Occupy Asheville: Free Speech or Rule by Decree?

It appears that Occupy Asheville is suffering from the same egocentric policies that crippled the Tea Party movement. I notice that no details about specific statements were given that would have resulted in her ouster by “consensus”. At least Occupy Asheville operates in the same manner as the mainstream media: people are not given an opportunity to defend themselves against public charges.

As the picture above shows: Occupy Asheville will no longer remain silent but they will make sure that individual thought is silenced. Welcome comrade to the new Amerika.

David DeGerolamo

Occupy Asheville: Attorney Jennifer Foster no longer one of us

ASHEVILLE — Occupy Asheville participants are distancing themselves from a local attorney once affiliated with the group who’s waging a legal battle over a contempt of court charge.

Occupy members say Jennifer Foster, once a legal adviser to the group, no longer speaks for them.

“We want it clearly represented that although Jen Foster has been involved in Occupy Asheville, she in no way represents the opinions, decisions or consensus of the general assembly of Occupy Asheville,” Occupy participant Matthew Burd said Wednesday.

Foster was one of the early organizers of the local movement, but several weeks ago the group’s general assembly voted “to remove her privilege to speak on our behalf,” Burd said.

He said the action was taken because Foster was injecting her own opinions in Occupy Asheville positions in public forums.

“We as a movement are doing everything consensus-based,” Burd said. “When someone is speaking on our behalf, it has to be a relayed message on behalf of the general assembly. She stated her own opinions as the opinions of Occupy Asheville.”

The general assembly meetings are held three times a week to allow participants to discuss ideas and reach consensus on upcoming plans. All participants have a vote.


Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kayvon K
Kayvon K
10 years ago

Just to clarify. This was not a decision to be made by a small group or an individual. Jen’s actions went against our general agreements on a number of occasions. Because these agreements were consented upon as a whole, it is understood that those who work against these agreements are to be held responsible for their actions. No accountability measures have been made, but her not representing the intent of the group would be a reasonable first step. So as not to denouce her in any way, I’ll let this issue work itself out. In my opinion, the occupy movement is all inclusive; in this instance, she has been relieved from our legal working group, but is free to participate in other ways. Thank you.

Jen Foster
Jen Foster
10 years ago

bunch of bullshit Kavon and you know it. I quit working for the group weeks before when you, in particular, attempted to hijack the consensus decision for a peaceful assembly. remember that consensus? the one for the peace camp? the one you, Naomi Archer (if that is her real name, which it is not), and Anthony Benton attempted to sabotague and derail intentionally? whole mess of lies from you and others, and, guess what? it’s all on tape, except of course, that little scene at the city office, which will make a GREAT movie scene. maybe I’ll just sue you for libel per se. one count right here! lies lies lies