I am glad you brought up yesterday's caller. After he posed the question I thought I would not have a problem with another group or organization taking a public stand and camping out. I believe that the caller was intimating that the left would not be tolerant of a public display by persons whose politics are felt to be socially antithetical (right to life, gun advocates, hate groups). I think he projected his opinion that demonstrations should not be tolerated. I believe in free speech and would not want riot police to remove those gatherings pre-emptivly. Did this person forget that the "tea party" gatherings were left alone by the riot squads despite the presence of weapons in the crowd?

I have great concern that the OWS movement has attracted a violent fringe or has been infiltrated by individuals planted to discredit the movement. Individuals whose philosophy includes violence and/or property destruction gravitated toward activist movements since these groups take public stances and such people find no welcome in the formal political structure that they wish to dismantle. These issues bring to mind the events in San Francisco when ex-Supervisor Dan White's trial verdict for the murder of Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk. The gay community came out that evening to protest the tragic verdict. The newspapers the next day had a photo of the violence of the demonstration. The photo showed a male in a black leather jacket smashing a large glass door of a business alongside the path of the march. I soon learned that I knew the man in leather jacket who was captured in the photograph. In his stoical circle he proudly recounted his activities that night and who took credit for the destructive attack on property. In our community there was great comfort and openness with everyone's sexual identities/preferences or even confusion and he was not a gay man. He was a self professed radical anti-establishment activist that had an affinity to public demonstration. For this person the protest march was both an opportunity and the perfect cover to act out his violent political view. He was not a gay activist but a radical political opportunist that became the media face for the "violent discontent" of the gay community. The reporting medial promulgated the notion that this violent "poster child" was the face of discontent in the gay community and representative of the sentiments of the outraged community. This political opportunist played into the hands of those politicians and law enforcement officers who opposed the growing political power in the community and sought to discredit the gay community by showing proof that the community was comprised of social deviants,

In consequence of the Civil War, the Constitution was amended three times. I don't see why, now, we shouldn't have one for campaign finance regulation, one for corporate non-personhood, one to say money isn't speech, etc.