Octopus here's your own thread to shit all over

The BBQ Pit
542

That’s funny. I have no problem with speech and you know that. What I have a problem with, unlike you nutty communists, is burning stuff down, destroying businesses, shooting people, stabbing people, kneeling on toddlers, vandalism, looting, and all the other political violence your side is doing.

I think the actions, not the words, of the far left are exceedingly counterproductive. Now, do I have issues with some of what you folks and your ideological allies have to say? Of course, but I wouldn’t call for you to be fired, assaulted, stabbed, shot at, evicted, or expelled for what you say or your beliefs because unlike the nuts here I actually believe in fundamental liberties. But burning down a business is not free speech. Stabbing someone is not free speech. Blinding folks with lasers is not free speech. Looting is not free speech.

And what’s this with black lives matter? Do I think the organization is a Marxist ploy? Yes. There is no secret about the organization. Do I think the concept is flawed? No. You can’t find one quote of mine where I say that any particular group of people based on skin color, sex/gender/???, ethnicity is less deserving of life than another. Find me that post.

And here’s the thing BigT, if this were the far right burning buildings, destroying things, terrorizing businesses, occupying the middle of a city and promoting a lawless environment where folks were being coerced into providing unplanned donations and unplanned orgasms I’d have a problem with that.

But we are not seeing the far right do such things are we? These are Democrats and regressives in regressive run cities. Let me ask you this BigT is it safer to wear a shirt with the hammer and sickle on it or an image of a far left genocidal maniac in rural or suburban America or a wear a Trump hat in a Dem run city?

543

Cite? Are you referring to the injunction against arresting or gassing journalists before giving a “lawful order to disperse”?

~Max

544

I’m sorry, what the hell? Are you implying that protesters are presently partaking in rape and robbery? Cite?

~Max

545
546

SILENCE! Imbecile.

547

octopus, no one believes you actually care about free speech. Maybe once you did, but now it’s clear by your posts that all you care about is liberal tears and echoing right wing propaganda. You don’t make factual arguments, or even try to dispute others’ arguments, you just parrot right wing buzz phrases and Trump talking points.

And that’s all you do.

548

You’re forgetting “paranoiacally and pitifully fail to start board wars”. The Hive is very dissapointed in you, Agent Andy…

549

The hive can only be disappointed in itself for the failings of its individual component creatures.

550

There is no individual creature. There is only Hive.

551

I don’t mind a good troll once in a while but I don’t think that’s all octopus does. Plus he’s got my favorite avatar so points for that.

552

Looting, assault, and rioting by peaceful protesters isn’t free speech.

553

Neither is looting, assault, and rioting by rioters. Why don’t you leave the peaceful ones alone and go after the actual lawbreakers?

554

And who the fuck are you, exactly?

555

I’m not sure if that BBC piece on CHOP was directed towards me. I read “Allegations of sexual assault and mental health crises within the zone began to be reported, too.” I did not read that allegations of rape (“unplanned orgasms”) had been reported, nor robbery.

~Max

556

Yes. The order to disperse isn’t just for journalists. You can’t very well blackbag someone if you have to order them to leave first. The most recent issue was of unmarked feds kidnapping peaceful protesters for short periods to try and put fear into the protesters so they’ll shut up and go home. It was a clear intimidation tactic.

And it failed to work, because that’s not how you deal with people who have popular support, who the majority believe have a legitimate grievance. It isn’t how you deal when a protest is about police overstepping their authority.

The blackbagging is what got the miltiary vets, the moms, and so many other people involved to defend these people from their liberties being taken away from them. Thus taking us one step closer to a full on war.

557

No, I don’t. And that’s the point. You are okay with speech being curtailed due to the presence of a few violent actors. You are willing to allow those rioters to abridge the speech of everyone else. We constantly talk about the police harming innocent protesters, and that’s when you bring out the existence of some violent people as an excuse. You used to think the heckler’s veto was a bad thing.

I also don’t know that you care about due process anymore. Because, even with the violent actors, you’re not actually saying “we need to go in and arrest them and try them.” You’re defending the police using violence on the streets to enact justice against them. Heck, you were such an extremist on the issue that you used to think everyone deserved a trial, and that it was wrong to say anything bad about them until they were tried.

The octopus I used to talk to would not use, say, the existence of violent rapists to justify all accused rapists being gassed and shot with rubber bullets and kidnapped in unmarked cars. But that’s what you do for these guys.

And that’s the other shoe. I do not think the old octopus believed in ridiculous conspiracy theories.

There is no such thing as a “Marxist conspiracy” because there are no Marxists with power to create one. They aren’t an authoritarian group–no, not even a secret one. It’s just an ideology.

And that ideology, while not opposed to the message of Black Lives Matter, also isn’t all that related.

The fact you believe there has been some sort of proof of this is like your belief that Portland is covered in riots. You believe some right wing propaganda over actual facts. You clearly avoid reading any legitimate news on the subject, or even reading what people who live there tell you.

