Forum Post: OWS "Right" to Protest...
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 8:38 a.m. EST by toonces
(-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I see a lot of people claiming that the OWS mob has a "right" to protest. I am curious where exactly their "right" to occupy public property indefinitely comes from.
It does not seem to be in the first amendment...
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.
It does give the right to peaceably assemble, but it does not give the right to step on the rights of the majority while they assemble.
Their "right" to swing their fist ends at my nose.
doesn't an express limit on the gov't to "abridge" the Right of the people to assemble expressly imply a right to assemble peacefully in public?
why enshrine this right at all if all it means is that citizens have the "right" to always follow every teeny-tiny municipal code as well as all orders from police?
What could this Right to assemble and "petition for a redress of grievances" possibly mean OTHER than exactly the Right to occupy public space with public signs that demand reforms in governance??
I mean all this sincerely because-- my feelings about OWS aside-- I'm very concerned about OUR (America's) understanding of this super-important, All-American 1st Amendment Right.
The current situation constitutes a moral crisis of national and global proportions. Occupations and disruptive demonstrations are all the 99% have to be heard. We're talking about a major global economic catastrophe of which 2008 was but the prelude. Worldwide and in our own city and country more are going hungry, more are without shelter. And this is only the beginning.
You've crossed over from assembling to squatting. There isn't any attempt to keep it an active assembly. Not that it matters, the courts have repeatedly said that there are times the rights of others can in fact limit your right to assemble, or speak. The amendment is what the court says it is.
happy to have it all argued in court.
aware of the the "time & place" limitations. but there is always the danger of such restrictions intruding on the protected Right. what good is it if you can't actually use it?? look at the Lame excuses being given to evict the protest. "cleaniness and safety". please.
"they" don't like this protest. for that reason alone we need a lot of deference for the 1st Amendment provisions and intent.
It's been argued and decided many times. If Occupy LA wins their action against the city it won't be on free speech or right to assemble grounds, I don't think either is even mentioned. They are more or less saying the city has been capricious in first supporting, now banning camping. As far as the safety/public health argument goes, it's as bogus as calling moving in to a tent in a park your right to assemble.
The power of the federal government does not trump the states' powers, actually the other way round in our system, given them in the Constitution that ALL powers not given to the Fed, go to the states.
so...? I mean... yes, I understand that. And by extension... neither the power of the fed nor the power of a state can be used to trump a Right guaranteed by the Constitution.
You're a fairly rational thinker from what I see of your posts, beamer. Under all historical interpretation of the courts both federal and state, peaceable assembly has meant without disturbing the peace. All Constitutional rights have been interpreted to mean it can't infringe on another's rights when you exercise your own. Blocking a road so that someone can't drive on it, blocking a park so a mom can't take her kids to it, blocking a port...these infringe on the liberty and rights of other people. And so are not protected. These are disturbing the peace, and thus...not peaceable assembly. Compare it to Westboro baptist church, which protests, gets plenty of press, and blocks nothing. They are in their rights. Occupy is not, the MINUTE it keeps someone out of a public space or off a road or they can't pass an occupy throng on a sidewalk.
thanks. I try. and I'm not a lawyer. but neither am I accepting the "without disturbing the peace" assertion. not accepting it as established fact, but also continuing to challenge it conceptually. what exactly is "the peace"?
if 1000 people want to use the road (a public space) to march or assemble, and 20 want to use it to drive to the mall... well? can't you easily argue that the 20 are "disturbing" the peaceful assembly?
yes i know roads are designated for traffic. which returns me to my original challenge and question. which is this:
why enshrine a Right (to assemble) that seems to mean "only" that people can always obey all municipal laws and always stay out of everyone else's way?
i also don't really buy these scenarios. have you been to a protest?? yes, it's super crowded... but you can still walk in, out, around, through it. it's called being in a crowd! we don't have a right, or even an expectation that the mall won't be crowded. or the road (i.e. traffic jams).
it seems the 1st Amendment has not status or meaning and I say it should have a wide and broad consideration and respect.
There is no such thing as a right that takes a right away from someone else. The right to live peacefully and free of harassment by other citizens falls into this category. Protesters can not take rights from others to justify there protest. Very simple.
So basically, because most likely no private property owned by OWS near wall street, they aren't allowed to protest since public land is off limits. I didn't realize people should have to own property to protest.
nobody is harassing you, and if they are they should be arrested (or you can go to the judge and get a restraining order). really it sounds like you are claiming a right not to be annoyed or inconvenienced. that's a right we certainly Don't have.
