guy they designate as the guy who tells people where to go who are there to protest, but it doesn't then validate that you in fact can enter any door you look or that it's ok to enter the door you want to.

Cedarford said...

Althouse - "This is what it looks like to me, having experienced it directly and through Meade. If you don't accept my characterization (access on demand to public buildings), PROVE ME WRONG.

==============
That's easy.
History books showed restriction of access to public buildings in DC during the mass protests of Vietnam, civil rights marches - backed by courts. On grounds not only of public safety, not just on preventing property damage, but also on not letting swarms of protestors disrupt or block the work of government.
Courts also backed the eviction of "Bonus Marchers" after WWI, off public land. Since then, large protests and public rallies can be restricted to certain areas, told to disburse after time, as long as the right to assemble and petition is allowed to happen, somewhere, for some time.

And the courts themselves have never had a problem barring protestors from public court buildings if the mighty lawyers dressed in robes deem it disruptive or an attempt to pressure judicial decision-making.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Chip S. said...

What if they were trying to maintain order so they could later stage a dramatic "storming" of the Capitol?

Shoemaker and Sofa King would probably like to have a word with you about assuming "facts not in evidence."


Damn straight! This isn't about "Was the Professor right?" It's about "Prove the Professor wrong." And hypotheses aren't proof, whether they support or oppose the point in contention.

If I were to hypothesize, I would sound a lot like jr565: I would hypothesize that this was some guy asked by his leaders to try to maintain order by directing the people to the line. I would further hypothesize they asked this because the government asked it of them, and because they realized that a mob scene would hurt their cause. And I would finish by hypothesizing that when faced with a crazy lady who's angrier and smarter than him and who's backed up by a protective-looking goon, he decided he wasn't up to the confrontation, so he let her through.

But that's hypothesis, not proof.

And if all this hasn't bored Trooper and driven him away by now... Hey, Trooper, I think blogger gave me your wv by mistake: weditedi!

jr565 said...

Martin Shoemaker wrote:

"Most likely" is another assumption. But even if you're correct, that leads directly to Professor Althouse's question: "Who started the restriction of access to the Wisconsin Capitol, which the state court judge has ruled unconstitutional?" "His leaders", perhaps? We don't have any evidence.

But isn't Althouse similarly assuming that she can enter the door? She doesn't know that the Capitol buidling didn't restrict protesters to the doors they were standing in front of, and entered the door anyway. On the grounds that because it was a public building she should be able to enter any door.
Who started the restriction? Does she know? Then how is she determining she can enter the door versus not enter the door?


If you don't accept my characterization, PROVE ME WRONG.

She's behaving like a law professor here (imagine that!), challenging you to prove your case. You haven't proven a thing. You've offered a plausible alternativee characterization, but that's not a proof.


Except how can she prove me wrong if she can't prove herself right? If it's her assumption that because it's an open building that she has access to all doors, then I would disagree with that assumption, and the stated policy bears that out. If she's not saying that, then she wasn't relying on any authority that she could enter the door in question, she simply did it. And when someone said it was reserved for so and so (who she doesn't even know) she said tough shit. She can't say it was in fact reserved for so and so since she has no authority either way, she simply did it.

Sofa King said...

My point is that there is no *moral* or *ethical* duty to abide by ad-hoc rules born of expediency.

Sofa King said...

But isn't Althouse similarly assuming that she can enter the door?

Absent some kind of official notice or barrier to entry, it is a reasonable inference that doors are for entering.

Sofa King said...

"Do you know what this is? This is the short line at the DMV. You know how there's the long line going all the way to Canada, and there's the short line with only three people, but you don't get on the short line because you think 'something must be wrong' and then you waste 3 hours!"

"I got on the short line once. It was for Farm Vehicles."

