In relating to students her involvement in the Occupy Rogers Park and the protests she helped organize during the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago, Hayes said, "NATO is a War Machine of the Global 1%. They may mask it in humanitarian mission speak, but War is War. I think citizens have the right and responsibility to hold government accountable."
In her discussion, Hayes touched on the ideas of what she called a distubing trend of First Amendment Freedom of Speech becoming Freedom of Speech, 'Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich.' As part of the Occupy Movement and a Non-Violent Direct Action Trainer, she said the cost the City of Chicago required for the permits to march to Petition the Government on a variety of issues (NATO, to Chicago school closings, etc. ), the $1 million mandated insurance policy for a march, and the distance any protests could "lawfully" be from the NATO summit, well, spits in the face of Constitutional freedoms.
"First of all, $1 million to march, is just wrong, I understand why some of our organizers wanted a permitted march. But I don't need a permit. The First Amendment is my permit,'' Hayes said. She related a march on May 12, 2012 that grew and somewhat surpisingly, got to the gates of McCormick Place, where the NATO Summit was being held. "The permit they gave us was nowhere close. We had veterans throw their medals in the direction at McCormick Place, so it was powerful imagery. But we were nowhere close, so we kept marching. It would be like if you had an issue with someone or something and you had to go four blocks away to spit at them or it. It might make you feel better, but it wouldn't have much of an impact."
Hayes said the movement DID have more than a disruptive impact, and she welcomed getting arrested for the cause of standing up for a Constitutional Freedom. She said the City of Chicago had originally planned to controversially close up to 150 community schools. They closed just 50. Hayes says the citizen advocacy had an impact.
"It was making the invisable, visable, and it definitely had an impact,'' she said.
Hayes, like other First Amendment Advocates are seldom popular. Much of what she said in the WVHS auditorium did not have a wave of support from the Political Warriors in the audience. However, one wonders reading the quote by Thomas Jefferson on the shirt sold at the US Constitution Museum this summer, that we should be reminded that we should all be glad that our Constitution has energetic, if ecentric, friends like Kelly Hayes.
Happy Birthday, Constitution from We the People.
24 comments:
Contrary to what most of my peers thought, I really liked Ms. Hayes' speech. I think she said a lot of things that many, many Americans believe but many (I find myself guilty of this, as well) are too afraid to vocalize their opinions about, out of fear of being labeled "rogue" or a "rebel". I strongly agreed with what she said about our government's role in interventionist war, and how our country does not have a history toppling an unjust regime and then leaving. She is exactly what she says she is, a First Amendment Advocate. Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to say that you believe the government's actions are wrong. I think a lot of citizens don't like people like Ms. Hayes because she speaks of truths that we are too afraid to hear about or believe. After her speech, I approached Ms. Hayes individually and thanked her for her courage in what she does. I admire and respect her ability and nerve to stand by what she believes in, even when it's not a popular opinion. I think we need more citizens who are as proactive about their exercise of Freedom of Speech as she is.
Ms. Hayes had some points I agreed with, but for the majority I did not. She praised what the First Amendment provided for us, however she then proceeded to criticize and tearn down every government action, by Republicans and Democrats alike. To me she seemed unrealistic. The influencial demostrations are those like the March on Washington. No one was arrested, it was peaceful, an amazing speech was given. Hayes spoke of her arrest as a proud moment, but does she realy believe any politician will listen to someone that has been arrested? Another question- is this woman credible? Has she studied the foundations of our government or government in general? Also, the education program her organization has established is somewhat worrisome to me. Most teenagers are easily influenced by adult opinions if they are unaware of current events and politics. By speaking to youths nation wide, the goal seems not to educate, but to find more people to join the marches. I appreciate her perspective, however it appears she is creating extremists for her own advantage. Teenages should be able to form their own opinion of the government without having a someone like Ms. Hayes tell them what is right.
I was asked after the talk if I agreed with Ms. Hayes. That becomes a complicated question when we talk about the issues she gets up on her protest Soap Box about. However, what I absolutely support is the citizen right to exercise their constituional rights to speech, religion, press, assembly and petition (her advocacy).