Actually it is. If I want to take my family to the park and protesters claim, this is our park, you are taking away myfamily rights to peaceful enjoyment. And there is a lot of economic terrorism of other citizens going on. And there is no right at all of assembly on private property either
by all means. go to the park. if your argument is... "hey I went to the park and it was really crowded with other people who also went to the park" well... i don't know what to tell you. but it doesn't sound like a legal argument or even an argument about the 1st Amendment.
i guess i'm asking... did you Really try to go to the park?
I might agree with you about "economic terrorism" but I think we might mean different things. I'm not sure I would use the word "terrorism" to describe what Wall St/ banks have done to pension funds and home loans, or what Wal-Mart has done to small business owners, but I wouldn't quibble ir someone else described it that way.
The park was an extreme example as I was trying to get you to understand that peaceful assembly does not include barring someone else. That has happened in zuccotti where people are harassed if they aren't supporters. Obviously the bridge and port blockades are definitely not rights.
There is quite a difference between a park that is accidentally full of people or a subway that is crowded and a park or a subway that is purposefully blocked.
What's Occupy going to do when the courts uphold all the arrests? I know, say the entire system is broken everywhere. Because Occupiers want things to be the way they want them. And that's why you are losing America, it seems all the real 99% understand that Occupy is infringing on the rights of the real majority as much as any corrupt government is.
NO SUBWAY WAS BLOCKED. Just more bullshit disinformation from the mainstream media. On November 17, OWS "occupied" a number of subway stations. You know what that entailed? They HANDED OUT FLYERS. No trains were impeded in any way, shape or form. No members of the public were prevented in any way, shape or form from getting on trains. It's just more made-up CRAP. Remember: The mainstream media's job is to keep you FEARFUL and DOCILE. They're obviously doing a good job...
Oh, please--nobody in Zuccotti Park was harassed if they weren't supporters...that's just made-up Fox News crap. I've spent a ton of time at Zuccotti Park, and it's always been pretty uplifting and interesting, and the vast majority of people have gone out of their way to be friendly and helpful. What are you talking about? Have there been criminal incidents? Of course--just like there are criminal instances anytime people live together for an extended period of time. It's called life. Unfortunately, I would bet a lot of money that life for you is a cloistered suburban existence, where everyone looks the same, everyone acts the same, you drive everywhere, you get all of your information from TV, and ANYTHING even slightly out of the ordinary is a threat. Pretty sad...
fair enough. and i don't mean to be snide, but i'm trying to dramatize "our" arguments too.
so "you" went to the park and people were "mean" to you?? : P
look, obviously no one can/ should be "barred" from the park. and OWS is stupid if they don't take every opportunity to welcome everyone who drops by. i posted several times about how "we" better reach out to the Tea Party instead of being rude/ insulting to them.
and i certainly agree that bridge and port blockades (or ANY blockades) are not 1st Amendment situations.
but I still don't agree that 1st Amendment assemblies are required to make sure they don't "annoy" or "inconvenience" anyone.
which is not to say that I oppose the radicalism of a port blockade. I might indeed support it as an act of Civil Disobedience. and then I would say that all those involved need to expect to be arrested. in fact they should INSIST on it-- and not allow the police the excuse to use pepper-spray on them, though I suppose tear-gas would be fair enough. don't really know.
So, your answer is "no", I cannot find in the Constitution where it says a mob can take over public property to intimidate the greater public at large.
i'm not sure how you figured that was my argument since i said nothing of the kind. my argument (above, and phrased in the form of a question) is simply that the Right to assemble must mean something.
obviously it doesn't mean the Right to intimidate other citizens. sorry if you are feeling so intimidated, and don't know why you would be.
Perhaps you are not intimidated by a mob where rapes have occurred, trash fires have been set, police are ignored and provoked, drug use rampant, children walking to school have been harassed and heckled, and people have been literally threatened with harm.
Don't pretend that OWS has a goal to intimidate and coerce those around them into submission. OWS is all about free speech as long as it is free speech that supports their viewpoint. Those who disagree have their homes with their families surrounded, their businesses ransacked and isolated, shoved from the mob camp and threatened with violence...
which OWS protest was this that you attended?
and where the hell were the police when all this crime was being committed?
You are either lying about or ignorant of what is happening, so here is some news reports of the intimidation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wJHeRUdzdQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjMrQmeWTEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpNRuTx19RE
These guys just need a sheet and pointed hat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjQuHeYlJg
Try occupying reality.
So I took the time to research each link you just posted and all I seen was reporters saying they were assulted. No evidence. Last time I checked, a person's word didn't count as evidence.
the ten Amendments are limitations on the Federal government. the protesters are protesting market mechanisms, which are not protected by any government. the federal government is beholden to the ten rights. We, as citizens, are not. that is the difference in a nut shell. Now, states have different constitutions and ordinances.
