Forum Post: Lest People Forget: It's Called the First Amendment of the Constitution
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 7:56 a.m. EST by groobiecat2
(746)
from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And apparently, the powers that be are interested only in protecting its exercise by corporations in back channels of our government (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html) but not for those who would exercise it openly. As is their right.
The right holds as long as we don't infringe on other people's rights. Our rights can not supersede another persons rights under the Constitution and case law from the Supreme Court. e.g., we can assemble in a park as long as other people can still use the park. We can drum as long as we don't disrupt other people's rights to a good night's sleep. We can march as long as we don't tread on other people's rights to drive down a road. The minute we disturb the peace by infringing on other people's rights, we are no longer 'peaceable.' So, wherever we are, keep it peaceable (don't disrupt other people's rights) and keep it peaceful. Once we infringe on someone else's rights, the police can take back that other person's rights to use the park, drive down a road, get a good night's sleep, etc, for them.
other people can't use the park ?
So they can be surrounded by violent, disgusting people who will verbally attack them if they happen to not agree? Yeah, that sounds great...
the protesters are not violent
The ones that have been arrested were. Period.
lol
I'm non-violent and I've been arrested and I have been arrested
have you seen the parks?? in a word, no. We know we're keeping people out of our local park, but have agreed with the city to be out by Thanksgiving so they can put up Christmas tree and hold all the community things and concerts and stuff. They agreed we could come back Jan 2.
Good points, all. Thanks for the post...
Amen. Why isn't this being touted more?
for the same reason the likes of Obama and Nancy Pelosi said nothing about the shooting in Oakland. Because they're all in bed with the banksters as are the mainstream media
You have a point. But maybe some of the mainstream media are coming around?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/10/29/winter-is-coming-occupy-wall-street-confronts-its-first-snow/?xid=newsletter-daily
well I am feeling much more enthusiastic after reading this! show of the bastards nothing will stop OWS !
http://occupywallst.org/forum/you-know-how-the-1-were-smugly-expecting-the-cold-/
but the rights of those who are not within OWS to utilize a public park should not be infringed upon either...that's the thing with one person's right(s), if it infringes upon another, is that right?
how does OWS infringe on other peoples' rights? specifically, their constitutional rights?
Plead the 5th when you can't plead the 1st.
We didn't know it until now, but we have the right to obey and they have the right to kill. Just wait until the day they start exercising the patriot act on OWS. It could happen and THEY've made it legal.
The constitution is useless when handed over to Usa's ruler conquerer. It may already be too late..... I has been so ever since
SENECA (Lucius Annaeus Seneca). First century Roman philosopher.
"The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors." (De Superstitione)
Check out this great post by Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman ’67 and Yochai Benkler. Touches upon Thurgood Marshall's outrage at limits on peaceful occupations.
Exerpt: "Worse yet, the Supreme Court upheld such a prohibition in 1984, finding that the government's interest in cleaning up the parks trumped protesters' rights to freedom of expression. The case involved an overnight demonstration against the treatment of the homeless population during the winter. It provoked an eloquent dissent by Justice Thurgood Marshall. He emphasized that the protesters' willingness to endure harsh conditions was central to their message, and that it was possible for the city to clean up its park without suppressing their efforts to advance their vision of a more humane America. "
Link: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/14101.htm
Freedom of the press;
Nor so much.
Memphis State Troopers and their disregard for basic rights:
http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2011/10/29/scene-reporter-captures-own-arrest-on-video-refutes-state-troopers-charges
OK, now, all eyes straight ahead. By any chance do you see a black and white screen? And as you type, so you see those little letters flitting across the screen? Well, that folks is your Freedom of Speech.
Hilarious. The police and mayors are so worried that OWS will stop corporate America that they are shutting things down. It has nothing to do with the mob mentality and dangerous situation that has unfolded.
I decree that you are part of the 99% and thus must agree with what I have to say. If I take control of the park to articulate my thoughts, I am also articulating your thoughts, you thus have no need to use the park. Thus, I am not impeding upon your right to use the park as a protest area since I am already protesting what you would have wanted to protest anyhow.
Interesting chain of logic. Stilted. Odd. But interesting.
Free speech is seriously abridged and vital knowledge for survival cannot be shared or understood. We need to revise the first amendment so people can have ALL the truth, even that which has been made difficult to know and share.------
The 1st amendment is not our first constitutional right, Article 5 is. The right to have an amendatory convention when 2/3 of the states apply for a convention. Congress has been violating the constitution for 60 years at least.------
http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
Article V conference, Mark Meckler Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-video comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7ikbvu0Y8
Lessig power point on article V http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk
A effort each evening to create a web conference to discuss Article 5 is beginning.--
http://www.articlevmeeting.info/
Comprehensive strategy.---
http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html
how do we do that though? How can we ask it of our government if we can't even do it here on a forum among ourselves who have voiced committment to it? (reference dissenting posts being taken down).