The Money Pit

jr565 said...

or to put it another way, will Ann acknowledge that the Capitol building can block access to a certain door if for example they want to use it specifically for employee access, while other doors are reserved for allowing guests and/or protesters.
If that is true, then the next question is, did she know in fact that this was in fact one of those restricted doors. the guy with the red vest said it was restricted. The remaining crowd stood at a separate door, which would suggest that they were under the impression that they shouldnt be using that particular door. So lets say they have no idea what they're talking about and have no authority to tell others what door to go into. Fine. By what authority is ann determining that she can go into that door? Did she consult with security at the capitol building. Is she an employee with an id card? You can discount that the guy in the red vest had any authority, but that doesn't grant Ann any additional authority. As such why is she claiming some sort of outrage. The only possibility is that she assumes that she can go wherever she wants because it's a public building. ANd I would say that's overreach. Especially since, the Capitol building has in fact clarified where people can and cannot go,and places certain doors as specifically off limits.
If Ann assumed that the only reason the guy in the red vest told her to go to the one door and not the other is because that's what the protesters want, that cannot be proven based on the evidence at hand. The protesters could just as simply be told by the building that they can go one place and not another, even if it's more convenient to go into the door that Ann picked.

jr565 said...

Sofa king wrote:
Absent some kind of official notice or barrier to entry, it is a reasonable inference that doors are for entering.
A line of 70,000 people at one door is not an indicator that that's a door that should be used? And at any door to someones house I very rarely see a do not enter sign, nor a sign on the door saying not to open it. Does that mean that absent those signs the assumption should be that I can go onto someones lawn and open their doors?

George said...

I'm astonished by how few people seem to grasp Ann's point:

It is not the business of people not empowered by the State to restrict access to the government of the State. If there was sufficient need for access restrictions, the security force at the Capitol should have implemented them.

The reason for this should be quite apparent--should questions as to the selection procedures used to enter the building arise, there is a clear line of demarcated authority only if the procedure is being run by a state actor. This ensures that there is a judicial/legal response to illegal state action, such as viewpoint discrimination for entrants. With private individuals running the show, there is no such capability.

George said...

"So lets say they have no idea what they're talking about and have no authority to tell others what door to go into. Fine. By what authority is ann determining that she can go into that door? "

Because it is a door to a public facility and there is no official statement nor official person restricting access.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...

But isn't Althouse similarly assuming that she can enter the door?

If I stipulate that, can you prove that assumption to be wrong? Not hypothesize or assume, prove.

Except how can she prove me wrong if she can't prove herself right?

She's not trying to prove you wrong. She's challenging you to prove her wrong.

If it's her assumption that because it's an open building that she has access to all doors, then I would disagree with that assumption...

If it's a public building, I share her assumption (assuming that is her assumption). Any unlocked door that isn't marked for restricted access or guarded by a designated officer (not a parade marshall), I assume I can use. If they don't want me to use that door, they should lock it. At a minimum, they should mark it.

...and the stated policy bears that out.

The policy did not exist at the time. Ergo it proves nothing.


And when someone said it was reserved for so and so (who she doesn't even know) she said tough shit.

No, she asked for what policy and authority allowed him to say that. And he offered none.

jr565 said...

George wrote:
The reason for this should be quite apparent--should questions as to the selection procedures used to enter the building arise, there is a clear line of demarcated authority only if the procedure is being run by a state actor. This ensures that there is a judicial/legal response to illegal state action, such as viewpoint discrimination for entrants. With private individuals running the show, there is no such capability

Except we don't know in fact that the protesters weren't at the door they were at becuase they were directed to go there by the Capitol building.

George said...

Then an offical--not a citizen--should have imposed that policy.

jr565 said...

Martin wrote:
If it's a public building, I share her assumption (assuming that is her assumption). Any unlocked door that isn't marked for restricted access or guarded by a designated officer (not a parade marshall), I assume I can use. If they don't want me to use that door, they should lock it. At a minimum, they should mark it.

I don't know that it wasn't marked. She simply said she went up to the first door.
Similarly when going to any parking lots, I look for cars who's doors are unlocked because I assume I can then use them.

Sofa King said...

A line of 70,000 people at one door is not an indicator that that's a door that should be used?

Define "should." If you are talking about a duty, then no, they could be queuing simply out of their interest to preserve order. Althouse owes them no duty to help them further that goal.

And at any door to someones house I very rarely see a do not enter sign, nor a sign on the door saying not to open it. Does that mean that absent those signs the assumption should be that I can go onto someones lawn and open their doors?

No, obviously, because a private residence is in a different category than a public building. Have you ever been to, say, a shopping mall? Did you drive around for hours looking for someone to tell you which door you were allowed to enter?

jr565 said...

George wrote:
Then an offical--not a citizen--should have imposed that policy

And I don't know that one didn't. We know that the vast majority of the protesters were at one door and not the other door. Why were they at that door waiting on a line? If someone then comes alone a few hours later and sees a whole bunch of people standing in front of a door and a guide you happen to meet says "dont go into this door, go into that door" how do you know that prior to your arrival it wasn't worked out that protesters should go to the door they are standing in front of after coordinating with the admin at the capitol building. As I stated, if they want their protest to be lawful, and not get hauled out they have to comply with the capitol building to determine where the crowds should engage their protest. But I don't know if htat happened, but I also dont know that that didn't happen. If you come on the scene and simply start opening doors, you are not basing your actions on any overriding authority. and most people dont go places and simply open doors and see what they find especially if they aren't authorized. so if Ann knew she could enter the door an this person told her she couldn't then I could see the outrage, but she dind't know if she could or couldn't. Hence, the whole argument that "should questions as to the selection procedures used to enter the building arise, there is a clear line of demarcated authority only if the procedure is being run by a state actor' would equally apply to Ann ais it would to any of the protesters.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...

or to put it another way, will Ann acknowledge that the Capitol building can block access to a certain door if for example they want to use it specifically for employee access, while other doors are reserved for allowing guests and/or protesters.

I can't speak for her, but I hope her answer is "Yes."


If that is true, then the next question is, did she know in fact that this was in fact one of those restricted doors.

From her action, I assume no, she did not know that. (And again, assumptions prove nothing.)

Further, "this was in fact one of those restricted doors" is an unproven assumption.


the guy with the red vest said it was restricted.

And she saw no reason to believe he had the authority to say that.


The remaining crowd stood at a separate door, which would suggest that they were under the impression that they shouldnt be using that particular door.

Suggestions and impressions, not evidence.


By what authority is ann determining that she can go into that door?

In the absence of locks, signs, or authorized guards, she needs no authority.

In a totalitarian state, the joke/tragedy goes "That which is not mandatory is forbidden." You're treading pretty close to that sort of thinking. If the building is open to the public, then all non-controlled entrances are open to the public. And to be controlled, an entrance needs a lock, a sign, or an authorized guard.

The only possibility is that she assumes that she can go wherever she wants because it's a public building. ANd I would say that's overreach. Especially since, the Capitol building has in fact clarified where people can and cannot go,and places certain doors as specifically off limits.

Again, you use the present policy to prove the past policy. That's a fallacy. Policies can change.

jr565 said...

Sofa King wrote:
Define "should." If you are talking about a duty, then no, they could be queuing simply out of their interest to preserve order. Althouse owes them no duty to help them further that goal.

I'm not talking about a duty, I'm talking about common sense. If you are at a mall and are looking for the entrance do you go where you see the crowd of people or do you look for that tiny door behind the dumpster and assume that's the place to go.
I wouldn't even know how to define duty when it came to protesters. Becuase there are protesters and there are counter protesters. Who are the ones that you are condeming here as directing the traffic? The counter protesters go where the protesters are.
But why are you assuming that that is not where they should be?

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...

And at any door to someones house I very rarely see a do not enter sign, nor a sign on the door saying not to open it. Does that mean that absent those signs the assumption should be that I can go onto someones lawn and open their doors?

Bullshit, and you know it. We're not discussing someone's home -- even if some of the protesters think they have squatter's rights -- we're discussing a public building.