You’d rather believe that we’re all lying, that we’re all in on it. That all of us liberals, who have each said at various times that we don’t support the violence, actually secretly do, and are making up the idea that the protests are mostly peaceful.

That’s what I mean by saying you’ve been radicalized. You believe counterfactual information that you could easily disprove for yourself if you were interested in the facts.

And, what’s worse, what you are advocating is escalating tensions. If people did what you wanted, we would have a full on civil war. Because, as you say, BLM’s principles are good. People agree with them.

So when people see peaceful BLM protesters attacked by the police and now the feds, they side against the police and the feds. If BLM’s protest is of legitimate issues, then there is no way someone should be trying to stop the protests without dealing with their issues.

I genuinely don’t think you’re trolling anymore. I think you’ve allowed emotional manipulation of certain right wing propaganda override your ability to think logically and rationally.

Your underlying premise that Portland is some sort of lawless hellhole is utterly untrue. It is not bad. Bad is the Middle East, which is where this is going if the feds don’t back the fuck off and actually start addressing some of BLM’s grievances–you know, the things you said were legit.

558

It’s in the manual of how to deal with these things that you do not try to overwhelm with force when a grievance movement has popular support. That is how insurrections start.

(Note, going towards the Middle East doesn’t mean it would instantly be as bad. My point was that it’s a miltiary conflict, rather than just protesting with maybe some rioting. Protests and riots can be stopped by dealing with the underlying grievances. They are not this horrible thing that needs overwhelming violence to stop.

Now, if they continue this path of escalation, it could get that bad, but, as long as Trump is removed from power, I don’t think that will happen. No one else is stupid enough to push it that far.

I’m just hoping there’s no inciting incident between now and November that would turn this into even a lower level insurrection, and that we get Trump out of office so we can start deescalating.)

559

The actual restraining order does not require anybody to issue a dispersal order before making arrests. It does restrain the police from arresting properly identified journalists, even after the order for dispersal has been issued, unless they are suspected of committing a crime. It also exempts the police from liability if they incidentally expose journalists to tear gas ("crowd control devices") after an order for dispersal has been given.

In other words, the protections of the restraining order (now a stipulated injunction) are just for journalists. For your convenience, here is the straight dope, so to say - the original restraining order and the current injunction:

Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland, 3:20-cv-01035 (D. Or. 2020)

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

  1. Defendants and their agents and employees, including but not limited to the Portland Police Bureau and all persons acting under the direction of the Portland Police Bureau (collectively, "the Police"), are enjoined from arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force directed against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer (as explained below), unless the Police have probable cause to believe that such individual has committed a crime. For purposes of this Order, such persons shall not be required to disperse following the issuance of an order to disperse, and such persons shall not be subject to arrest for not dispersing following the issuance of an order to disperse. Such persons shall, however, remain bound by all other laws.
  2. Defendants and their agents and employees, including but not limited to the Portland Police Bureau and all persons acting under the direction of the Portland Police Bureau (collectively, "the Police"), are further enjoined from seizing any photographic equipment, audio- or video-recording equipment, or press passes from any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer (as explained below), or ordering such person to stop photographing, recording, or observing a protest, unless Defendants are also lawfully seizing that person consistent with this Order. Police must return any seized equipment or press passes immediately upon release of a person from custody.
  3. To facilitate the Police's identification of Journalists protected under this Order, the following shall be considered indicia of being a Journalist: visual identification as a member of the press, such as by carrying a professional or authorized press pass or wearing a professional or authorized press badge or distinctive clothing that identifies the wearer as a member of the press. These indicia are not exclusive, and a person need not exhibit every indicium to be considered a Journalist under this Order. The Police shall not be liable for unintentional violations of this Order in the case of an individual who does not carry a press pass or wear a press badge or distinctive clothing that identifies the wearer as a member of the press.
  4. To facilitate the Police's identification of Legal Observers protected under this Order, the following shall be considered indicia of being a Legal Observer: wearing a green National Lawyers' Guild issued or authorized Legal Observer hat (typically a green NLG hat) or wearing a blue ACLU issued or authorized Legal Observer vest.
  5. The Police may issue otherwise lawful crowd-dispersal orders for a variety of lawful reasons. The Police shall not be liable for violating this Order if a Journalist or Legal Observer is incidentally exposed to crowd-control devices after remaining in the area where such devices were deployed after the issuance by the Police of an otherwise lawful dispersal order.
  6. In the interest of justice, Plaintiffs need not provide any security, and all requirements under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are waived.
  7. This Order shall expire fourteen (14) days after entry, unless otherwise extended by stipulation of the parties or by further order of the Court.
  8. The paiiies shall confer and propose to the Court a schedule for briefing and hearing on whether the Court should issue a preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of July, 2020, at 4:55 p.m.