That is a very astute question, very functional. We need to distinguish ourselves as Americans that understand the vital importance of Article 5. Notice my username has ART5 at the end. I wanted it to stick out so used caps, but lower case art5 is better in a legal sense.-------
What we do is distinguish ourselves in 2 ways, one our username, two, the fact that we post referring to laws with a full understanding and acceptance and agreement of the fact that when we use the law of the land to defend itself assuring constitutional government, we are COMPLETELY lawful. Far moreso than any other group. We need to realize how much that protects protestors and our effort to defend the constitution.-----
Those that will not join . . . have some kind of problem and are shown to be inconsistent with any pretense that they actually are working to see change or the demands met. Can we find a reason to keep those posts after knowing this?
You can assemble all you want, and you have, but you've also gone beyond that. You've taken up private property to live on. The right to assemble doesn't mean you can take over property. if you change and do what unions do when they picket out in public, just assemble. It's a constant presence, is in line with the first amendment, and doesn't usurp the rights or property of others. On a separate note, isn't it ironic that the same amendment that lets us assemble against the system also gives the right to lobby the government, when lobbyists have helped create the corruption you're protesting in the first place?
The developer was required to provide public space in order to get a waiver from the zoning board. That was the choice the developer of the building made. Now they should simply live with it by upholding their end of the bargain. This is America.
So far they have lived up to it, but OWS has turned the public space into their own private residence. It's no longer an assembly it's an encampment. It's doing good work, drawing attention to some of societies ills, but that doesn't change the fact that they have moved out from under the protection of the first amendment by living on property that doesn't belong to them and that this residence prevents the general public from freely using the park.
They are occupying.
The Supreme Court came down on overnight protests but so many, including Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshal, disagreed vehemently. I think it is good to challenge that ruling every day, every way.
It's civil disobedience. Have you ever read Thoreau? Cornerstone of American protesting.
So, I guess I can't imagine not taking that all into consideration when forming any concept of what is happening in the park.
I don't see them as taking public space for private use, they are using it for one public use, which is making it impossible to use it for other public uses, temporarily. There is a hierarchy of public use, this particular public use trumps other public uses for now because the current use is in the national public interest, probably more than any activities that have ever gone on in that park before.
Of course it's good to challenge a ruling you disagree with, but it doesn't change the point, currently the occupation isn't protected by the first amendment. OWS's occupation of the park wasn't started to challenge that. It's a side issue, the original post claims a right that currently doesn't exist as an absolute in this situation.
It's difficult to discuss this movement because of it's lack of a single direction. Large numbers of it's members seem to call for more government regulation of corporate America while others wish to wipe out the existing government and establish a new order.
I just don't see a big concern here.
Some are very upset that participants have not defined their movement more strictly, as you are, and I simply don't see any deficiency in this.
The movement is rolling big and really well. the activists are active. people are speaking out. They have a First Amendment right and Human Right to protest. Over 200 million Americans share a common plight. You can't expect them to agree ahead of time, just out of the gate, on solutions. This isn't some single simple piece of legislation or a referendum item.
Congress and White House are giant ships that can't turn easily on a dime. The only thing that turns the ship faster is not letting any part of it think you have its back. No part of them can make a deal with this movement. It just keeps coming. This is a very good process and I think it is moving along brilliantly.
As one person said, this movement isn't crazy. It's crazy like a fox.
No, no real deficiency, it lets them draw in more people because it can be said to have something for everyone at present. I am certainly guilty of seeing what I think is a golden moment wasted. With people all across the country OWS related groups could field candidates in many districts this election cycle, winning some races, perhaps scaring quite a few career politicians to make some positive changes. The tea party seems to have done that in 2010, so getting your foot in the door is possible.
Politically, I see local election candidates who identify themselves with OWS getting their feet wet. it is hard to imagine national candidates at all right now without fundamentally altering this movement. How would it work? It seems the whole thing would be put to bed by it.
I confess, I don't know a thing about putting together a national political campaign so I'd be the last to know.
The office of congressman may be considered national, but it's certainly run on a local level. There are election laws that govern how to enter a race, it wold involve getting petitions together. There are lawyers now that are helping OWS they would certainly know or be able to find out fast enough.
"The right to assemble doesn't mean you can take over property."
"On a separate note, isn't it ironic that the same amendment that lets us assemble against the system also gives the right to lobby the government, when lobbyists have helped create the corruption you're protesting in the first place?"
Between the death of McCain-Feingold, and the Citzens United Supreme Court ruling that corporations are essentially people, the influence over the policies of government by monied interests has completely skewed our democracy.
