I wanted to explain what I meant when I wrote that "that is what freedom is about."
While freedom is comprised of many aspects, for me some of them are discursiveness, disruption and improvisation.
When Todd advocates for demonstrations that have clear, unified messages, I think he is mistaken in some areas.
1) Multiple messages confuse onlookers.
I do not see this as happening. I think human beings in the present time possess a level of sophistication and nuance that allows for the transmission of multiple messages.
I do, however, believe that there is an attempt to portray people as incapable of receiving multiple messages in order to justify this streamlining approach.
2) A demonstration should be limited to one or two messages.
Whatever the organizers' intent may be, demonstrations usually send a good number of messages, some explicit, some implicit, but often more than the organizers realize or intend.
3) The Inadvisability of Disrupting Unified Messages
First, I am not convinced of the ability/desirability to craft and send a unified message.
Secondly, from one perspective existence can be seen as a series of disruptions and reconfigurations. This may be a matter of personal experience/comfort. I prefer jazz with its reinvention and improvisation, while others may enjoy Mozart or Bach, where the notes stay the same and in the same order (though variations in tempi can occur. I was also told once by an opera singer friend that improvisation was part of classical music, but the practice had fallen out of favor.).
I also think disruption helps slow down existence, keeping life in the moment (this is probably my Buddhist side). I think a good dose of interruption/disruption would have helped where the passage of the Patriot Act was concerned (for one example).
I also think disruptions help to clarify. For example: did SWP understand the message it was sending by allying themselves with antiqueer religious conservatives? If they did, the disruption gave them an opportunity to make explicit their thinking in this matter. If they did not, the disruption served as an oportunity to look at the issue if they cared to.
To me, the uinfied, no dissent approach is much more suited to the Right than to the Left. The interests and objectives of the Right are much narower and are tailored for the needs of a much smaller group of people than those of the Left.
While it might be tempting to adopt this approach in light of the Right's successes, the question remains whether this approach is suited to the aims and objectives of the Left.
I hope this helps to clarify what I typed earlier which I see was too vague and general to be of much use or meaning.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister