Submitted by Felipe Serpa on Wednesday, 10/21/2009, at 7:55 PM

Reclaim The Streets described urban street parties that were meant as peaceful "occupations" of roads and urban spaces. The chapter cronichles such gatherings in a postive light, describing them as "a bloody good time."


Yet, during a coordinated "global" street party, many gatherings turned into ugly riots, the opposite of what the organizers wanted. Does this transformation depend on the local governements reaction to the street party? Or is it simply a few bad eggs ruining the fun for most?

Can a party really count as activism?!

A thought: RTS strated as a protest against the banning of Raves in London. Undoubtdly, these raves were causing destruction, so I think that the government was right in banning them. It seems to me like these "parties" are just backlash against the cracking down. Just an excuse to party even harder.


Submitted by Doreen Lee (inactive) on Wednesday, 10/14/2009, at 7:56 PM

Calcutta's colorless campaign poses an interesting dilema. A ban on political graffiti was enacted, or rather re-enforced, in an attempt to clean up the cities appearance.

A political party can constitute a public space in that it provides a place for citizens to come together and act in unison.Does this banning portray an infringement in the public's right to use of public space? Can an empty wall be considered public space, and can its usage by a political party be considered a usage of public space?