NO COMMENTING on this topic is allowed from here on out! I will save this in the archive, but anyone commenting will mess it up, so to keep the problem away any comment will be removed and the banned.
Esspecially given its size, OWS has been remarkably nonviolent, considerably moreso, in my recollection, than was the civil rights movement at its peak.
Civil disobedience is NOT violent resistance. Civil disobedience IS NOT the seed of anarchy either, as some of you here are saying. Does that Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, John Lennon, Rosa Parks, Dalai Lama and many others were violent leaders because they practice civil disobedience?
Funny how there are some here trying to turn OWS into anarchist movement by comparing the the Tea Party. The Tea Party had guns with them. Does that sound like a peaceful movement? I bet you if you guys come out of the basemen with your guns to protest right now... (even going home to sleep at nights so you don't get dirty) would you be here saying your way is better than OWS. I don't think many of you would like being beaten, sprayed, jailed, etc... Let's not talk about how much racism was shown by the TP. Their signs, their people hating others. Disgusting!
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action . . . .”
Something to ponder; We need to make sure we can understand the complexity of each Bill that passes thru congress.
(IMO) Historically speaking, I believe that after each Protest, our government have (learning how to) subtly and deliberately been chipping away at our Constitutional Rights when making these settled changes, here and there, with new legislature and ordinances. Now we find ourselves being criminalized for what once were our Constitutional Rights. If this continues, there will come a time when each and everyone of us will find ourselves saying "What happened?" "Where are my rights?"
So, regardless if people agree with OWS protesting, or not, I would advise them to start paying more attention to what has been happening behind close governmental doors. These are their rights too!
I don't know about must of you, but for me, this is scary!
We need to make sure we can understand the complexity of each Bill that passes thru congress. (IMO) Historically speaking, I believe that after each Protest, our government have (learning how to) subtly and deliberately been chipping away at our Constitutional Rights when making these settled changes, here and there, with new legislature and ordinances.
Now we find ourselves being criminalized for what once were our Constitutional Rights. If this continues, there will come a time when each and everyone of us will find ourselves saying "What happened?" "Where are my rights?"
So, regardless if people agree with OWS protesting, or not, I would advise them to start paying more attention to what has been happening behind close governmental doors. These are their rights too!
I don't know about must of you, but for me, this is scary!
Oh how very true toonces...how very true!
Those who say its ok are those who do not have to live with it, see it daily,or have it disrupt their normal function of being a productive member of society.
Before they condone this mob mentality,this disregard for others rights and freedoms,alot of times criminal acts ( no longer a peaceful protest) they really shoud go experience it first hand for more than an hour, a day, instead of sitting behind a desk,in their homes watching it on tv,on a computer. If they had to LIVE with it they might not think its so pleasent.
I agree with what this missions statement started as atleast some aspects of it. I agree with right to free speech and assembly but not to act criminally or immorally to get your point across. Yes I do know it FIRST hand I go there,been there,talked to people( jeez you should hear what some of these people say and they are speaking for "us"),protected family walking through it. Protest no,disruption,mob mentality,discord,threats,harrasment,violence,yes.
It sucks becuase after OWS I almost feel less concerned with the idea of the right to assembly, and freedom of speech being taken away from us as long as it shuts these people up.
And that's scary...
The Tea Party had no issues with law or violence when they exercised their right to free speech, but, they chose to legally assemble.
As a democracy, it is not only our right, but obligation to protest that which we find going against the common good in our country. The main obstacle that I believe we are facing is the general population thinking erroneously that if we simply elect different people into government that the situation will change. What many are not understanding is that the ENTIRE government is not only corrupt, but is directly financed by big business. If we exercise our obligation to protest their corrupt practices in government and are thrown down and repressed by a myriad of "legislation" all that is happening is the corrupt who control the country are winning. Don't you see?
"What many are not understanding is that the ENTIRE government is not only corrupt, but is directly financed by big business. "
In a nutshell, that's why OW could not and will not be able to replicate The Tea Party. It just is not our government and won't be.
We are not a Democracy, we are Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives.
republic |riˈpəblik|
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected president rather than a monarch.
In other words, a republic is, by definition, a democracy.
Representative democracy is a form of democracy. Our constitution is the legal framework for that democracy. Claiming otherwise is fallacious.
You are wrong.
Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1] Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.[1] It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Democracy is the will of the majority of the people results in the policy. A constitutional republic elects people to represent the people of the republic, and the laws are to be followed by everyone (theoretically).