Remember that when we talk about defenders of the first amendment later in the year, we will talk about the words and actions much of us don't like. Without that dissenting voice, does the freedom really exist? When my wife had to get through the protesters on Michigan Avenue in May, 2012, she was annoyed and I could empathize. However, would we want the alternative (I'm looking at you China, Russia, etc.)?
While it's still on my mind, I'd like to address Ellis's, dare I say, discussion with Ms. Hayes. I really found it interesting. At first I thought what everyone else thought. It was typical Ellis trying to get on people's nerves just for kicks. But shortly after she ended the relationship, Ms. Hayes explained that she goes into these demonstrations with the understanding, and many times, the intention to be arrested. She said that she was being disruptive to get her point across. So that people would recognize her cause. After hearing that, I immediately thought back to Ellis. He essentially made Ms. Hayes switch roles. Ellis questioned what makes Ms. Hayes believe she has the right to disturb the public and interfere with people's daily affairs, like her demonstrations are intended to do. Then through all of the interruptions Ellis provoked a disruption in a similar manner. Ellis asked a controversial question and was disruptive and rude, so Ms. Hayes silenced him. This makes his comments all the more memorable. We all remember the short altercation. Ms. Hayes didn't recognize it, but her passion in life is almost essentially what Ellis did. She aggressively questions controversial topics and is often met with conflict from a higher authority. Now don't get me wrong. I don't think this was Ellis's intention. I think he just planned on pissing off whoever was speaking the second he heard that there would be questions. If it was intended, then bravo Ellis. But I thought this was a really interesting event. And I really enjoyed it. Ms. Hayes was ok. She can be an activist and it's no big deal. She has good intentions. I just thought she made it sound like she wants to pick fights, because she identifies herself with activism. Not because she was passionate about it. I'm sure she's very passionate. It just seemed like a poor presentation.
Listening in the auditorium yesterday, I could hear the low grumbles of disdain coming from my peers. They thought that Ms. Hayes was some kind of irrational, far-left liberal. Her disruptive methods of peaceful protests may have seemed more of a bother than an actual to political presence to those seated around me. However, I believe that what Ms. Hayes is doing is rather admirable. She willing puts herself out there and has the spirit and desire to protest for what she believes in. From what she told us, she never used violence to send a message, rather her methods viewed necessary even by the police who arrested her. Ms. Hayes said that they thanked her for her voicing of opinion. I do agree with Kayla that there may be some danger in believing everything she says since we only got one side of the story yesterday. Her stance was very anti-government and she saw the government more of a manipulative, oppressive, failure institution which is in my viewpoint quite jaded.
The U.S. government has had pretty awful moments without a doubt;Dred Scott case, Native American Removal Acts, Iran Contra. But that does not mean the government has completely failed the people: 19th Amendment,New Deal reforms, federal aid during Katrina or Hurricane Sandy. Another point that Ms. Hayes was driving at is the idea that the U.S. involvement in NATO promotes the idea that "War is War". I do not believe violence should ever be the first response, but appeasement does not always work. Diplomatic relations can only go so far sometimes with foreign regimes. Ms. Hayes talked a lot about how military involvement has America in over its head, leaving a bigger mess to clean up. However she did not provide a response to how the government should be going about their foreign relations.
Overall, I found it intriguing to have Ms. Hayes here at WV. She provided a viewpoint that not many of privileged, suburban students have. There are flaws in the government,which may be shocking for many die-hard American patriots, but there is a chance for reform. I just do not think that Ms. Hayes's one-pony trick of non-violent protest should be the only way to create political change.