Try to argue honestly, please.

jr565 said...

Martin wrote:
And she saw no reason to believe he had the authority to say that.

Yes she also had no authority to believe that what he said was not in fact true, even if he wasn't the person to say it. She also had evidence that 70,000 other people were not at the door she was at but were in fact waiting on line in front of a different door. There was literally zero authority or evidende to suggest that she shouldn't have to stand in line or that this door should be accessible to any and all. She simply took it on her own authority. And if that's ok for her to do, why can the protesters not take it upon their own authority to do what they want to do?

Sofa King said...

I'm not talking about a duty, I'm talking about common sense. If you are at a mall and are looking for the entrance do you go where you see the crowd of people or do you look for that tiny door behind the dumpster and assume that's the place to go.

Neither. I look for another entrance identical to the one with the queue, that doesn't have a queue, and use that one. Failing that, then yes, I'd look for any other entrance that *wasn't* locked or otherwise indicated employees only, even if it was by a dumpster.

When you go to the front line of cash registers, do you also assume that the one with the longest line is obviously the one you should be using?

Sofa King said...

Yes she also had no authority to believe that what he said was not in fact true, even if he wasn't the person to say it.

Again, it's a public building, which means that you don't *need* authority to assume that unless locked or officially notified otherwise, you are permitted to enter through a door. What other people are or are not doing is irrelevant!

Sofa King said...

And that means official notice to you personally, via an official sign or a guard. Not hearsay from an interested party.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...

Similarly when going to any parking lots, I look for cars who's doors are unlocked because I assume I can then use them.

Unless you are too stupid to understand the difference between public buildings and private vehicles or private homes, this is more bullshit.

jr565 said...

Martin wrote:
Bullshit, and you know it. We're not discussing someone's home -- even if some of the protesters think they have squatter's rights -- we're discussing a public building.

Try to argue honestly, please.

I never said they should have squatters rights. I simply said that there was no proof or evidence to suggest that she was entitled to skip the line or be allowed to enter any door. And there was a lot more evidence to suggest that the door that had 70,000 people in front of it was the place where you were supposed to go. And she simply didn't want to wait in line.

shiloh said...

Total minutia, but it was somewhat amusing AA being on the defensive w/8 posts in the 1st half of this, (((if there isn't any actual news, I'll just make some up))) thread ...

as narcissist AA marches on in her self-righteousness, eh.

Surprised Stewart/Colbert ;) haven't done any parodies of AA as she's just gonna have to try harder lol.

Can you hear me now !!!

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...


We know that the vast majority of the protesters were at one door and not the other door. Why were they at that door waiting on a line?

We don't know.

how do you know that prior to your arrival it wasn't worked out that protesters should go to the door they are standing in front of after coordinating with the admin at the capitol building.

We don't know. One way or the other, we don't know.

If you come on the scene and simply start opening doors, you are not basing your actions on any overriding authority.

It's a public building. They're public doors (by virtue of having no signs, locks, or guards). Ergo no authority is needed for the public to use them.

so if Ann knew she could enter the door an this person told her she couldn't then I could see the outrage, but she dind't know if she could or couldn't.

Absent evidence to the contrary, she could. And she knew it.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really don't know the difference between a public building and a private vehicle or residence. If so, I apologize.

Let me restate my point without the aside that apparently confused you: you argued that because it is wrong to open the unlocked door of a private residence without permission, it is wrong to open the unlocked, unmarked, unguarded public door of a public building.

That is fallacious. A private residence is not a public building. Different rules apply.

I hope that was clearer for you. I apologize for assuming you were dishonest, when it appears that you were just confused.

jr565 said...