Michael Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

STIPULATED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs and defendant City of Portland ("the City") hereby jointly stipulate to the following preliminary injunction:

  1. The City and its agents and employees, including but not limited to the Portland Police Bureau and all persons acting under the direction of the Portland Police Bureau (collectively, "the Police"), are enjoined from atTesting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force directed against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer (as explained below), unless the Police have probable cause to believe that such individual has committed a crime. For purposes of this Order, such persons shall not be required to disperse following the issuance of an order to disperse, and such persons shall not be subject to arrest for not dispersing following the issuance of an order to disperse. Such persons shall, however, remain bound by all other laws.
  2. The Police are further enjoined from seizing any photographic equipment, audioor video-recording equipment, or press passes from any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer (as explained below), or ordering such person to stop photographing, recording, or observing a protest, unless the Police are also lawfully seizing that person consistent with this Order. Except as expressly provided in Paragraph 3 below, the Police must return any seized equipment or press passes immediately upon release of a person from custody.
  3. Pursuant to ORS 133.623, if Police seize property from a Journalist or Legal Observer lawfully arrested under this Order, they shall, as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, make a written list of things seized and furnish a copy to the Journalist or Legal Observer. If equipment seized in connection with an arrest of a Journalist or Legal Observer lawfully seized under this Order is needed for evidentiary purposes, Police shall promptly seek a search warrant, subpoena, or other court order for the same. If said search warrant, subpoena, or court order is denied, or equipment seized in connection with an arrest is not needed for evidentiary purposes, police shall immediately return it to its rightful possessor. Pursuant to ORS 133.633, Journalists or Legal Observers may seek return of property seized through a state-comt motion, through which the state court will make a determination whether the prope1ty can be returned prior to the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding.
  4. To facilitate the Police's identification of Journalists protected under this Order, the following shall be considered indicia of being a Journalist: visual identification as a member of the press, such as by carrying a professional or authorized press pass or wearing a professional or authorized press badge or distinctive clothing that identifies the wearer as a member of the press. These indicia are not exclusive, and a person need not exhibit every indicium to be considered a Journalist under this Order. The Police shall not be liable for unintentional violations of this Order in the case of an individual who does not carry a press pass or wear a press badge or distinctive clothing that identifies the wearer as a member of the press.
  5. To facilitate the Police's identification of Legal Observers protected under this Order, the following shall be considered indicia of being a Legal Observer: wearing a green National Lawyers' Guild issued or authorized Legal Observer hat (typically a green NLG hat) or wearing a blue ACLU issued or authorized Legal Observer vest.
  6. The Police may issue otherwise lawful crowd-dispersal orders for a variety of lawful reasons. The Police shall not be liable for violating this Order if a Journalist or Legal Observer is incidentally exposed to crowd-control devices after remaining in the area where such devices were deployed after the issuance by the Police of an otherwise lawful dispersal order.
  7. Plaintiffs need not provide any security.
  8. This Order shall expire on Friday, October 30, 2020, unless otherwise extended by stipulation of the patties.
  9. This stipulation is without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the parties and without any patty waiving any argument or the right to request modifications or clarifications of the injunction as circumstances may warrant.

So stipulated:
Dated: July 16, 2020

By: /s/ Athul K. Acharya
Athul K. Acharya, OSB No. 152436
Matthew Borden, pro hac vice pending
J. Noah Hagey, pro hac vice pending
Gunnar K. Martz, pro hac vice pending
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP

Kelly K. Simon, OSB No. 154213
ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Denis M Vannier DENIS M. V ANNIER, OSB# 044406
Senior Deputy City Attorney
NAOMI SHEFFIELD, OSB# 170601
Deputy City Attorney
RYAN C. BAILEY, OSB# 130788
Deputy City Attorney
YOUNGWOO JOH, OSB# 164105
Assistant Deputy City Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant City of Portland


The Court adopts the above Stipulated Preliminary Injunction in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: July 16, 2020

Michael Simon
Honorable Michael H. Simon

~Max

560

In other words, they have to give an order to disperse or they will be liable if any journalists (who they’ve not yet identified) are present. So it protects everyone.

Same with the arresting/detaining. They now have to identify anyone, because any involved could be a journalist. So no more just kidnapping people they see off the street–they’ll be saying they’re the feds and properly asking for identification.

My point was the that consequences of the injunction, while ostensibly only for the journalists, also help protect people who aren’t journalists. Not completely, but it helped.

Too bad now the other police are back to their vandalizing nonsense and inflaming tensions. The whole reason they backed off was that it made things better, and the feds came in and fucked that up.

561

That is true.

That is not correct. Journalists are only protected if they wear certain articles of clothing, and only then if the officer lacks probable cause. “The Police shall not be liable for unintentional violations of this Order in the case of an individual who does not carry a press pass or wear a press badge or distinctive clothing that identifies the wearer as a member of the press.”

There is no obligation for officers to ask if an arrestee is a journalist, and there is no obligation for officers to identify themselves to arrestees.

~Max