I think Ms. Hayes had many valid points in her talk with us. The first amendment is a very valuable part of what makes Americans unique and it is the cornerstone of our society. With that in mind though, I must discuss what another student asked Ms. Hayes after her talk. He asked her what gives you the right to disrupt everyone else's rights and freedoms by blocking roads and making a lot of noise. While the manner that this was said caused many to laugh, the words resonated with me. While I do believe it is important to be vocal and petition your government for change, at what point does it encroach on others' freedoms and liberties. These protesters must remember that there are other people that may not benefit from your cause. Others have rights and freedoms too and if ordinances and laws are what are necessary to protect others rights as well, then they must be in place. The classic limit on freedom of speech is that you cannot go into a movie theater and yell fire when no fire exists. The same is true with the protesters. Their actions have consequences on other law abiding citizens who may not want to be inconvenienced by your road blocks and sit ins. In my mind, often times these protesters are just telling the media "look at us!!! There is a problem in society." Yes there are problems in society, but what is your solution to this problem. Throwing your medals towards the NATO Summit may be powerful imagery, but what did you do to solve the problem you see. There are legal ways to solve these issues and while protests are a great way to raise awareness and attention, there needs to be a way to solve the situation. So you see NATO as a war machine. That is great, but what would you do to fix it? Never in her discussion with us did I hear a solution. Only that we need to protest problems.
I agree with Ryan, Ms. Hayes had a lot of complaints but no solution. In this way she reminded me of a child complaining to their parents; they can always find the problems, but never the solutions to those problems.
While I respect her, and her right to protest, I was disturbed by her saying that peaceful protesters were beaten by police at the NATO summit protests, because in my opinion, once their march broke from the designated path they were no longer peaceful, law abiding citizens: they were a mob. While I understand they disagreed with the ordinances put in place, they have no right to violate those ordinances and expect law enforcement to step aside. So contrary to her belief, that was not a peaceful protest.
I thought it was a very interesting speech and didn't agree with what she said, I think people like her are good to have in a society. I'm not talking about her lawbreaking tendencies but how she is always questioning authority. She and people like her keep the government in check and balances the powers. The government and its lawmakers will always have to worry if they will get a lot of criticism and this could result in them law not getting passed or puts their careers in jeopardy. If you have ever seen World War Z Ms. Hayes is the so called tenth man. The tenth man theory is one where if 9 people look at the same information and come to the same conclusion the tenth man has the duty to disagree. By always questioning authority and assuming they are wrong her theories could forewarn the public of corruption or law breaking the government is doing. She may not always be right but her opinions give the public multiple views of the situation, instead of one mainstream view.
While Ms. Hayes was speaking yesterday, I found myself disagreeing with the majority of the ideas she presented. She glorified protesting and creating disruptions in order to express one's beliefs, but often few results are produced from these actions. Yes, she may have blocked the elevators at City Hall, but what was the greater effect? Did those in City Hall even bother to listen to her? There are better ways to work for change than just creating disorder. She could be putting her efforts to directly call for change by working with the system; she could propose legislature or just propose ideas in a peaceful manner. There are many ways that one can be more effective in getting their point across than protesting.
Also, she was very against military involvement, thus her protesting NATO last year. She felt very strongly that anything related to war was bad, but sometimes it is necessary. In certain situations, force and violence are necessary to either topple a regime or protect the people. She complained a lot about unnecessary military involvement, but she proposed no other possible solutions for fixing the situation. She seemed to be a lot of talk as well as a lot of ineffective action.
I know a lot of people didn't like Ms. Hayes, but I thought she made some good points during her presentation. She talked about all the hoops she had to go through in order to get a permit for the protest. Why should someone have to pay a million dollars to protest? Protesting is everyone's right, but it seems like the government is trying to get us to "sit down and shut up." I agreed with Ms. Hayes when she said the wealthy are the only ones allowed to have an opinion. The other hurdle she had was the location of the protest. On this point, I would have to disagree with Ms. Hayes's opinion. There are several reasons why protesters should be away from their intended target. I think the closer they are, the more likely the "peaceful protest" will become a mob. For example, I completely agree with the space between the Westboro Baptist Church and the funeral of soldiers. Although I didn't agree with everything Ms. Hayes said, I admire her courage to freely speak her mind.
I'd at least like to say that I appreciated what Ms. Hayes was doing. Now the rest...
Yeah I was purposefully antagonizing myself. Yeah I was trying (and succeeding) to piss her off and have her lose that trademark frustrated riot grrl cool. Yeah I enjoyed myself. But there was a reason. There's always a reason with me I don't do things just for the mere pleasure of irritating someone, as some of you may think. Well sometimes I do.
Tad you got it, thanks man, I'm really surprised and thankful and impressed. The whole point of me being loud and obnoxious and rude was to get her to become the authoritarian figure that she has despised all her life. I personally believe in every human interaction there's an authority and a dissenter, and with Ms. Hayes playing the dissenter every single damn day, I figured it was time for her to experience a paradigm shift.
Ms. Hayes obviously loves conflict and picking fights, being obnoxious and, in general, a nuisance. So I played her role, I was conflicting and inflammatory and obnoxious and a nuisance just so she, although it may have been lost on her, so that for once, she could see how fucking annoying it is to deal with someone like that.
And how did she react? She lost it! She allowed herself to be interrupted by me (you guys really think I just yell things at people for no reason?), allowed herself to be humiliated, embarrassed, disrupted by some punk kid, feeling just how the authorities that have to deal with her feel. And in the end, contrary to her lifelong dedication to free speech (in addition to GIVING A SPEECH ON IT) and open forum, she silenced me, censored me, moved on, just as teachers, adults, police, and politicians must have done to her time and time again.
(Also I wasn't being disrespectful. Disrespectful implies that I respected her, or that she should be held in a place of respect) (How arrogant)
The terrible irony of it all was obviously lost on her.
I knew she would react like that, go against all her own values when someone identical to her was placed against her, and how uncomfortable she would become when she realized she had become everything she hates in life, everything she has never wanted to become.
You guys probably think I'm crazy but I promise, I promise, I really do, there was a reason, there's really always a reason, it's always intended to MEAN something, and hopefully, the next time Ms. Hayes is told to, "sit down and shut up", she'll remember saying that exact same thing to some teenager.
I would like to agree with both Aamna and Kayla in regards to Ms.Hayes' speech. While I admire her boldness and I think it's great that she's a young woman fighting for what she believes are her rights in this country, I began to question her credibility after some of the points she shared with us. She didn't really give us any background on her education or academic experience in relation to the government. I feel like she wasn't really looking at situations holistically. For example, she adamantly defended her first amendment rights, but she seemed to disagree with everything the government was doing to try to balance the radical beliefs of some first amendment supporters. However, I will say that the reason many people disagree with her is because we aren't exposed to the things that she has been exposed to, and might not have as many personal connections with the issues as she did. On the other hand, again, she did not seem to have a problem with putting herself and others in danger and breaking the law during her marches in downtown. As much as I disagreed with Ellis's approach, I think his question was perfectly legitimate. When do you know when to stop? I feel she didn't answer this question properly.
I think that Ms. Hayes gave an interesting speech. I would first like to say how much I admire her courage and ability to state her opinion (regardless of what we think of it) in front of a large crowd of people. I appreciate the different view that Ms. Hayes offered us to look through. I think that it was interesting to hear things from her perspective and about her thoughts and experiences. While it was interesting to hear, I did not agree with most of what she was saying. I think that she did seem to glorify protesting, and I also felt as though sometimes it was a bit dramatic to make us understand her immense struggles. While I am sure there were many struggles, it is still her choice to commit to this reaction. Nobody knows except for her how bad these issues were. I feel like it would have been easier to understand had she skipped the drama and possible exaggeration and just talked about the reasons she was reacting in this way. I am not sure how credible she is. As people said earlier, she did not discuss her education or any of her specific thoughts, except for broad views of what she thinks should and should not happen. The issue that I had the most with her was that she bashed just about anything having to do with the government. She put down both republican and democrat representatives, and said repeatedly how much she does not trust her government. Ms. Hayes spent the majority of the speech exclaiming how bad the government is and their problems, however, she offered no possible solutions or even what she thinks should be done--all she said was it shouldn't be done the way the government is going to go about it/has gone about it. I would love to ask Ms. Hayes if she would ever be satisfied with ANYTHING the government does. It wasn't like her presentation revolved around what the government should do to make things better. Instead, it was that the government should not do what they are doing, and they cannot be trusted. I absolutely believe that Ms. Hayes has the right to protest peacefully however she wants. But peaceful does not mean breaking the law and making up whatever rules they want (as she discussed making their own route on the march in Chicago). I understand her point of marching in order to get media attention. However, how much does that really do for you? People still may not be educated on what the march is for etc. Ms. Hayes focused so much time and energy discussing how many problems there are with the government and yet did not offer helpful solutions to any of these issues.