Protest is not always easy or pretty, but done peacefully, it's not only our right, but our duty as concerned patriots (and, no, the TP doesn't own that word). It took protests to end the Vietnam war, and it's taking public protests to change our system.
The narrative has already started to shift away from the contractionist policies of the "kill our economy to get rid of Obama" strategy of the hard right.
Kudos to #OWS for that...
That is probably my biggest source of irritation, it's not a free speech or right to assembly issue in a park OWS should be involved with in the first place. That just distracts form the real fight, it's regulating the criminal influence of lobbyists.
They can call it "private" property all they want. It is not strictly so. The developer was required to provide public space in order to get a waiver from the zoning board. That was the choice the developer of the building made. Now they should simply live with it by upholding their end of the bargain. This is America.
[Deleted]
I did answer the "pressure" issue. Scan my comments on this thread. I answered it because you asked me to.
As for legalese, well, I don't think I have ever heard anyone accuse one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices this country has ever seen of being someone who indulged legalese.
I have to say, that's all I need to hear to write you off. You're not worth talking to. You're a brother or sister who will always need to be carried on someone else's back.
Just to remind readers, this has been characterized as 'legalese:'
Justice Thurgood Marshall emphasized that the protesters' willingness to endure harsh conditions was central to their message, and that it was possible for the city to clean up its park without suppressing their efforts to advance their vision of a more humane America. "
Deny it all you wish, but Zuccotti Park is PRIVATE property.
The owners petitioned the government to have the protesters removed, and were pressured/threatened by elected officials pandering to OWS, to recinded their lawful petition for redress of a grievance.
So I guess your support for the 1st Amendment only applies when it is in support of your movement, huh?
It's not strictly "private" property, like your garden or balcony. The developer was required to provide public space in order to get a waiver from the zoning board. That was the choice the developer of the building made. Now they should simply live with it by upholding their end of the bargain. This is America.
Excerpt from Yale Law posting, link below:
"Worse yet, the Supreme Court upheld such a prohibition in 1984, finding that the government's interest in cleaning up the parks trumped protesters' rights to freedom of expression. The case involved an overnight demonstration against the treatment of the homeless population during the winter. It provoked an eloquent dissent by Justice Thurgood Marshall. He emphasized that the protesters' willingness to endure harsh conditions was central to their message, and that it was possible for the city to clean up its park without suppressing their efforts to advance their vision of a more humane America. "
Link: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/14101.htm
As a protester I recommend letting the courts revisit this obviously botched past decision.
"...upholding their end of the bargain..."
Ironic choice of wording, because that is exactly what the owners were trying to do when the petitioned to have the protesters removed. They wanted to clean the park and perform any necessary maintenance, which by agreement they are required to do.
Regarding your link. Some context to that decision is necessary. Could you save me some time and summarize the details of it? (i.e. was the park in question private property or publicly owned?)
Read the link, it's only one page long for pete's sake. Google the cases, Am I your secretary? You one percenters are really something. What else can I do, bring you a coffee or breakfast in bed?
How literal, honestly. If you enjoy your freedom you have over 2oo years of activists to thank for it. Give it up a little.
And the park is clean. I've been there.
Wow, simple courtesy causes you that much butthurt?
Defensive much?
It's a merely common courtesy to go read and summarize a one page essay that i linked to and already published a piece of? Honestly, do you enjoy anyone's company outside of that of your maid's?
What's else? Do I have to feed flies to a frog? Pick your nose for you? Oh wait, you use Q tips, that's right
Still with ad hominem attacks? It really does a disservice to any attempt at a discussion.
Oh and simple manners would tell you that when posting a link to supporting material, a contextual summary is customary.
No intention of descending into ad hominem attacks. But you really have to admit, your request was unreasonable and your input thus far has been to ridicule drummers and so on and not talk about the wider meaning and reasons for this protest.
You also fail to acknowledge that there is a working group that has attended to the hours during which drumming is allowed in deference to residents.
Also, for what it is worth, a resident asked occupiers if they could do something about the city approved nighttime jack hammers that are going on some nearby construction site.
As for my typing, well, I am laboring with a sticky keyboard. I went in and edited it. My what a difficulty.
My answer again, lest we forget, is No. I am not going to summarize for you a one page essay I already gave you the link to. I gave the link and even quoted a piece of it. I think that's lazy of you.
I didn't deny it. I said it's a park "in a public space." I know who it's private and who owns it, and they haven't kicked anyone out yet.
"The owners petitioned the government to have the protesters removed, and were pressured/threatened by elected officials pandering to OWS, to recinded their lawful petition for redress of a grievance."
Um, okay. So, Michael Bloomberg is pandering to OWS? That's got to be news to OWS. Do you have proof, or just another back of the napkin analysis?