You are only differentiating between direct democracy and representative democracy. They are both democracies.
If their right to "swing their fist" ends at your nose, then why do the police swing their fist at a peaceful protester?
Hey now. To be fair, they use pepper spray and tear gas. It doesn't say anything in the constitution about that. Which is why I've taken to pepper spraying random people on the street when they get in my way.
They were not peaceful. They admitted that they directly confronted the police with the intention disrupting the peace. Admits to intentionally provoking the police...
http://pumabydesign001.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/occupy-wall-street-uc-davis-occupy-protester-admits-they-provoked-police-in-pepper-spray-incident/
Straw man. You know that peaceful protesters have gotten maced and attacked. In any event, I believe case law has decided that yelling at an officer is not a punishable offense.
Besides, the emotional need is sometimes too great to hold back -- it's an issue of karma.
They were warned. Not moving when asked to move is a punishable offense. They got what they deserved.
The Federal Constitution gives them the right to assemble. A police officer ordering for them to move is a municipal directive, very possibly unconstitutional. The further action of assaulting them? American?
Bottom line: This is not how America should govern itself. It's an indication of a serious endemic disease for it to be happening at all. An inflammation on the body means that something is wrong. You shouldn't just cut it the "offending" part to "make the problem go away."
Notice that the tea party never occupied parks, never blocked traffic intentionally, and never blockaded ports with human bodies; yet they were very effective. These kinds of actions are merely the actions of anarchists who don't like representative government or the rule of law in the first place. They are "against rulers" (an -archist) for the reason that they are against anyone imposing rules on them. Therefore, they are starting to behave much differently than the Tea Party Crowd.
I side completely with the concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement in terms of bringing justice against Wall Street, firing the politicians and appointed leaders who committed your tax dollars to bailing out the mega-rich AND succeeded in making those they bailed out even bigger than they were when they were "too big to fail."
I've also never spoken out in favor of the Tea Party, but I cannot side with anarchy at all. It has always been the most tyrannical form of government, run by people who never care what rights of others they trample over to get what they want or what they think is important. What you're seeing with people on this site who couldn't care less that they step all over the rights of others in order to express themselves just demonstrates how tyrannical anarchy is.
The fact is, many here believe they have a right to step on the rights of others in order to accomplish what they believe is important. Many here are not anarchists, but some lean strongly that way. Some here are even advocating war and violence. They're a minority, and I hope a very small one.
Many advocate civil disobedience, the seed of anarchy. Sadly, they don't seem to be a minority, but where does your civil disobedience end? Why do you consider civil disobedience necessary when the tea party accomplished a great deal in terms of its goals without any civil disobedience? Is it because it provides an excuse for you to get out some adrenaline.
I think it's just an excuse for thumbing your nose at government as the first step toward anarchy. The tea partiers hate government regulations, too, but they didn't blockade things all over the country as a way of making their point. They just protested a lot.
Occupy Wall Street needs to become more creative and not just copy the ways of the sixties. Tactics are the main reason the Tea Party crowd cannot join your protests, even though they hate what you claim hate on the face of things. They're not willing to break park rules and camp where no camping has ever been allowed without a permit or to stay in parks beyond their normal closing hours. They know they DON'T HAVE TO in order to protest successfully and gain public opinion. As a result, they now control Republicans with an arm-lock grip.
People who block roads and ports are just scraping the bottom of the barrel to find an excuse to break laws and try to break the back of a nation.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
While I agree with you about the anarchists within OWS, and that far too many are "anti-leaders/representative government", I think it is comparing donkeys to elephants, when you start comparing OWS to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is light years ahead of OWS, in the political policy change game. Fox News and Sean Hannity led the Tea Party into the political world by the hand, and it was only a matter of weeks before Congressional candidates emerged with solid platforms.
OWS on the other hand has outright rejected leaders, spokespeople, or representation of any kind. I know because I AM a leader, and I've been mic checked into silence, my posts on forum have been largely ignored, and in some cases deleted outright.
I've heard phrases like, "No leaders allowed." and "This isn't about YOU."
All this because I 'tried' to make a meaninful Motion that was intended to shield protesters with the Constitution, give them a daily march message, and cause an action to arise that immediately affects the world in a positive way.
It got less than 12 responses, HERE...???
Personally, I am growing more disgusted with this movement, its disorganization, its refusal to adopt good policies, messages, procedures, or spoekspeople.
The Tea Party did all of that within 2 weeks of their inception, and now they have Congressmen who are having a real impact on public policy.
If 'I' were authorities, I'd STOP tryung to evict anyone form anything, and simply allow the OWS to die from self-inflicted wounds and disorganization. OWS's only weapon is the violence used against them, and as soon as they begin fighting back with violence, they'll lose that too...
