Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
WE WIN! FREE SPEECH VICTORY IN FRESNO
Anti-sweatshop/Free Speech victory in Fresno
WE WIN! FREE SPEECH VICTORY IN FRESNO
Fashion Fair and the City of Fresno violated anti-sweatshop activists civil liberties and have agreed to pay thousands of dollars to settle the case. The civil action arose from a peaceful demonstration at Fashion Fair protesting The Gap’s use of sweatshop labor in which 19 activists were arrested. In this important legal victory, which was just settled, the Macerich Company (they own Fashion Fair) and the City of Fresno was forced to pay for all legal expenses and contribute thousands of dollars to progressive community groups to resolve the case.
The victory in this civil lawsuit follows the dismissal of criminal charges against The Gap 19 defendants in October of 2001. Judge Hamlin dismissed all charges in that case saying that the protestors “actions were Constitutionally protected.” Fashion Fair and the City of Fresno conspired to violate protestors civil rights and they have been held accountable for their actions. Community groups and individuals are free to hold protests at Fashion Fair, the Fresno Police Department will be more cautious about violating citizens rights, and Fashion Fair has changed many of their rules and regulations which will make it easier to hold future demonstrations. One of the rules they used to enforce said that they could regulate the content of a flier being handed out. You could not distribute a flier if it mentioned Fashion Fair or any of their tenants. How could you protest The Gap if you could not mention them on a flier? That rule has been changed.
What else has changed? Fashion Fair can’t legally arrest you for holding a sign or distributing fliers at the entrance to the mall. That is why anti-sweatshop activists and their legal counsel spent 17 months in criminal proceedings and then another year pursuing the civil suit. That time was spent so community groups and individuals will have Free Speech at Fashion Fair. We set precedent in this case that will have implications for groups struggling for Free Speech throughout California. Some of the legal strategy can be seen at: http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/legalstrategy.htm
We won this Free Speech fight for two reasons:
* The first is because of our excellent legal counsel. Patience Milrod, Jack Weisberg, and Robert Hirth worked endless hours researching the law, writing briefs, and appearing on our behalf in court. This victory would not have been possible without them.
* The second reason we won this case is because of our tenacity. I don’t believe that the prosecutor or Fashion Fair thought The Gap 19 would invest the time and effort to prevail in this case. Why would anyone spend a year and a half appearing in court on a regular basis, find the resources to pay for adequate legal counsel, run the risk of paying a significant fine and serving jail time, when you could plead out and get 10 hours of community service time?
The Gap anti-sweatshop project in Fresno has been an enormous success, due at least in part, to the strategy of defending Free Speech rights. Just about everyone in this community knows The Gap is connected with sweatshops. The support of shoppers at Fashion Fair and all of the horns “honking for justice” on Shaw are evidence that this campaign has deep grassroots support. The campaign has linked students, faith based groups, labor, peace and social justice groups, and immigrant rights activists. Working together on this issue has helped to build trust between these diverse groups. It could be the start of a real labor/community alliance.
The challenges of being in court forced organizers to be more creative about getting the anti-sweatshop message into Fashion Fair and the mall. The STOP GAP SWEATSHOP balloons got the message into the mall while security was still threatening demonstrators with arrest. The rent a cops started removing our balloons from the hands of children entering the mall but then realized that they had to change their tactic. That was going to be a public relations disaster. With the media on there way (film at 11!) they allowed the balloons into the mall. And when Tony Nocella and the Student Action Front decided to take the message into The Gap itself we all held our breath. Threatened with arrest the students held their ground and would not leave. The Gap backed down and allowed the protestors to stay inside the store where they handed out fliers, talked to customers, and held anti-sweatshop signs.
The discovery process in the criminal proceedings revealed that the Fresno Police Department had placed an informant in the campus anti-sweatshop group. This person had access to all email correspondence and this had a very disruptive effect on the group. Once the infiltration was discovered, everyone wanted to know who it was. Fingers pointed in every direction. Placing informants is an insidious form of disruption that the police use when they want to break up community groups. Unfortunately, with the Patriot Act and the Bush Administrations TIPPS project this repressive government interference is likely to get worse. You almost have to assume, at this point, that the police are monitoring your email, attending your meetings, and trying to disrupt progressive community groups. We survived by maintaining an open and transparent process that was not engaged in any illegal activity.
WHAT’S NEXT?