Overall, Ms. Hayes' speech really did open my eyes up to the kind of government interference that is limiting our first amendment right.
I had no idea that the government could mandate an insurance policy for groups that want to march, or that they are allowed to keep protestors a significant distance away from designated areas.
It's good to have people like her in society, keeping the higher powers in check my doing whatever necessary to defend our constitutional rights. While pulling publicity stunts and voluntarily getting arrested to get a message across might seem like crossing the line, I think its necessary because politicians play just as dirty (and usually they get away with it). I share her beliefs in the necessity to protect our freedom of speech - it's the most powerful tool we have.
However, I disagree with some of her political ideologies. When answering questions about her thoughts on Syria she criticized Obama for seeking military intervention and said that we should let the Syrians write their own history and essentially do nothing. I think it is absurd for a country with power and position like ours to sit by and watch regimes use chemical weapons that are banned by 98% of the international community and not do anything about it. It reminds of another civil war that took place in a country in which little to no international intervention was employed. That country is Rwanda, and hundreds of thousands were slain in a genocide while the rest of the world watched. That is something that should be prevented by all means in the future, and if it means military intervention then so be it.
I support Ms. Hayes although many of the people in the auditorium did not. Her so called radical/extremist ideology did not bother me one bit and I like that she was exposing other people and kids around the nation. Reading through the other comments, I don't necessarily think her education is to be questioned in depth. She knew what she was fighting and what she was fighting for. Maybe she was right in saying that syrians should write their own history. Its not our place nor any other country to get involved or entangled in any civil war of anothers. I don't quite know where I stand on the political spectrum myself but I had no problem with her words. She does what she does and maybe if you guys protested you'd be thinking similarly.
I support Ms. Hayes although many of the people in the auditorium did not. Her so called radical/extremist ideology did not bother me one bit and I like that she was exposing other people and kids around the nation. Reading through the other comments, I don't necessarily think her education is to be questioned in depth. She knew what she was fighting and what she was fighting for. Maybe she was right in saying that syrians should write their own history. Its not our place nor any other country to get involved or entangled in any civil war of anothers. I don't quite know where I stand on the political spectrum myself but I had no problem with her words. She does what she does and maybe if you guys protested you'd be thinking similarly.
I respect Ms. Hayes for speaking with us about her experiences with protesting as well as the reasons behind her actions. I think that she had some valid points in terms of why she was so passionate about what she was doing. I fully understand her desire to keep a check on the government and attempt to get improve circumstances for the people.
That being said, I did not agree with most of what Ms. Hayes was saying. It seemed to me that she was attempting to either glorify or romanticize her experiences, stating that she got arrested for the greater good, describing the impact that protesting had on her - almost to go as far as say that it was life changing, and speaking out against the suppression in the institutions she was trying to change, while at the same time denouncing those who did not agree with her ideals. Although she had some valid notions she was protesting, such as the closing of the Chicago Public Schools, it seemed to me like she was creating more of a disturbance than actually achieving something. Also, I really disliked the fact that she was part of a program that helped teenagers learn how to protest. Although she said that her organization primarily helps with getting their voices heard, not to encourage violent protests, adolescents are heavily impacted by the attitudes and judgements of adults as well as their peers. Because of this, it seems inevitable that the adolescents she his "helping" will also take part in the violent protests as well. I felt that her actions and reasoning provided no true solution to the problems she was trying to fix; rather, she was simply trying to find people who agreed with her and were willing to protest, instead of coming up with practical solutions to the problems at hand.
While listening to Ms. Hayes, I found myself intrigued at the beginning of the presentation, but less and less impressed as it went on. She did make a couple of valid points about the Constitution; peaceful protestors should not need a permit, the First Amendment gives them the right to do so, as long as they are not endangering others. And I for one do not believe her march was. I agreed that it is straight bunk to have a one million dollar insurance policy upon the these organizations; it is indirectly taking away their right to protest if they cannot come up with the money. Maybe the government should enforce some sort of insurance for some safety reasons, but then again we come back to the liberty versus security issue and which is more important.
