Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Freedom to Assemble.

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 4:57 a.m. EST by lgarz (287) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am not a Law School Graduate. I went to UCLA (The University on the Corner of Lexington Ave.) and got my Masters from NYU. (New York Unemployment) But I can read. And the way I read it, is that the very 1st Amendment to our Constitution states that: No law shall be made that restricts the right of the people to assemble peacefully in public to petition their Government for a redress of grievances.

But, is there a Square, a Park, a Mall, a Plaza, a Street, an Avenue, a Corner, a Gore, a spot of public land anywhere that is unencumbered by some rule, regulation, statute, directive, or local ordinance that restricts public assemblies? If OWS cannot exercise their right to peacefully assemble in Zuccotti Park, which is on it's face a public space, than where can they exercise their 1st Amendment Rights? Really, where?

I would like to point out that the 1st Amendment has no caveats to it. There is no "Unless you get a permit" in it. It has no time limit on it. There is no clause that says unless it’s dirty! It says the Government cannot restrict the Right of the people to assemble in public, Period!

When local leaders cavalierly violate the people’s Constitutional rights and the Courts blithely refuse to defend them, what good are they? So, keep on punching folks! you never know when the Champ is gonna fall!

17 Comments

17 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

and, obviously, you can damn well write! good one!

[-] 3 points by OccupyLink (529) 12 years ago

re: "So, keep on punching folks! you never know when the Champ is gonna fall!".

Love it! I like that quote. We are punching, and the Champ will fall. I think the phrase "death by 1000 cuts" comes to mind also. :)

[-] 2 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

Absolutely right!! Can I post this elsewhere? Can I share it?

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 12 years ago

You most certainly can. We are all in this together.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

right on, thanks

[-] 1 points by Sinaminn (104) from Sarasota, FL 12 years ago

Until someone takes it all the way to the supreme court (which would be pointless with the current sitting justices) the local and appeals courts have generally sided with local governments regarding safety and the infringement of other citizens rights resulting from protests. I just read an article about it last week but I'll never find it again.

There was one case in California that showed promise but it was regarding the homeless and their tents and possessions as property which restricted law enforcement from siezure.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 12 years ago

That is my point! people have blithly given away our right to Freedom of Assembly, and I just wanted to point out what the document actually says. There is an apparent need to go over this again.

Anybody who thinks that any law can supercede the First amendment is just plain wrong, and they should be throw out of office! That's what I'm trying to say!

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 12 years ago

The fabulous Glenn Greenwald wrote about this yesterday:

(1) Despite all the rights of free speech and assembly flamboyantly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the reality is that punishing the exercise of those rights with police force and state violence has been the reflexive response in America for quite some time. As Franke-Ruta put it, “America has a very long history of protests that meet with excessive or violent response, most vividly recorded in the second half of the 20th century.” Digby yesterday recounted a similar though even worse incident aimed at environmental protesters.

The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist.

Every time the citizenry watches peaceful protesters getting pepper-sprayed — or hears that an Occupy protester suffered brain damage and almost died after being shot in the skull with a rubber bullet — many become increasingly fearful of participating in this citizen movement, and also become fearful in general of exercising their rights in a way that is bothersome or threatening to those in power.

That’s a natural response, and it’s exactly what the climate of fear imposed by all abusive police state actions is intended to achieve: to coerce citizens to “decide” on their own to be passive and compliant — to refrain from exercising their rights — out of fear of what will happen if they don’t.

The genius of this approach is how insidious its effects are: because the rights continue to be offered on paper, the citizenry continues to believe it is free.

They believe that they are free to do everything they choose to do, because they have been “persuaded” — through fear and intimidation — to passively accept the status quo.

As Rosa Luxemburg so perfectly put it: “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.”

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/20/the_roots_of_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying/singleton/

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Bravo! That's what I'm talking about!

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 12 years ago

Agreed - though I should add that this legal intimidation is not the only method. This was made especially apparent during the various Koran-burning protests. Anyone who could be tracked down to an employer, was fired. The pastor who wanted to hold the protest at his church, had his insurance cancelled --- then the bank, which was the true owner of the church, demanded full immediate payment of the mortgage because he'd failed to keep insurance on the property. So people have the right to protest in ways that outrage their wealthy overseers - provided they don't work or "own a home", provided they don't use private property or public property. And then they'll be mocked as a "bunch of bums"!

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

You are 100% right!

The Revolution has a theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8&feature=related

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

The Revolution starts here! No one can silence the Revolution!

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Thank you my brother! I remember when this came out. It is so much a part of me that I couldn't remember that it was a Gill Scott piece. I thought it was the "Last Poets". (Who have really become the first Poets!)

Thanks for reminding me. I will add this, remember "The Fire Next Time??? How close are we to that?

[-] 2 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

I want you to go to this post. I want you to speak truth to power!. Say it once, say it twice. Say it loud. Say it proud. I'm down with the KTC. The Revolution starts here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8&feature=related

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

The Revolution starts here! No one can silence the Revolution!

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

Then please join me, I need all the support I can get on my post! Say it loud, say it proud! I'm down with the KTC!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 0 points by tigger999 (20) 12 years ago

you can read but can you comprehend the first amendments say you can assemble not occupy maybe this will help you understand your first amendment rights

http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/street-speech-your-rights-washington-parade-picket-and-leaflet

[-] 1 points by tigger999 (20) 12 years ago

your rights to use public land can't interfer with my rights to use that same public land. thats the balancing act the courts have to work with

as for winning i already did the SCOTUS backs up what i am saying

oh and a jfyi ucla teaches the same law as any other law school so going there wouldn't change what i have learned :)

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I’m sorry, my Public School Education seems to have failed me, cause I can’t seem to find that part about but “Not Occupy” in my copy of the Constitution??? Where did you see that??? Am I missing a page or something??? Because, my copy has no Ifs, Ands, or Buts in it! And, that’s pretty clear to me. Perhaps I’m too stupid to read between the lines like you apparently can, or maybe that part is written in some kind of invisible ink that only Lawyers and Republicans can see? But, I can’t seem to find it anywhere???

And, not for nothing, how can any rule, regulation, statute, directive, or local ordinance possibly overrule the very first Right enshrined in our "Founding Fathers" Bill of Rights! Or are we living on some Orwellian "Animal Farm," where the Pigs get to change the rules to suit themselves?

No my friend, you don't get a win on this one! I don’t need anybody interpreting the Constitution for me. It is written in English, not Greek. I don’t need a translator. And, I don't need any more comprehension than I already have. The Law is clear, and if you can’t see that, I suggest you spend some time at UCLA like I did, before you have to go to NYU to learn the hard way.

Keep on Punching Folks! You never know when the Champ is gonna Fall!!!