With the settlement of the Saipan lawsuit and the local civil suit, the focus of anti-sweatshop work will likely change. The future of anti sweatshop work will depend on what local groups are interested in doing. The focus may stay on The Gap or could shift to other corporations like Nike or Target. The ability of anti-sweatshop work to link diverse groups has a proven history in Fresno. I hope that a group like WILPF, the Green Party, the Center for Nonviolence, the Immigrant Rights Coalition, or a local labor organization like the UFW or SEIU 250 will use the work as an organizing opportunity to bring groups together to work on a common campaign. The project needs a group to coordinate the work.
One thing is certain, our Free Speech rights have been defended and we can continue to exercise them at Fashion Fair or anywhere else we decide to. The other thing that is certain is that freedom is a constant struggle.
**************************************
Next Anti-Gap demonstration/Victory Party
Saturday, November 3, 2002
12 Noon
Shaw Avenue in front of Fashion Fair
**************************************
For more information go to:
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/GAP.htm
**************************
The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free...
---Utah Phillips
***************************
Fashion Fair and the City of Fresno violated anti-sweatshop activists civil liberties and have agreed to pay thousands of dollars to settle the case. The civil action arose from a peaceful demonstration at Fashion Fair protesting The Gap’s use of sweatshop labor in which 19 activists were arrested. In this important legal victory, which was just settled, the Macerich Company (they own Fashion Fair) and the City of Fresno was forced to pay for all legal expenses and contribute thousands of dollars to progressive community groups to resolve the case.
The victory in this civil lawsuit follows the dismissal of criminal charges against The Gap 19 defendants in October of 2001. Judge Hamlin dismissed all charges in that case saying that the protestors “actions were Constitutionally protected.” Fashion Fair and the City of Fresno conspired to violate protestors civil rights and they have been held accountable for their actions. Community groups and individuals are free to hold protests at Fashion Fair, the Fresno Police Department will be more cautious about violating citizens rights, and Fashion Fair has changed many of their rules and regulations which will make it easier to hold future demonstrations. One of the rules they used to enforce said that they could regulate the content of a flier being handed out. You could not distribute a flier if it mentioned Fashion Fair or any of their tenants. How could you protest The Gap if you could not mention them on a flier? That rule has been changed.
What else has changed? Fashion Fair can’t legally arrest you for holding a sign or distributing fliers at the entrance to the mall. That is why anti-sweatshop activists and their legal counsel spent 17 months in criminal proceedings and then another year pursuing the civil suit. That time was spent so community groups and individuals will have Free Speech at Fashion Fair. We set precedent in this case that will have implications for groups struggling for Free Speech throughout California. Some of the legal strategy can be seen at: http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/legalstrategy.htm
We won this Free Speech fight for two reasons:
* The first is because of our excellent legal counsel. Patience Milrod, Jack Weisberg, and Robert Hirth worked endless hours researching the law, writing briefs, and appearing on our behalf in court. This victory would not have been possible without them.
* The second reason we won this case is because of our tenacity. I don’t believe that the prosecutor or Fashion Fair thought The Gap 19 would invest the time and effort to prevail in this case. Why would anyone spend a year and a half appearing in court on a regular basis, find the resources to pay for adequate legal counsel, run the risk of paying a significant fine and serving jail time, when you could plead out and get 10 hours of community service time?
The Gap anti-sweatshop project in Fresno has been an enormous success, due at least in part, to the strategy of defending Free Speech rights. Just about everyone in this community knows The Gap is connected with sweatshops. The support of shoppers at Fashion Fair and all of the horns “honking for justice” on Shaw are evidence that this campaign has deep grassroots support. The campaign has linked students, faith based groups, labor, peace and social justice groups, and immigrant rights activists. Working together on this issue has helped to build trust between these diverse groups. It could be the start of a real labor/community alliance.
The challenges of being in court forced organizers to be more creative about getting the anti-sweatshop message into Fashion Fair and the mall. The STOP GAP SWEATSHOP balloons got the message into the mall while security was still threatening demonstrators with arrest. The rent a cops started removing our balloons from the hands of children entering the mall but then realized that they had to change their tactic. That was going to be a public relations disaster. With the media on there way (film at 11!) they allowed the balloons into the mall. And when Tony Nocella and the Student Action Front decided to take the message into The Gap itself we all held our breath. Threatened with arrest the students held their ground and would not leave. The Gap backed down and allowed the protestors to stay inside the store where they handed out fliers, talked to customers, and held anti-sweatshop signs.