That said, I can only HOPE that OWS 'changes' and soon, begins adopting slogans, policies, and 'representatives' to speak for them.
At two months into the game, the tea party had NOWHERE NEAR the influence and worldwide interest around it that the Occupy Wall Street movement has. Compare apples to apples, and OWS is way ahead of the game.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog
I think you are wrong, except that I agree OWS's 'does' have worldwide interest.
Interest in, is different than actually influencing policy change.
The Tea Party may not have global appeal, but they GOT Representatives elected to Congress, and now they are having a direct influence on the laws begin written.
OWS isn't even IN the game, they are in the locker room trying to decide who gets to start, what uniforms they are going to wear, and what the game plan will be... They've been in there for 2 months, and sans a coach, team captain, or direction of any kind, they are gonna be in there for a while longer...
GREAT blog, by the way. LOTS of good stuff herein: http://thegreatrecession.info/blog
Thank you for the comment about the Blog. Time will tell who things grow with the OWS movement. I hope they can keep building and that it will be in peaceful and civil ways.
--Knave Dave
What Occupy did that happen in?
I think the 'leaders' are moving to organize something political. I am going to be participating in this: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
It was Occupy Dallas, both at the camp and their public forum (which has now been eliminated)...
Here's the Motion I've been pushing: "I move that all OWS Protests be composed of 3 elements- Protesters, Constitutional Shields (A cardboard or paper shield embossed with the U.S. Constitution on one side, and a blank space on the other for the day's march message.), and an Action (Trash Pick-up, Street Sweeping, or Volunteer Brigade). Such that each march accomplishes 3 things- makes the world a cleaner place, carries a unified message, and protects protesters with the Constitution." (http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-motion-i-seek-a-2nd/)
Ask me how many GA's have adopted it...
With the way that GAs work, everyone has to come to consensus on the entire motion or none of it. I like the Constitutional Shields idea. Maybe try proposing just that idea first.
That 'was' the original Motion...
IDK what you can do at this point. I do really like the constitutional shield.
Maybe try making one and setting an example? If it looks good then more people might be interested in building their own.
I am in the middle of constructing a dozen of them, and then mailing one to 12 different camps...
They'll be made of "foamboard", one side will be antique parchment, in color and embossed with the Constitution. The other side will be white, and have a clear plastic pocket thereon, so that you can just slip in a piece of paper embossed with the day's march message.
I made a few cardbord ones, but they don't hold up so well, and start to wilt after a march or two. The foamboard is expensive, or I'd have made more. :(
I just want to say thanks for doing what you have done so far. I appreciate the effort that you're putting into the movement. We need more people like you running these GAs, not being mic-checked away from them.
Personally, I am doing some graphic design when I get free time. I don't have a lot of time on my hands, so its taking a while. I hope to have some yard sign designs done soon, and then I will submit to my local outreach group for feedback. I'm also looking forward to helping out with the 99percentdeclaration movement in my district.
I think next year we will end up in the courts fighting the "curfew" laws and other nonsense related to the police crackdowns while the 99percentdeclaration puts some political legs on this movement.
You appreciation is appreciated. :)
Moreover, I'd like to wish you well in your personal endeavors.
Be well.
Good post KD...
Thank you.
--Knave Dave
I ask you: Peaceful protest or covert terrorism?
Agreed. Supreme courts have upheld 'peaceably assemble' to mean without disrupting the peace or tramping on the rights of others. When protesters do it like Westboro Baptist Church (not blocking anything, not infringing on anyone's rights) they are fully within their Constitutional right. Occupy is blockading/invading spaces and keeping others from using them. This isn't an exercise of their rights, its a block on others rights. There is the difference, and toonces is fully correct. You can't take away others rights in the exercise of yours. Even if you think your right is more important than someone else's right, its not..everyone is FIRST entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And Occupy steps on the liberty of others to use the public spaces Occupy invades and blockades.
And while Occupy might WANT that not to be true, under existing laws and under all case law and all interpretation of the law by the superior courts in the last 260 years, it has remained true.
Mr. toonces, are you happy with this country's economy? The direction we are going? Do you feel in your heart that the children of this country will have anything to look foward to in the years to come? What is your idea to correct the economy and corruption in Washington? And voting out the current politicians is not the answer, because that will not change anything until we change the laws that allow, politicians to invest in the stock market (if u are a "public servant" then that is a conflict of interest) take money from corporations as "campaign contributions" and any politician that takes campaign donations from a big corporation will usually vote in favor of the corporation, instead of his or her constituents. so, please tell me what your solution is? and I am so sorry that a fist was waved at your nose, but get mad at the corrupt politicians and public officials who have been rubbing our noses in sh..t for years and we can no longer stand the stench!
