US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Students denied permit for o11
21 Sep 2000
Students at Wake Forest University, the sight of o11 presidential debates, have been denied a realistic permit, and instead given a ridiculous, insulting offer.
Recently, students and staff at Wake Forest University (Winston-Salem, NC), in conjunction with the NC Greens, applied for a permit for a legal permitted rally on the campus the night of October 11, when the presidential debates will be in Wait Chapel on WFU campus. The permit that the police offered is VERY

1. Three people must sign on and indemnify themselves against any damages done.
2. The protesters would be given only an area in a distant field, penned in with orange fences, with security badges given to us by WFU police.
3. Protestors would not be allowed to park on campus, or to walk on, but would instead be bussed by the campus police.
4. Protesters would also have to submit to being photographed and video taped, both before and during the event and must tell the WFU police, in advance, an exact number of people who are coming.
5. Protesters would be allowed only paper signs, and no "name calling," profanity or other objectionable actions would be allowed.
6. There must be an official, established group sponsoring the event.
7. The WFU police retain the right to force protesters to leave at any time, for any reason.

In addition, the campus will be on some form of lockdown from the Saturday before the event on. Student's cars will be banned from campus, and several dorm rooms nearby the event will be forcibly evacuated.

Because WFU is a private institution, little is possible legally- free speech technically doesn't exist there. It's important for everyone concerned with free speech on American campuses, and in the debates, and in society in general, to put pressure on WFU to allow legal, permitted event, and to open the debate to some one other than the Republicrats.
visit !
See also:
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Don't Vote!
22 Sep 2000
I don't understand why some activists are referring to protests around the American political debates as "O3" and "O11." Last time I checked, the naming of action in the manner relate to *anti-capitalist" protests. I fail to see how protests concerning what amounts to a meaningless spectacle have any thing to do with anti-capitalism OR direct action.

Your lives aren't going to be improved by a change in leaders. The debates are a shell game deflecting good activists from more important issues.
See also:
debates divert attention.
24 Sep 2000
piggy-backing an issue like the debates onto anti-globalization or anti-capitalism is a matter of divide and conquer. they have nothing in common and will only divert attention and focus from the real problem - corporate capitalism.
the problem with our corporate republic will never be solved by limiting campaign contributions or pushing for reformist candidates in rigged election process. all that focusing on the debates will do is marginalize the strength of the anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movements.
participating in their system is like begging to be allowed to eventually lose. it's really a waste of initiative and potential.

as for nomenclature - o3, o11 - i think that implies something that is not present. J18 happened worldwide, N30, A16, S26... all these had a solid world wide perspective and support. choose your battles carefully--no use fighting over turf that has no benefit.
See also:
same capitalists
25 Sep 2000
The same transnational banks and corporations that created the WTO, IMF and World Bank also bankroll the two major political parties and their presidential nominees. The presidential elections are the only time many Americans pay any attention to politics and its consequences. So, there is much to be gained from calling attetnion to the rigged nature of these upcoming debates, especially with a candidate like Nader out there who has been such a forceful and consistent critic of corporate power for the past four decades. Let's not be too proprietary about who gets to name these events. This anti-corporate movement doesn't just belong to the ideologically pure.

the difference is the process
25 Sep 2000
as for naming them o3 or o11, that is not really a big deal in the end. it is simply a way of naming anti-capitalist global days of action, and the intention in naming the debate protests in a similar fashion is obviously to show common ground between the issues of debate protesters and those at anti-capitalist days of action.

but before too many similarities are drawn, understand a fundamental difference seen by others: organizing resistance to capitalism and its destructive influence globally is one thing, showing how it has corrupted an entire political process (capitalist democracy - an oxymoron) is yet another, but both are fundamentally different from arguing that capitalist democracy - a corrupt and oppressive state system - should be more inclusive to alternative political parties.

respectfully, i support any who stand up for their conscience and ideals against the enemies of people, but any conciliatory efforts by the political establishment, such as inclusion in debates, will be short-lived and almost certainly rooted in the politics of triangulation and co-option. by entering their argument, you allow them to fight on ground of their choosing. conceding the initiative by submitting to an election is no way to achieve lasting change. seeking change through limited participation in a capitalist republic is ridiculous when the political process of any republic is the inherent obstacle.

"voting for what is right is doing nothing for it, it is merely expressing to men feebly the desire that it should prevail." -henry david thoreau
See also: