Forum Post: Free Speech does not mean taking over land.........
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 14, 2011, 9:55 p.m. EST by progmarx
(66)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
CommonSensePlz, wrote:
Somehow, I think if an anti-abortion group squatted on public land and refused to leave until abortion was made illegal, certain people for OWS would be against that. I know the left would…it’s only OK to hold public property hostage if you agree with them. The point of course is Free Speech does not mean taking over land and not leaving until you get your way. That’s why they are losing support. They are the neighbor who wouldn’t leave, and America doesn’t like to be blackmailed. The TEA Party was heard, loudly, and they didn’t “occupy” anything until they got their way. Beyond that, just exactly which ones of the hundreds of individual demands from this fractured, incoherent group do we need to submit to before they will leave? Is it the “Forgive my Student Loan” one? I hope not, because that won’t happen…not until you go protest the Universities where tuition has increased at 7x the inflation rate. That isn’t cost of living increase, that’s greed from “Professors” with 6 figure incomes. By the way, if you aren’t making big bucks after paying $80k for your Russian Literature degree, why do we have to pay your bill…you made the stupid choice. Is it the “Take all the rich people’s money” one? Even if we did, that wouldn’t pay 10% of the amount of debt Obama has racked up in just 3 years. I know, you’d just demand the next groups money after that. Maybe you should protest the White House, and the insane spending and crushing regulations (not the public safety ones which are needed, just the thousands of other Nanny State ones.) America is tired of your holding our parks and local businesses hostage. We heard you, now go home and do something constructive to further your cause..before you have no support left at all. To give some perspective, more people show up at your local Wal-Mart at 6AM on black Friday than you have in your protests. Shake off your foggy stupor and do something other than sit and whine and demand things from others.
but the redress of grievance clause allows for assemblies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Petition_and_assembly
Good points, all valid. There should be a shift in this movement from the streets to the ballots. Let the politicians know we can vote them out of office. No one took the Tea Party serious until the 2010 elections...OWS could do more because I believe the general message of anti-corruption/get-the-big-money-out-of-politics is way more universal than small government/less taxes. Anyway, the longer they stay out there and the more police confrontation they have, the less support they will have gained.
[Removed]
I see your side of the argument. Have visited an occupy site or 3 and, even though I love OWS, was a bit turned off by it. Even though the people were welcoming, I felt out of place.
My argument for occupying is that people need a place to go if they have nowhere to sleep. We don't have much of a social safety net these days. Homeless people are going to sleep somewhere - what's wrong with congregating and sheltering each other?
On the other hand, the occupy sites are draining police funding and the neighbors are complaining.
I think we could do with smaller occupy sites, at least. A physical presence is good, same with regular "flash mob" type protests. But if the occupiers have a home and a computer and no job, they could do a lot more for the movement on the internet.
I wonder how the native Americans felt when Europeans came over to their country, set up tents, and remained for 600 years?
This person has a great perspective on OWS and should be read by everybody.
[Removed]