In invading and blockading a port/subway/bridge/road Occupy is harming the little guy. Just because big business harms the people, does that make it right for Occupy to do it?
little guy is already harmed when he or she receives their paycheck, what is your answer ramous? and don't give me that republican, democrat B.S that divides and conquers our country. Do you know when you watch CSPAN and some dem or repub are yelling at each other on the floor of congress, that they sit and drink and eat together on the taxpayers dime while drinking single malt scotch, its all a charade ramous, don't fall for they are" hippies with no direction" crap, and by the way I am a registered republican and retired from law enforcement, but I am not falling for the same old BS anymore and I have never been down there, but I support the movement even if it means that I may have to sit in traffic or cant take a train to work!
Stop and use a brain cell. Your argument is its OK for Occupy to harm the little guy even more because he's already hurting from his paycheck?
Dude. Are you serious??
You're not in law enforcement, or you'd know case law and the courts. From your ill-educated type of argument, which shows a lack of life experience, Id say you were 22 years old.
give me your email address and I will show you pics of me in law enforcement, along with the pics of my friends killed on 9/11, genius, so dont question my credentials and I am a lot more informed than you cause I lived it!
no prob buddy, you are right.
Vote in the politicians that promise to restore the country to Constitutional law prior to the Progressive movement.
toonces, I am not trying to argue with u cause I respect your passion, but have you ever seen a politician keep a promise? I am voting for Ron Lawl cause he is the exception and the type of politician you are talking about voting in. Unfortunately, they are all crooks, and not like Ron Lawl.
I like Bachman and Santorum, but would be okay with Newt. I will vote against Obama regardless of the candidate.
I am not familiar with Ron Lawl.
something is wrong on this site, every time I try to type Ron P A U L the name P A U L becomes Lawl
very funny, I screwed up I meant Ron Lawl, I cant believe I typed it wrong twice, good luck friend!
For those that don't support the protestors right to occupy a park might want to change their mind because someday when a movement develops that you have a strong desire to support, you might not have that opportunity since you don't respect this one.
I support their right to assemble, but not to move in and take over the land, which is what they've done. Living in a park has more the feel of a temper tantrum then a legitimate political action. There is a point to demonstrating against an injustice, state the injustice and set some goals to fix it. Time to actually do something more then play hobo in the park.
One of the best points I have read on this site, good job barb!
I supported the Tea Party movement. They did not occupy a park, rape children, burn trash and cars in the streets, intimidate local people and businesses, create a cesspool for others to clean up.
To me the movement looks largely comprised of misfits and malcontents that got tired of hanging out doing bong hits in their parents attic.
So is you point regarding the right to peacefully assemble or to occupy a park??
Please expound on your definition of peaceably assemble then I will determine whether I think you have a right to the park thing or not.
If not for a public park, where do think they should occupy without bothering you too much?
Perhaps we just have a difference of terminology to deal with. I am talking about the right to peacefully assemble, you are talking about the right to occupy which is a totally different thing.
Our reading and interpretation of our Constitution seems to have two different extensions those being assemble vs. occupy.
Come out West, there are several million acres available to assemble in - but don't try to occupy the national parks, the forests, etc. That land is not set aside for anyone to occupy.
To "be in" sure, to "occupy" no.
Solutions: rent a meeting hall, rent a vacant building, meet in a rich man's back yard, meet in a church fellowship hall, ask the city for the use of a civic center space for the day, buy your own land somewhere, assemble in a parking lot by a closed mall, how about a college auditorium, etc etc.
My point still is you have every right to assemble BUT not to occupy. I know that the options listed above does not give you the free publicity that you seek, the access to police arrests and the bloody heads, a public place to eat and sleep, but these are NOT rights provided under the Constitution.
We are in fact allowed to peacefully assemble as a majority or a minority, don't try to rewrite the constitution just because you feel mildly inconvenienced by people disagreeing with you.
For 300 years, the constitution has been interpreted to mean you can protest without disturbing the peace or blocking roads, and that you can't do those things. Who's rewriting the interpretation again? MAYBE Occupy actions in the courts when they go up in front of the judges, will succeed in getting it changed, but for right now, NO you can't disrupt the peace, or its not 'peaceable' assembly.
Disrupt the peace =/= peaceable assembly.
[Removed]
I would suggest you read the constitution. I have no need to rewrite the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution allow you to assemble on public property to the detriment of others.
so when they wrote "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." they meant, as long as we don't have to see you
Irrational.
