Forum Post: Did OWS actually break any laws?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 3:37 a.m. EST by CommandoDude
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A common talking point among mass media and critics has been citing 'lawlessness' or 'breaking the law' in these Occupy movements. However, I have yet to find one single source that clearly states any specific law that has been violated by protesters.
One of the very common things I hear from people I talk to is that OWS movements 'violate other people's right to use public parks/places'
Is that true?
Yes breaking laws (such as camping in public/city place, blocking roadways during mass protests) for good and in the interest of 99% public is not and should not be considered as 'law breaking', its called civil disobedience and certain laws needs to be broken to make new or better laws or to bring about positive change. Everyone should understand that there is some inconvenience that may be caused to general public as a result of peaceful protest or assembly and this should be tolerated by others in public interest.
yes. For example, the Oakland occupy that blocked roads and the port, the NY that blocked the subway. Forcibly taking public spaces and keeping other people from using them is against the law in all cases, locations and municipalities as part of public order. OWS will argue, that these are small laws to break in light of their great 'message' and that people should accept what they are doing because its a small sacrifice to be inconvenienced if you 1) cant get to work or 2) can't get through to pick up your kids from school. They say you should be glad of the cost to you so that things can be made better.
The other argument that OWS has that attempts to legitimize breaking these laws, is that they are doing it 'peacefully'..i.e, not causing bloodshed or shooting guns to 'take over' the public space. However, they are doing it by force..force of numbers. Not quite a violent occupation, but since they are using force, these aren't peaceable assemblies. And the third argument used to legitimize their lawbreaking is that 'the laws are made by cheats and corrupt politicians in a broken system so we don't have to follow them.' Still a fourth justification used by OWS is that they are only breaking little laws while they demand their Constitutional rights, except they are violating other people's Constitutional rights while they break the little laws.
When you block a sidewalk, a road, a subway, a park, and keep other people from using it, you break the laws of the municipality you are in PLUS, and more importantly, you infringe upon other people's Constitutional rights to use that space. OWS forcibly takes these people's rights to use the spaces/drive the road/walk the sidewalk/use the subway away from them by force, again, force of numbers. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin, so OWS rights do not extend to taking away another person's use of the space, so the argument that they are 'merely' exercising their constitutional rights to take away rights of these other individuals (the majority public) is invalid. Police protect the law and these other people's rights that OWS took, by removing OWS from blockading the public spaces and making them cease their disruption of the majority of the public. That means, police move them, ask them to move or vacate the public area, and if they don't move, they get arrested. Getting arrested is never pretty to watch.
OWS is a subtle law breaking machine behind a great marketing strategy. The most effective social marketers to date, they have merely to tell people to break the law by blockading California ports (as they have called to do on 12/12) and OWS protestors will go and forcibly (with their presence of numbers) force the ports to close. This not only violates the majority public's Constitutional rights, and breaks local laws, but can legally be construed as an act of terrorism. To affect a protest at the ports which is NOT terroristic, would look quite different than taking over city ports and blockading them by force of numbers.
OWS hides behind their personal and new interpretation of the Constitution of their forcible occupations falling under the wording 'right to peaceably assemble'. This is a new and self-proclaimed interpretation of the Constution's wording. While OWS may not have active violence in their protests, they do take their spaces by force and the courts of different locations will likely have some differing opinions on whether 'peaceable assembly' under the wording of the Constitution means not actively violent as OWS newly interprets it, or if it still means 'without causing disorder' as has been its historical and usual interpretation.
On the other hand, Westboro Baptist Church, while I hate to use them as an example, DO practice peaceable assembly in their protests. They stand at the corner of an intersection and block no roads and shut no sidewalks down so other people can't pass. They do not violate the public's rights with their protests, unlike OWS, and they violate no local laws by blocking passage. Westboro lawyers have seen to it that they protest within the Constitutions language and 200+ years of interpretation.
OWS has yet to do the same, and instead, is working to change the laws, and the interpretation of the Constitution, to fit within their paradigm. This is possible, because the Constitution is a living document. BUT there are legal systematic means of changing the Constitution, that do NOT cause harm and disruption to the majority of the people just trying to go to work or pick their kids up from school, and the Constitution has had many changes over the years through more law-abiding means.