The discovery process in the criminal proceedings revealed that the Fresno Police Department had placed an informant in the campus anti-sweatshop group. This person had access to all email correspondence and this had a very disruptive effect on the group. Once the infiltration was discovered, everyone wanted to know who it was. Fingers pointed in every direction. Placing informants is an insidious form of disruption that the police use when they want to break up community groups. Unfortunately, with the Patriot Act and the Bush Administrations TIPPS project this repressive government interference is likely to get worse. You almost have to assume, at this point, that the police are monitoring your email, attending your meetings, and trying to disrupt progressive community groups. We survived by maintaining an open and transparent process that was not engaged in any illegal activity.
WHAT’S NEXT?
With the settlement of the Saipan lawsuit and the local civil suit, the focus of anti-sweatshop work will likely change. The future of anti sweatshop work will depend on what local groups are interested in doing. The focus may stay on The Gap or could shift to other corporations like Nike or Target. The ability of anti-sweatshop work to link diverse groups has a proven history in Fresno. I hope that a group like WILPF, the Green Party, the Center for Nonviolence, the Immigrant Rights Coalition, or a local labor organization like the UFW or SEIU 250 will use the work as an organizing opportunity to bring groups together to work on a common campaign. The project needs a group to coordinate the work.
One thing is certain, our Free Speech rights have been defended and we can continue to exercise them at Fashion Fair or anywhere else we decide to. The other thing that is certain is that freedom is a constant struggle.
**************************************
Next Anti-Gap demonstration/Victory Party
Saturday, November 3, 2002
12 Noon
Shaw Avenue in front of Fashion Fair
**************************************
For more information go to:
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/GAP.htm
**************************
The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free...
---Utah Phillips
***************************
For more information:
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"Exploiting women and children is never in fashion"
Obviously, exploiting men is fine (or should that be further refined to white men?) And forget about the fact that what these rich American kids deem "sweatshops" actually put more food on the table of their workers than anything else available to them. These are ignorant, uneducated, third-world denizens who don't know any better. Yes, they're able to feed their families for a change, but that's not the issue; the issue is that, by rich American standards, these jobs are horrible, and thank goodness we have "do-gooding" "activists" around to do everything in their power to take even this meager wealth from them.
But the real irony is the hypocritical championing of free speech on this site. The juvenile, self-righteous "radicals" at Berkeley shut down the campus newspaper because of an editorial cartoon which they (incredibly) perceive as "racist," yet still claim to favor free speech. The cartoon in question
depicted two terrorists on their way to hell discussing their expectations of paradise. Shocking! Horrible! And the fact that the cartoon was not racist at all, and even less "sexist," as some really brilliant whiners insisted, isn't even the issue, because even racist opinions are protected by the right to free speech. Of course, that doesn't mean that responsible newspapers should publish racist opinions, but that level of subtlety never crosses the minds of the bleating, reactionary masses of reflexive pc nazis such as those that stormed the newspaper's office.
Obviously, exploiting men is fine (or should that be further refined to white men?) And forget about the fact that what these rich American kids deem "sweatshops" actually put more food on the table of their workers than anything else available to them. These are ignorant, uneducated, third-world denizens who don't know any better. Yes, they're able to feed their families for a change, but that's not the issue; the issue is that, by rich American standards, these jobs are horrible, and thank goodness we have "do-gooding" "activists" around to do everything in their power to take even this meager wealth from them.
But the real irony is the hypocritical championing of free speech on this site. The juvenile, self-righteous "radicals" at Berkeley shut down the campus newspaper because of an editorial cartoon which they (incredibly) perceive as "racist," yet still claim to favor free speech. The cartoon in question
depicted two terrorists on their way to hell discussing their expectations of paradise. Shocking! Horrible! And the fact that the cartoon was not racist at all, and even less "sexist," as some really brilliant whiners insisted, isn't even the issue, because even racist opinions are protected by the right to free speech. Of course, that doesn't mean that responsible newspapers should publish racist opinions, but that level of subtlety never crosses the minds of the bleating, reactionary masses of reflexive pc nazis such as those that stormed the newspaper's office.
The reason we're on this planet is to advance civilization, not to get a deal on a pair of pants by paying starvation wages in the Third World. Am I wrong?
It's tough to make out your meaning. Were you sent here by the Freepers?
-Ev
It's tough to make out your meaning. Were you sent here by the Freepers?
-Ev
When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.
While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.
Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.
The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.
When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.
The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbour has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)
While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.
Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.
The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.
When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.
The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbour has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network