Occupy Chicago Article Discrepancies.

I’ve noticed that the online article for this story is different than the same article in the paper I picked up in Chicago. I’ve taken the time out of my nerdy schedule to point out the differences and type up the missing pieces and paste the added ones, too!






{Added to the online article}: “This is a tremendous First Amendment victory for both Occupy and all Chicagoans,” Durkin added.*

*(Between “Thomas Anthony Durkin, the lawyer for Landers and 11 other U. of C. students, hailed the ruling as a “stinging rebuke to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s and [Chicago Police Supt.] Garry McCarthy’s repeated claims that the City of Chicago respects and protects the First Amendment.” and “The fact of the matter is the city, and this administration in particular, respect the property rights of business owners more than the First Amendment.”)


{Added to the online article}: “ The reality of what happened to these 92 people is that they were scooped up and treated liked criminals,” Gelsomino added. “They were put in the back of police wagons, taken to the police station, held in custody while they were processed, then sent to courthouses where they faced charges. So these individuals felt the consequences of this arrest, and they have been feeling the consequences of having it hanging over their head for over a year. What is so significant about this is that the ordinance violation they were arrested for, a curfew violation, carries a maximum penalty of $500, and no jail time. Yet some of these people spent up to 24 hours in jail. That certainly has had a chilling effect.”*

*(Between “Donnelly’s ruling “sends a very strong message from the courts to the city that the First Amendment belongs to all citizens equally, regardless of their message,” she said.” and “Protester Andy Manos, 33, of Humboldt Park, had harsher words for the mayor: “When the judge announced his ruling, I loved it. I felt a big feeling of relief, but that relief was also tied to a kind of, ‘F— you, Rahm,’ which is how the teachers must have felt recently.”)


{Then the end of the article is completely different online than it is in the paper. Here is the ending online that isn’t in the paper.}: 

“In February, the city reached a $6.2 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit stemming from mass arrests by Chicago police at a 2003 anti-war demonstration. The settlement followed a federal appeals court ruling that the arrests of about 850 protesters were not justified.

At that time of the settlement, McCarthy held up the police response to last year’s Occupy protests as proof the city had learned its lesson.

“We’ve certainly learned the lessons of the past as far as moving forward and what it is we need to do,” McCarthy said then.


{And here is the ending of the article from the paper}:

“But until the ruling is overturned, park closing times — which range from dusk to 11 p.m. at most parks — are unconstitutional, said attorney Burt Odelson, whose suburban firm represents numerous municipalities.

“It’s gone, unless the city appeals it and wins,” Odelson told the Sun-Times after reviewing the ruling Thursday.

From his point of view, the city’s parks, as of now, should be considered open 24/7.

“Bring your friends and a band and a barbecue and you’re good to go” all night, Odelson said.”


{And then there is an article below it in the paper about whether or not the occupiers plan to occupy the park now that a judge says it’s within the law.}


This is for anyone that wanted to know the differences between the online article and the article straight from the paper I picked up in Chicago. I wonder why the changes…? Was someone worried about tempting people into reoccupying? Just wondering.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s