The first ammendment reads in part "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
I don't see where establishing a homeless village in a private park to complaining about amorphous Wall Street villians has any coverage at all in the first ammendment. Surely the California & Seattle actions can't be considered as a peaceable assembly either.
As far as abridging their freedom of speech, when their speech and actions result in abridging others right to commerce, health and safety, its time to take action.
“I don’t see where establishing a homeless village in a private park to complaining about amorphous Wall Street villians has any coverage at all in the first ammendment.”
Well, there’s a whole lot of Supreme Court opinions on whether “No Law” means that anyone, in the name of free speech, can do anything, anywhere, anytime. The short answer is no, they can’t. The most famous is where Justice Holmes observed that there is no right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
In my view it is better to turn the question around. Instead of asking “does the First Amendment give people the right” to do whatever, ask “Can the Government restrict” whatever, within the bounds of the First Amendment. The answer in regard to camping out is “Yes.” In fact there is a Supreme Court case that says this, specifically about “camping out” in a public park.
468 U.S. 288
Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 82-1998 Argued: March 21, 1984 -— Decided: June 29, 1984
I note, by the way, that there is a huge overlap between the people who claim that the First Amendment authorizes them to disrupt traffic, commerce, and ordinary peoples’ lives by marching in the street and the ones who want the help of government to restrict the HIGHEST form of free speech, that is, actual spoken or written words.