Rhetoric of Dissent - Article Example

Question 1 Occupy Wall Street Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. It was initiated by Canadian activist group, Adbusters on September 17, 2011, and has led ‘Occupy’ movements and protests around the world. The members of this movement make protests against economic and social inequality, corruption, greed, high rates of unemployment and undue influence of powerful corporations on government, especially those from financial services sector (Fish, 2011). OWS has progressive and independent cable televisions news network that broadcasts internationally (Fish, 2011). The movement engages in television news punditry, internet activism, and street-based social movements. The movement has established camps in different locations. The camps are centers of information, protests and to advance the life of the movement. Though the government of United States has been supporting freedom of speech, it has been against the OWS camps, and has dismantled many of them on various grounds (Fish, 2011). US government made the 1st law amendment that guarantee right of speech and assembly to all citizens including OWS protesters (Cohen, (2010). This amendment helps to promote and encourage free flow of ideas among citizens, and to preserve democracy. As a result of the amendment, OWS protesters have a better chance to express ideas, and to uncover the truths and facts from the tones of information received. OWS protesters will have a platform to ensure accountability in leaders for their actions (Cohen, 2010). In addition, such a move will open the minds of the protesters to different views and ideas. Thus, the 1st law amendment gave US OWS protesters rights with ample benefits, which cannot be underestimated. The freedom of speech extends to offering protection to maintain parks or camps, as Reisman (2011) points out. This can be illustrated by 1st Amendment law precedence. In 1984, a U.S. Supreme Court in Washington ruled on Clark v. Community Creative Non-Violence case in which the Community Creative Non-Violence, a protester movement petitioned for the right to sleep in National Mall overnight as a way of calling attention of the government to the homeless (Tedford & Herbeck, 2005). The Supreme Court held that sleeping is a form of speech, which deserved constitutional protection. The view of the court was that like other forms of communication, expressions through sleeping in parks have potential social value (Tedford & Herbeck, 2005). In another case in 2000, which was held in federal court in New York, the judge ruled that the tenants’ advocacy group had a right to sleep on sidewalks overnight to protest against proposed increases in rent for rent-stabilized apartments. The judge ruled that sleeping on sideways is a form of expression, and constitutes speech. Thus, OWS camps constitute speech and should be allowed on this basis. However, the right may be denied in cases where the camps are located in private locations (Ax, 2011). For instance, the federal court denied permission to a union that sought to stage a rally Lincoln Center Plaza in New York in 2000. The verdict described the space as having been historically used primarily for artistic purposes, and thus could not be used by the public as it was limited property. OWS Zuccotti Park is located in a privately owned space, which must be open to public all times. The fact that the park is privately owned denies OWS absolute right over the space, and the public may be evicted if the owner decides to do so (Ax, 2011). Question 2 Public sphere Public sphere simply refers to social arenas where individuals come together, exchange their different opinions regarding public affairs, discuss and form a specific public opinion (The World Bank, n,d). An arena can be a specific place or location such as town hall meeting, or a communication infrastructure in which people send and receive information and opinions. Public sphere presupposes freedom of speech and of assembly, a free press, and the right to freely participate in political debate and decision making. Thus, As Habermas, (1962) explains, public sphere is one of the most important aspects of good governance. A functioning and democratic public sphere gives citizens a chance to assert influence over political decisions, and government officials can be held accountable for their actions (Habermas, 1962). The formation for a public sphere requires that citizens are given freedom to exchange information, freedom to express their public opinions, and freedom to debate public issues. Thus, an ideal public sphere enhances participation and offers protection against abuse of power. Today, we are thriving on a public sphere in which citizens’ participation is facilitated. However, the public sphere is sometimes corrupted through economic or state influence. There are several elements of a public sphere laid out by scholars. One of them is freedom of expression, opinion and assembly. The presence of sites or locations where people gather everyday to talk about public affairs is also essential. According to The World Bank (n.d), everyday talk is one of the most important factors required in the formation of a public opinion. Such gatherings require sites or locations in which people gather from different locations to discuss public opinion. Fish (2011) notes, the public sphere is strongly tied to the media today than ever in the past. This has been facilitated by the recent developments in new communication technologies, which include internet sites such as Facebook and twitter; the two have been providing unlimited opportunities for large sections of populations to exchange information, and to deliberate about public affairs. Another constructive element of public sphere is the presence of a free and independent media system, which is not under state control. According to Fish (2011), media system is the main institution of public sphere. Thus, for citizens to interact effectively within a public sphere, the media system should guarantee equal access and voice to all citizens. For this to be achieved, the media system needs to be independent of political and corporate influences. Some forms of media that are utilized by citizens today are beyond the control of states or corporations. For instance, social sites such as twitter and Facebook are outside the control of states and corporations; they allow people to exchange views and knowledge, share critical points about public affairs and finally, they are able to develop a public-minded rational consensus. However, as Splichal (1999) explains, the concept of public sphere is sometimes tied to national economies and state governments, though they are not synonymous. Sometimes, State governments have acted and gained influence in the public sphere, thereby exerting influence over the same forms of media, seek to shape public opinion and eventually corrupt the public sphere. Moreover, some state governments tend to exert influence on public spheres in situations where citizens come together to express their public opinions. The presence of Occupy Wall Street signifies a “thriving” public sphere, despite experiencing some challenges brought about by state influence. OWS has global dimensions, similar to the progressive and independent cable television news networks that broadcast internationally. It engages in television news punditry, internet activism, and street-based social movements, all of which work together to facilitate inclusion of citizens in a large public sphere. However, OWS has constantly experienced challenges emanating from control of the public sphere by state including organs, which includes eviction from some camps where members gather to advance their ideology. Generally, though citizens have better opportunities to participate in the current public sphere, they are limited by influence of states, and powerful corporations who tend to control and to corrupt the public sphere. A public sphere has to be independent from control by any authorities, and particularly from those in power. The public sphere is the voice of the weak, and as viewed from Occupy Wall Street, the movements are geared towards envisioning and championing the rights of the neglected in the society. Many courts have made favorable rulings to such groups, meaning the rights of public through such movements have to be respected, and for the purpose of checking the political class and those in power against misusing their authority. References Ax, J. (2011), Analysis: Is sleeping in Zuccotti Park free speech?, Free Speech and Occupy Wall Street. http://mises.org/daily/5842/Free-Speech-and-Occupy-Wall-Street Cohen, H., (2010), Incidental restrictions, Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment, DIANE Publishing, New York Fish, A., (2011), The Public Sphere of Occupy Wall Street http://savageminds.org/2011/10/30/the-public-sphere-of-occupy-wall-street/ Habermas, J. (1962), The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society, Cambridge: MIT Press Reisman, G., (2011), Free Speech and Occupy Wall Street http://mises.org/daily/5842/Free-Speech-and-Occupy-Wall-Street Splichal, S. (1999), Public opinion. Developments and controversies in the twentieth century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Tedford, T. & Herbeck, D. A., (2005).Case studies, Freedom of Speech in the United States.5th., Pennsylvania: Strata Publishing, Inc The World Bank, (n.d), The public sphere, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGOVACC/Resources/PubSphereweb.pdf Read More