Finally if you look at Ann's initial argument, the argument is in fact that she, nor anyone should be forced to stand on a line, even if it is determined that there is a door that is off limits to protesters (this clarification seems at odds with her statement).
"In short, Meade and I recognized the access restriction as, initially, a private wrong, committed by the private-citizen protesters, and, the next day, a violation of rights by the police. When the police took over the access-restriction policy, the protesters continued to support it, because — I assume — it served their interests. One of the protesters urgently attempted to clue Meade in that the police were on the protesters' side and that he should meekly submit to the line ritual for the good of the collective."

Even when the police egnage in access restriction itis a wrong, because according to Ann the building, being a public one, should be unrestricted. That would preclude the idea that there can be an entrance for employees for example, since that would be a limiting of access.

jr565 said...

Ann also says:
I was outraged about them for 2 reasons: 1. Because they were treated as second-class citizens who had to enter through the subordinate door,

How does she know that this is a subordinate door and not the door guests go through, and that the only reason there is a line is because there are 70,000 people there. She would have to state for us who is entering the other door and why they are allowed in. If they are providing id, then clearly that is the reason they can enter one door, while guests enter another. If you agree with the premise that there is s adoor that faculty or employees can enter, then it doens' hold that those entering another door are surbodinates, nor that she should be able to enter that door absent an id. Does she stipulate any of that? No, she simply opens a random door and assumes she has total access, and that those entering the other door are subordniates and should similarly
"and 2. Because they meekly accepted their subordination. I couldn't tell if the protesters had set up the blockage themselves or if they had somehow colluded with the police, but I was truly outraged that private citizens were assuming the authority to restrict access to the public building.
Again, she doesn't even know the arrangement between the police and protesters. If the police told the protesters that the can't go to the door and must go to the door they are standing in line at, and they comply how are they wrong? And how is Althouse right? She'd then be going against the actions of the police, and most likely the capitol building, all because she doesn't want to stand on line and go through the door that authorities are saying she should go through.

Further Meade, the following day then tried to press the principle that he should be able to walk into any door unimpeded and nearly got himself arrested. So again, if the Capitol sets up a rule that certain doors should not be used by protesters and he goes through those doors and nearly gets arrested, then they can't believe that there should be a door that would be restricted to public access. They were wrong the day of the event, the day after the event when the police were on hand to test that access, and they are CERTAINLY wrong now that the Capitol buliding stressed in no uncertain terms that the MLK doors are not to be used by protesters.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565, you seem to be confusing "prove" with "persuade". Proof requires evidence. You have none. Persuasion can be accomplished merely with reason and rhetoric. You're pretty strong there (aside from when you pretend there's no difference between private residences and public buildings).

MayBee said...

Shoemaker and Sofa King would probably like to have a word with you about assuming "facts not in evidence."

I did no such thing.
I asked you to imagine several different possibilities, all very plausible.

jr565 said...

Martin wrote:
jr565, you seem to be confusing "prove" with "persuade". Proof requires evidence. You have none. Persuasion can be accomplished merely with reason and rhetoric. You're pretty strong there (aside from when you pretend there's no difference between private residences and public buildings).


Neither did Ann when she opened that door have any proof that she could in fact open that door and not instead join the other protesters.
Even though the judge said the protesters should have greater access to the buildings he also wrote a courthe judge issued an oral order in court allowing the administration to institute permitting procedures that limit the times and locations where rallies can be held in the Capitol.
So people can't just walk into any door. Nor can they stay till any time. And in fact based on that statement it appears that the capitol building is saying the locations that the protesters can and can't protest, which would lead credence to the idea that the reason that the 70,000 protesters were at the other door was because that's where the capitiol building directed them.

MayBee said...

I'm kinda surprised that you don't think that there was a common interest in maintaining order.

You say this after you said *I* was assuming facts not in evidence?

I think there may have been a common interest in maintaining order, but I don't know to what end. To make things pleasant for the protesters? Not my concern. To keep them from getting kicked out? Again, not my concern. To set up a big finale? Not my concern. For public safety? That would concern me, but there were public safety professionals on the grounds and the guy stopping Althouse did not identify himself as one of them.

I'm *not* assuming I know why they believed it was in their interest to wait in line.

kent said...

