Civil Disobedience: How Far Does Free Speech Go? (Campus BluePrint March 2012)

Carrboro's Second Annual Anarchist Book Fair this past Nov. 12 produced a flurry of flyers, all proclaiming, "Welcome to the Experiment. Make no mistake: this occupation is illegal, as are most of the other occupations taking place around the US, as were many of the other acts of defiance that won the litle freedom and equality we appreciate today." A floor plan was printed on the back.

By 8:30 that evening, about 70 book fair attendees had broken into an abandoned warehouse, the old Yates Motor Company building, on West Franklin Street and had begun to cover the windows with banners. But to spectators, it remained unclear--was this a militant occupation or a carefully planned civil protest?

After only a few brief attempts at communication, the police decided to take action the next day. In the afternoon of Nov. 13, about 20 heavily armed police officers arrived at the Yates Motor Company building. Brandishing assault rifles, they forced everyone on the scene--including two reporters--to the ground. Seven protesters were arrested while others were only detained for 20 to 30 minutes.

Since then the town of Chapel Hill has wrestled with the police response to the Nov. 13 occupation, with many community members protesting what they saw to be unwarranted aggression.

When a similar occupation sparked in Carrboro on Feb. 4, however, Chapel Hill got a chance to reevaluate how it could have responded the attempted Yates occupation.

These protesters called themselves the “Carrboro Commune,” but their flyers read “Welcome, once again, to an experiment,” reinforcing their connection with the Yates Motor Company incident. This time, protesters occupied CVS-owned property in downtown Carrboro to demonstrate against the pharmacy chain that is planned for that location.

“This physical space should belong to the community,” Occupy Chapel Hill member Maria Rowan said. Rowan made it clear that Occupy Chapel Hill was not affiliated with the Carrboro Commune, but that she had taken it upon herself to be a spokesperson on the street for the Commune.

The two building take-overs were meant to convey essentially the same message, but the two protests themselves ended rather differently. Shortly after the occupation began, Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton entered the building and refused to leave until the Carrboro Commune had left. The building was vacated three hours later.

Chapel Hill Town Council member Laurin Easthom said that Carrboro police definitely took the opportunity to learn from Chapel Hill’s mistakes. “I wish we’d have handled it that way,” she said. Chapel Hill police are still in the midst of reevaluating their policies, but Easthom said she hopes they take Carrboro’s example into account. 

According to the police reports surrounding the Yates incident, Chapel Hill's martial response stemmed from unease over the involvement of anarchists in the occupation and the distinct tactics being used. The protesters wore masks, covered the windows with banners and posted look-outs on the roof. These features led the police to associate the protest with more violent occupations and protests like those in Oakland earlier in the month.

But Cathy Packer, a media law professor in the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication, emphasized the protesters’ motives in her criticism of the police response. 

“We do not need to pull our assault weapons out on earnest young people who are looking for political change,” Packer said.

News sources at the time said that the Yates Motor protesters aimed to create a community center, and their flyers were filled with plans for free childcare, a library and even an art studio. Chapel Hill Town Council member Lee Storrow, however, said that there was even more to it than that. 

“The protesters chose to break into the Yates building to make a political [statement] about what the landlord has done to the community and to think creatively about communities and how we can use spaces differently,” he said. “I think we didn’t acknowledge that when the police reacted.”

Easthom also said she was concerned that Chapel Hill’s trust in their leadership has been shaken by the way the issue has been handled. A public outcry for an investigation after the incident in November only led to an internal review conducted by Town Manager Roger Stancil, which Easthom said was unsatisfactory. 

Stancil requested that all town staff refrain from speaking to the press during the internal review. 

“This approach supports a transparent process and the desires of the Council and the community for a full and open exchange of information on this issue," Stancil said in a statement.

Another issue that the council has gone back and forth on since November is the need for an independent investigation into the legitimacy of the police response. The idea has been shelved for now due to cost and potential ineffectiveness, but the Consumer Policing Advisory Committee, which is currently responsible for reviewing the incident, can bring it to the council again if it wishes. 

“I had wanted an independent investigation the whole time, but I can’t get one right now,” Easthom said.

Stancil has said in interviews he still thinks the police response to the Yates Motor Company occupation was justified at the time, but the Chapel Hill Town Council has acknowledged at least some wrong-doing.  In January the council issued an apology to the two reporters who were briefly detained during the police raid: Katelyn Ferral of the News & Observer and freelance reporter Josh Davis.

According to media law Professor Cathy Packer, however, the reporters could also have been charged with trespassing. “Reporters and other citizens always have the same First Amendment rights,” she said.

That isn’t the only recent example of Chapel Hill side-stepping the law for a cause either. In a recent memo to the town council, Stancil observed that town officials had decided not to enforce protest and camping limits and regulations when dealing with Occupy Chapel Hill’s three-month stay in Peace and Justice Plaza.  

Storrow said he still believes the protesters at the Yates Motor Company building should have been removed from the premises, but he thinks things should have been done differently.

"I think we need to think about the standard that we hold our community to," Storrow said. "We need to hold people who engage in civil disobedience to make a political point to different standards."

Storrow said  the debate is starting to take time and energy away from other important issues as well. 

“I think that was an important discussion to have, but I do think that at some point we as a community need to think about lessons learned and then find ways to move on,” he said.

Easthom said she understands a lot of people are tired of the issue, but she thinks it’s essential that problems, once identified in a community, are dealt with. 

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to take problems and sweep them under the rug,” Easthom said.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/84011985/March-2012