There is a difference between peacefully assembling and occupying public resources to disrupt lawful activities.
Arbitrary distinction, if congress can pass no law to abridge the right to assemble, than they are engaging in legal behavior.
They did not pass a law that says they cannot assemble, they have said that anyone cannot just move in and intimidate others off of public property.
which has not happened... sooo.... you have no valid point.
So, by your own admission, later in the conversation, intimidation did happen and is happening.
Does it matter?
This mob is going to turn to violence.
This mob clearly is not the passive, non violent assembly the movement would try to have us believe.
You are either lying about or ignorant of what is happening, so here is some news reports of the intimidation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wJHeRUdzdQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjMrQmeWTEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpNRuTx19RE
These guys just need a sheet and pointed hat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjQuHeYlJg
Try occupying reality.
odd how none of these reporters with microphones and camera crews could record any of the crazy shit they kept reporting about happening.
You did not watch...
The last one is clearly being intimidated.
I did watch, and I went back and re-watched the last one (noticing the Breitbart brand now too).
I saw a leashed dog barking at a black man. (freaking racist dog!) I saw his torn suit sleeve too. missing is the actual "attack" that inspires the video's title, as well as what transpired in the moments before the dog started to bark.
I suppose "Leashed dog barks at man" was just not as catchy.
I also noticed a curious edit with the interview-ee (the girl). her sentence contains the word "that" ("that decision")... seems like we are missing the actual question she is responding too. Just like her statement in the speech to "turn the cameras on City Hall" might have been simply a plea for the news media to do more investigating of government, and not JUST "investigating" (or maligning) those protesting against it.
but i don't know... i didnt' see the full speech.
I guess if the truth is not on your side, you would choose to lie even when video clearly shows intimidation.
i challenge you to point to any lie I posted!
I'm happy to concede (and never denied) that the reporter felt intimidated by the dog that was barking at him.
What I deny is that either the feelings of the reporter (or the dog) are accurate (or even relevant) representations of the depth, scope, character or even tenor of OWS.
I hope that's plain.
This guy just need a sheet and pointed hat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjQuHeYlJg
Why does he hide his face? Try occupying reality.
this one i didn't watch before replying. so after all the reporter did ask and the guy did uncover his face and stared directly into the camera.
it's a good question. one a "real" reporter doing an honest report might have asked.
you are repeating yourself. meanwhile all my challenges to you are going unanswered.
so you will excuse me if i no longer take you seriously, ok? go ahead and believe what you want. i really don't mind. you are entitled to be upset or whatever.
also ironic that you accuse "us" of ignoring "reality" by posting these completely edited, selective, "produced", so-called news reports that You accept as accurate representations of the scope, depth, character, and complexity of this national and world-wide event.
are you a serious person or not?
though it is crystal clear that these (corporate owned) media outlets really do not like these protests. wow. what a shocking news development that is!
I'm pretty certain that, within reason, we have the right to protest on government owned public property. I'm not sure how protesting comes into play on private property, but I'm pretty sure there are sever limitations on that sort of thing. A mall owner should not be forced to suffer protesting on their own property. I wouldn't allow it in my property either.
That being said. If you are going to cause major disruptions to the lives of people that want nothing to do with your protest, then I can see where the authorities would have cause to step in and force you to disperse. Also, should your protest be attracting the criminal element in concentrations not normally seen for the area, I think they would probably have good cause to disperse you as well. Just like any other right, you have to use it responsibly.
I agree with everyone else. Where would you like them to protest? On your front lawn?
No, on their front lawn.
Do like Westboro Baptist. The lawyers who belong to Westboro Baptist are experts on the Constitutional right to free speech and the right to protest.
They don't block anything or infringe on anyone else's rights. And they get PLENTY of press time.
Maybe its because they're commenting on such a serious/ controversial topic? I mean if I shouted to the world I hated gays I would get a lot of press too.
It's called "expressive protest". Look it up.
I just reread the first amendment, I saw nothing that said they were allowed to take over public property indefinitely. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the specific phrase that give the "right" to take over public property.
the fact that I'm a public citizen, gives me the right to occupy public space. no?
Not at the expense of someone elses rights who disagree with you. Economic terrorism against other citizens is not a right for sure. Blocking up bridges so citizens can't get around is not a right. Blocking a port is not a right. Blocking up roadways is not a right. Preventing another citizen from entering a public or private facility is not a right. Get it?
the ten Amendments are limitations on the Federal government. the protesters are protesting market mechanisms, which are not protected by any government. the federal government is beholden to the ten rights. We, as citizens, are not. that is the difference in a nut shell. Now, states have different constitutions and ordinances. the occupation of public space by me, would not be a problem if other people were not sensitive to my grievances. I did not force others to occupy the space with me. they have free will and live in a constitutional republic.