@Jr: "Finally [...]"

Tease.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...

Neither did Ann when she opened that door have any proof that she could in fact open that door and not instead join the other protesters.

I don't know any other way to say this to make it clear to you.

1. It was a public building.

2. It was open to the public.

3. The door was not locked.

4. The door was not marked with any sort of sign.

5. The door was not guarded by an authorized guard.

6. The unauthorized guard who was there did not cite any policy or authority that allowed him to act as a guard.

Those six facts prove that she had the right to use that door.

I'm Full of Soup said...

I once got into a Temple -UMass basketball game when someone gave me a press pass. It was great- at halftime, I strolled into the press room and scarfed up some free pizza and soda. That was way back before blogs and Army of Davids.

jr565 said...

Martin wrote:
. It was a public building.

2. It was open to the public.

3. The door was not locked.

4. The door was not marked with any sort of sign.

5. The door was not guarded by an authorized guard.

6. The unauthorized guard who was there did not cite any policy or authority that allowed him to act as a guard.

Those six facts prove that she had the right to use that door.

Except the Capitol had been restricting access to various parts of the capitol since the protesters came en masse. And as stated the judge in the case said hthat the state can determine where the protests can be held on site. So if they determine that you can go over there, you can't then simply open the door wherever you want. Further that is the Capitol restricting access to the protesters, not the protesting forcing protestors to protest in one spot.
For example here:
http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/02/28/public_access_to_the.php

According to Jodi Jensen department official of the building on monday Feb 28th:
Since the building opened at 8 a.m. [Monday], law enforcement officers have been engaging in a dialogue with union representatives about a designated area in which the protestors can remain and about rules they should abide by while in the building,” Jensen said in the statement. “No additional protestors will be allowed into the building until these discussions have reached a resolution. At that time, law enforcement will continue to implement the procedures that were announced this morning regarding the admittance of protestors to the Capitol building.”
So, if you were trying to get into the building on monday you would be denied, even though it was a public building.
Also the DOA said that entrance would be limited to the King Street entrance and “crowd size [would] be adjusted to accommodate the cleaning crews,”
So again, if you were not entering from the King Street entrance, you would be denied entrance into the building even though it's a public building. So if you are denied entrance except through the Kings Street entrance, why should Ann Althouse be able to enter an entrance that wasn't on Kings Street?
And why are the tea partiers then mad at the protesters. If they are going to support the idea that ann can walk into any door, then on what grounds would they not support the protesters going anywhere they wanted and staying as long as they wanted. Since it is a public building.

jr565 said...

martin Shoemaker wrote:
If I were to hypothesize, I would sound a lot like jr565: I would hypothesize that this was some guy asked by his leaders to try to maintain order by directing the people to the line. I would further hypothesize they asked this because the government asked it of them, and because they realized that a mob scene would hurt their cause. And I would finish by hypothesizing that when faced with a crazy lady who's angrier and smarter than him and who's backed up by a protective-looking goon, he decided he wasn't up to the confrontation, so he let her through.

A hypothesis is often enough to prove a case.Deductive or inductive reasoning as it were. But anyway, there is very little than Althouse can actually prove herself and reveals that much of her own assertions are in fact hypothesis (ie what roll the police played in all of this). If a hypothesis can't disprove a case, then why would a hypothesis similarly prove the case?
What we do know is: the majority of people were at one entrance.
what we do know though is that, from day one the capitol was directing where the protesters could or could not go. They were directing users to through certain entrances etc. So if that's the case then it simply is not the case that you could then walk into any door you wanted.
So, that suggests that the reason that people were standing in huge crowds at one entrance was because that's where the state capitol directed them to go. Which would mean the other places were then restricted at that time. Which is why the guy with the red jacket would say you can't use this door you have to use that door. He's not telling Ann as aprivate citizen where he wants her to go because the protesters are controlling the flow of the crowd, he's simply relaying that the crowd was directed to go to the other door by the the building. And she can believe or not believe it. But considering that's what the building was doing since day one it makes no sense that all doors would be open if they in fact are not allowing access from certain doors.

jr565 said...