Also, the Canadian company that owns the park (btw, why on earth are parks allowed to be owned in NYC?) decided not to clean up and remove the people from the park. So, you think 1st amendment-guaranteed pressure is a bad thing only when it comes from the OWS?
My support for the 1st amendment applies only to the OWS movement? Um, no. That's not implied or otherwise stated in my response. There is one group that shouldn't have the same rights as individuals, however, and they're known as corporations. But the Supreme Court, larded with a majority who don't care about a skewed democracy, seems to disagree with me--and many many others about this. In fact, the majority of Americans don't think that corporations should have undue influence on electoral politics. Actually, that's one of the only things that the right and OWS have in common...
You're simply ill informed. "private" in this case is not private like your back yard, front yard, garden, etc., the private grounds of a company or person. "Private" here is qualified.
The developer was required to provide PUBLIC space in order to get a waiver from the zoning board. That was the choice the developer of the building made. Now they should simply live with it by upholding their end of the bargain. There are other examples of quasi public spaces.
This is America. If they didn't like the deal, they should have built what is arguably the ugliest building on Zuccotti Park in Damascus, Libya, Beijing, one of those places.
I trust the company has profited nicely from the waiver the PEOPLE, through their representatives on the zoning board granted them. That's what they agreed to and that is absolutely what they are getting. End of story
Excerpt from Yale Law posting, link below:
Exerpt: "Worse yet, the Supreme Court upheld such a prohibition in 1984, finding that the government's interest in cleaning up the parks trumped protesters' rights to freedom of expression. The case involved an overnight demonstration against the treatment of the homeless population during the winter. It provoked an eloquent dissent by Justice Thurgood Marshall. He emphasized that the protesters' willingness to endure harsh conditions was central to their message, and that it was possible for the city to clean up its park without suppressing their efforts to advance their vision of a more humane America. "
Link: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/14101.htm
It also is well within the rights of the people to assemble in a fashion that is counter to a seriously botched Supreme Court ruling.
Please take some time to appreciate our freedoms and remember that it is through protest and assembly and freedoms used courageously that any of us enjoy the freedom to be greedy, to be selfish, to take easy pot shots and to ridicule in this country. Brave people suffer to guard those freedoms every day. What you are witnessing in Zuccotti Park, in my opinion, is an example of that. It is no picnic, so give them a break and reflect for a moment how freedom remains free. How we guard it. How you get it and how you keep it. Hint: It doesn't come from the cops or mike bloomberg. It comes from people throughout our history willing to put themselves on the line and make sacrifices for it.
THANK AN ACTIVIST TODAY
Well, you might be right about this: I may not be fully informed on the subject of legality of public vs. private parks, but at least I know how to write. You, however, don't seem to know how to communicate what you're trying to say. What do this mean?
"This is America the company has to uphold its end of the bargain. If they didn't like the deal, they should have built what is arguably the ugliest building on Zuccotti Park in Demascus, Libya, Beijing, one of those places."
What on earth do these sentences mean?
"I trust the company has profited nicely from the waiver the PEOPLE in through their representatives on the zoning board granted them. That's what they agreed to and that is absolutely what they are getting. End of story"
BTW, you didn't address my points about "pressure," but no need. This conversation isn't going anywhere.
Peace.
The formal request: http://info.publicintelligence.net/ZuccottiParkComplaint.pdf
The owners were pressured to recind (their specific wording was "received threatening phone calls") from various elected officials (note I did not say the mayor) who had previously publicly supported OWS.
So do you support elected officials pressuring/threatening the owners into not exercising their 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress of a grievance?
Pressure, OK. That's really Mike Bloomberg's issue, isn't it. You want OWS protesters to tell Mike Bloomberg that no, that's not the way. Tell the building owners instead that they have no right to evict them?
OK, I will: Mr. Bloomberg: twisting arms at the company isn't the way. Instead, say that Thurgood Marshall was right. We can't evict occupiers.
Happy now? How is it my fault that Mike Bloomberg is a politico?
You claim is specious, because if you have no proof of pressure, you basic assumption has no merit. What pressure? From whom? That's what's known as "hearsay."
I think if the people who own the park want to clean it or turn into an amusement park or parking lot--that's their right, within the limits of the law, of course. OWS has developed a good neighbor policy, and they're doing their best to meet the letter of that agreement.
Peace.
My claim is not specious, it is a fact (albeit and inconvenient one for you):
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/mike_pols_lowered_the_broom_AqacgvxD6OUWtGrgu0SiXN
"An angry Mayor Bloomberg blasted local politicians yesterday for strong-arming the owners of Zuccotti Park into reversing a decision to clear out encamped Wall Street protesters..."
Noone is stopping your right to protest, but, NYC can shut down an unhealthy and unsafe encampment. You were stamping on the rights of a neighborhood.