Basic constitutional law. On my phone so can't link it but you can not exercise a right that takes one away from someone else. I agree the constitution did not grant rights to people. But because it was directed at the fed government does not give citizens the right to stomp on the rights of others. Ows has been abusing this all across the country.
Look, you don't have a "right" to clear a park when others got there first.
The other day I gave the example of a park in my neighborhood.
It has an area with bbq grills and picnic tables. There aren't many and on the weekends, that area fills up fast.
Whoever got there first, uses the tables. Are they trampling on my "right" to use a picnic table? Of course not.
Sometimes people have birthday parties or baby showers there.
They bring an awful big crowd with them and I can't even get near the tables.
Are they trampling on my rights then? Still no.
Toughen up. People camping in a park as a means of protest aren't trampling rights. In fact, their protest might lead to a renewal of some of the finer points of "rights" that have been lost in this country.
I wasn't talking about being first. Im talking about harassing other citizens who do try to go to the park. I.e. being told to leave if they r not supporting the protest. Being told they can't stand in a certain place because some protester has claimed it. All the protesters have proven is that they want to make up their own rights and rules and b the only enforcement. Irrational passion foments irrational thought
dude, those amendments are not limitations on my behavior. they are limitations of the federal government's use of cohesion. you should probably take some civics classes and stop believing what only you interpret to be the case.
Im well versed in the law. Nobody has the right to usurps rights of others. Not just the federal government. Instead of a civics class try looking up case law.
All case law has interpreted BLOCKING public spaces to be an infringement on the rights of others, and not protected. Disrupting the peace =/= peaceable assembly. For 300 years.
I am agreeing with u. Dont u realize?
no, sorry, I didn't. Posts get confusing. My apologies and edited.
all case law is, is interpretation set as precedent. you take me to court for my actions, and i'll spin your understanding right into the poor house.
Ok kid. You just failed your argument. Maybe debate class would help u too.
could you explain where my understanding went faulty? i mean after seeing all those people get arrested, then get released right after, makes me believe that the law don't have a pot to piss in.
Just because they don't charge them doesn't mean they weren't breaking the law. They wanted people to move bit tie up the court system. They accomplished that. Nobody can infringe your rights. By your argument only the government us barred from infringing on your rights and that isn't true. What if citizens got together at a polling place and didn't let anyone vote who was under 21. Would that b ok if there was not a specific separate law about it? Of course not.
"What if citizens got together at a polling place and didn't let anyone vote who was under 21. Would that b ok if there was not a specific separate law about it? Of course not." that is different, then i would be no longer protesting but infringing on other's rights. I can't use cohesion, but I can show up.
lol, a cop can charge you with a host of offences, that is his duty when protecting other people. but the judge is the final arbiter of said offences. if he releases you with out consequences, then you did nothing wrong. aren't laws great?
Just because they choose not to charge you doesn't mean you didn't break the law. Font be naive. Changing the subject is another sign if a failed argument. Run along junior. Let the adults talk
you can't deter me. especially, with school yard arguments, such as run along junior. Have you ever thought that you may suffer from Group Think. and i did not change the argument you are just too ideologically impaired to see the logic of my argument. drinking the cool aid, works both ways, son. and yes, if they did not charge you, you did nothing wrong. the cop and his bosses are not constitutional authorities, the judges are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
[Removed]
[Removed]
Maybe the protestors should just wait until another 50% are unemployed which is where American citizens are heading with automation becoming the norm, will you change your mind then or will you even care where they protest as long as they protest?
You do not have a right to camp with out a permit on public property.
[Removed]
this isn't a right
How exactly is someone else assembling on public property "stepping on your rights"...?
I don't understand.
Who was hit by OWS protesters' fists???
They are not 'assembling'. They are blockading. Blocking parks/sidewalks/roads/bridges/subways/ports so that no one can get through or use them. This tramples on the rights of others to pass through or use them. So is not protected.
You think its big business calling the cops on Occupy? Hell no, its the mom who can't take her kids to the park demanding something be done.
Those who are "blockading" sidewalks, entry and exit points, roads, and bridges should be given citations or arrested.
Assembling in publicly owned grass isn't keeping you or anyone else from joining them.
Maybe its the OWS protesters who should be complaining about moms & kids occupying THEIR space???
Oh wait that would be stupid, because the space belongs to everyone!!!
By occupying a public park, you infringe on the rights of others to enjoy the park.
Rain infringes on the rights of other to enjoy the park...