What I had the greatest problem with is she did not seem to offer a clear and logical solution to how she wanted her problems solved beyond protesting and speaking out. Is getting arrested really worth it and will it have that great of an impact? Does her organization have support from top business men and law makers? She criticized the top 1% quite heavily, but as we discussed in class, if you really want a revolution or change, you need the driving force to be from the top. Overall, some of her points about the need for less regulation were valid but I found her whole plan to be quite unrealistic. If you don't love it, leave it.
Ms. Hayes had some points I agreed with and others I did not agree with. I don't agree with the fact that she never really had a true solution to problems, and to me seemed kind of lost. I do agree with her acts of peaceful protest, even if they might annoy, or disturb people. They never harm the gerneral public. Ms. Hayes alos knows her consequences when so goes out on these peaceful protest. I also agree with her points on CPS school closings, and the safe passage routs. Are they really "safe". I feel very stongly about this topic, because inocent children have to walk through some of the dangerous parts of the citi. Overall Ms. Hayes presentation was good it just had some poor aspects.
Though I somewhat admired Ms. Hayes'passion to make changes to unjust policies, I thought she presented herself very poorly. I, and many other people, were under the impression that she would protest anything and everything simply for the sake of arguing. Like Kayla said, she denounced everything the government was doing, despite the political party. I didn't like the vibe she was giving off-- a sort of entitled arrogance, thinking she was doing big things because she could hold up signs and march down to where politicians were gathered. These protesters are seen more of as pests than a coming change. Telling the media that there is a problem will literally do nothing. We know there's a problem; what would be more admirable is if she could come up to SOLUTIONS to these problems that impassioned her so. I think her main goal in coming to Waubonsie and to other schools was to get more people to view the government the same way she does, not to educate us on our Constitutional rights.
I did not get to attend Ms. Hayes speech, but after reading these comments really wish I would have. I am quite intrigued why her ideas were so controversial, because I thought we all agreed in class that freedom of speech is of the top three values of American Society? Charging to protest and limiting the space to protest is infringing on the first amendment, even if you don't agree with what she has to say we should all be defending what was given to us as an unalienable right.
It was quite interesting to listen to Ms. Hayes. It isn't often when you can really understand the mindset behind those who rally and petition, and try to grab the attention of political leaders. Honestly, she seemed a little unrealistic. I totally understand that you must stand up for your Constitutional rights, and you must protect them to prove that the American citizens are truly the people who run the government, but her ideology behind it seemed a little far fetched. She couldn't openly state her position without using vague terms like 1%, and the 'government', instead of stating exactly what she is petitioning against. Her anti-war sentiment is quite inspiring, but she isn't posing any answers. Also, I thought she tended to be extremely emotional and tended to exaggerate her situation. She is protesting because SHE wanted to, I don't think she had any right to complain about the distance she had to walk and the 'sound of chants rattling in her head'. It was honestly like she was trying to romanticize her situation. I still think that she is brave for defending her rights, but without giving up plausible solutions, her problems will unfortunately be overlooked.
I thought Ms. Hayes made some good points during her speech about the first amendment and what she believe it means to her, i just feel she exaggerated a lot during her time on stage. I felt like she was trying to make herself and her fellow protesters as saviors of we the people. She tried to make her journey through downtown Chicago seem like she was crossing the Sahara Desert or something, saying she was "exhausted", and struggling to march downtown "without food or water" she made it seem like she was on a hunger strike or something when really she was just doing something we do on a regular basis- walk. Another thing that bothered me during her speech was when she said "I've been on T.V. before, even though I HATE it." I thought this was a complete lie as she had just bragged about getting media attention for her elevator escapade earlier. Just things on my mind, some people need to quit complaining or leave. Its alright to protect your rights or what you believe in but if you argue with nearly everything thats is going on in your country or city, its time to find somewhere else to go.
From what I read and heard about the speech, it honestly sounds like another case of Rebel without a cause. People love to complain and make a stink, sometimes it's just because they can. And while I love the rights to free speech and protest, I hate how people use that as an excuse. And after I heard about Ellis questioning what gave her the right to disrupt others freedom, I have to agree with him.
Post a Comment