I'm sure in fact, if the protesters had their way they would have gone through any and all entrances, gone ino any and all open doors and stayed forever. Choosing one location and being forced to stand in line is not all that convenient for them, so why, if all doors were open, would they not simply go to any door that didn't require them to wait on line?

jr565 said...

Here in fact is an article that describes how it was the capitol builidng that was restricting access and not the protesters.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=3506534031867136953&page=2&token=1299288673892

From the article:
According to a statement from Department of Administration spokesperson Jodi Jensen, officers had been searching for an agreement with union officials.

“Since the building opened at 8 a.m. [Monday], law enforcement officers have been engaging in a dialogue with union representatives about a designated area in which the protestors can remain and about rules they should abide by while in the building,” Jensen said in the statement. “No additional protestors will be allowed into the building until these discussions have reached a resolution. At that time, law enforcement will continue to implement the procedures that were announced this morning regarding the admittance of protestors to the Capitol building.”
Note that the capitol building is detemrining who can and cannot enter the public building. Further down:
DOA said entrance would be limited to the King Street entrance and “crowd size [would] be adjusted to accommodate the cleaning crews
Meaning, that only one entrance is open at that time. Meaning that other entrances are not. Meaning that Ann shouldn't be going to those entrances if in fact only one is open. Now you can argue that in fact the Capitol Building should not be shutting down entrances to a public building (I would disagree when it comes to a protest of 70000 people) but that places your argument more with the protesters than with the Capitol. It sounds like they are as annoyed about being blocked into doing what they wanted as Ann was for not being able to go in the door she wanted to. But how are they different? For all the talk about the protesters taking over the capitol building and overstaying their welcome, you can't believe that and also believe that a public building should allow unlimited access.

MayBee said...

“No additional protestors will be allowed into the building until these discussions have reached a resolution.

Well, there you go.
Althouse and Meade were not protestors.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
Well, there you go.
Althouse and Meade were not protestors.

Protesters of protestors are still protesters. Again, there isn't workers, then protesters, then non workers who are also non protesters. The closing down of the building entrances would affect the non protesters as well as the protesters. Otherwise protesters would simply say they were non protesters and walk through all doors.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

jr565 said...

A hypothesis is often enough to prove a case.

No, it is not. It may be enough to persuade someone that you are correct, but it does not prove the case.

Again, you confuse proof with persuasion. Proof requires evidence.

If a hypothesis can't disprove a case, then why would a hypothesis similarly prove the case?

It is not incumbent upon her to prove anything. Her challenge was for you to prove her wrong.


Here in fact is an article that describes how it was the capitol builidng that was restricting access and not the protesters.

Yes! Finally! Evidence! Though I think this is your link.

DOA said entrance would be limited to the King Street entrance and “crowd size [would] be adjusted to accommodate the cleaning crews

That is evidence. That proves your case. You are correct; but I had to force you into proving it.

Can you honestly not tell the difference between documented and reported statements of what the policy was, and your feelings and beliefs and assumptions of what the policy was?

I accept no one's beliefs and assumptions as facts, nor as proof. Give me data and documentation and witnesses, and I'll consider them; but beliefs and assumptions, no.

David R. Graham said...

" I am proud of myself for that, not because I have special rights, but because I was bold enough to assert my rights."

I am proud of you, too. Thanks! You and Meade have done grandly!

Wisco said...

If I get up a good head of steam, I can run halfway up the capitol dome before sliding back down again.

I once stopped a runaway train by giving it a really dirty look.

I once ate four charcoal briquettes and found a diamond in my pants the next day.

PROVE ME WRONG!

Unknown said...

I think most people would do the same when they are headed with the situation.

BMW-parts

Unknown said...

I think most people would do the same when they are headed with the situation.

BMW-parts

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 256 of 256   Newer› Newest»