Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giuliani: I'd Have Stopped Occupy Wall Street Protesters on Day One
Newsmax via Atlas Shrugs ^ | Nov 17, 2011 | Amy Woods

Posted on 11/17/2011 11:33:49 PM PST by expat1000

The First Amendment does not give Occupy Wall Street protesters the right to take over private property and engage in illegal activities, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says.

“You have no right to pitch a tent in the middle of New York City, I’m sorry,” Giuliani said on Sean Hannity’s radio show this afternoon. “That is not the First Amendment.”

President Barack Obama’s empathy for the 2-month-old movement and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s lack of action to stop it are an embarrassment to the nation and the city, Giuliani said.

Giuliani’s comments came on a day when police and the protesters had squared off as they marched through the city in an effort to fulfill their promise to shut down the New York Stock Exchange.

“The minute you have any place where you have to put up a place [to] protect a woman against rape, then you’ve got to come in and get rid of those people,” Giuliani told Hannity. “You can’t tolerate that in a civilized city.”

Giuliani said he delivered a speech at a high-level economic conference last week in China, where the first question posed to him involved the protests.

“This thing has gone around the globe, and it’s beginning to characterize us,” he said. “This is what they think we’re about.”

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: crime; newyork; newyorkcity; occupywallstreet; occutards; ows; rudy; rudygiuliani

1 posted on 11/17/2011 11:33:50 PM PST by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: expat1000

I said as much a month ago. Rudy Giuliani was an outstanding mayor of New York. We need someone with his ability in the cabinet of the next administration.


2 posted on 11/17/2011 11:40:25 PM PST by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
“You have no right to pitch a tent in the middle of New York City, I’m sorry,” Giuliani said on Sean Hannity’s radio show this afternoon. “That is not the First Amendment.”
Good for you Mr. Mayor! Goes right along with what Sen. Hubert Humphrey once said, "Your right to free speech does NOT mean I have an obligation to listen."
3 posted on 11/17/2011 11:41:52 PM PST by Impala64ssa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Giuliani was a singular hero in refusing to meet with terrorist leader Yasser Arafat when Arafat came to New York City. Giuliani said he refused to meet with Arafat. Other bigwigs, who had no principles, met with him.


4 posted on 11/17/2011 11:47:50 PM PST by Seeing More Clearly Now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Okay, I have my flame suit on, but riddle me this:

While I DO NOT agree with the OWS, or what it stands for, the question I have is do citizens have the right to take certain actions in the guise of their “petition to redress grievances”?

Is pitching a tent in the center of NYC a first amendment issue? Do a million Tea Partiers marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, each with a rifle slung over the shoulders, have the right to argue that they are practicing freedom of speech?

The question I have is at what point to citizens have the right to tell the government NO! We will no obey this, or that regulation, and will practice disobedience. At what point does the citizenry have the obligation to dismantle the existing structure?

It is becoming very clear that this nation has become either a kleptocracy, or simply fascist. OWS was an unfocused temper tantrum, the Tea Party hasn’t gone far enough. and quite frankly, it looks like elections in 2012 won’t matter a twit.


5 posted on 11/17/2011 11:51:54 PM PST by abigkahuna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna

The real question should be who would you feel safer around, stone cold sober Tea Partiers armed to the teeth with a clear, cogent idea of their grievances, OR a bunch of vile, disease ridden, drug addled clueless idiots reeking of the stench of marijuana smoke?


6 posted on 11/18/2011 12:13:06 AM PST by Impala64ssa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
Who is paying the fine for the hundreds that have been arrested?

Is there a fine?

Does it go on their record?

7 posted on 11/18/2011 12:16:48 AM PST by AGreatPer (Obama has NEVER given a speech where he did not lie!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Impala64ssa

Quit throwing me softballs.


8 posted on 11/18/2011 12:18:07 AM PST by abigkahuna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna
Is pitching a tent in the center of NYC a first amendment issue? Do a million Tea Partiers marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, each with a rifle slung over the shoulders, have the right to argue that they are practicing freedom of speech?

No and yes. No to the first, because the First Amendment confers the right to speak, not to be given a venue in which to speak. Yes to the second because, under the First Amendment they can argue that they are practicing freedom of speech, and that's the extent of it. The First Amendment does not give them the right to march down Pennsylvania Avenue, each with a rifle over his shoulder. Whether they may legally do so depends upon the laws in effect at the time, but it's not a First Amendment issue.

And remember, civil disobedience does not imply that one performing it must be given a pass on whatever lawbreaking he may do in the process of being civilly disobedient. True civil disobedience involves taking full responsibility for whatever breaches of law that one commits.

9 posted on 11/18/2011 12:18:55 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Totally understand what you are saying. So, the answer is, when the citizenry are willing to go “all the way” then the formation of a new order will happen.


10 posted on 11/18/2011 12:22:23 AM PST by abigkahuna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
The contrast to the law and order Mayor Rudy and the inefectual Liberal Mayor Doomberg is very striking. If anyone had any doubts to Doombergs true nature, look no further than this episode. He is the David Dinkins of our generation.


11 posted on 11/18/2011 12:31:59 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna
So, the answer is, when the citizenry are willing to go “all the way” then the formation of a new order will happen.

Yes, but I don't think the consequences will be pretty, if things ever get to that juncture. The new order will probably be totalitarian, if history is any guide.

12 posted on 11/18/2011 12:42:11 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna

What a bullshit analogy. You are not going to see a million rifle toting Tea Partiers marching. Don’t try to stuff your moral equivalency crap down our throats.


13 posted on 11/18/2011 12:55:24 AM PST by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Impala64ssa

“The real question should be who would you feel safer around, stone cold sober Tea Partiers armed to the teeth with a clear, cogent idea of their grievances, OR a bunch of vile, disease ridden, drug addled clueless idiots reeking of the stench of marijuana smoke?”

I’m not quite sure the First Amendment specifies that only those with certain hygiene habits are entitled exercise their free speech.


14 posted on 11/18/2011 12:59:58 AM PST by trumandogz (In Rick Perry's Nanny State, the state will drive your kids to the dentist at tax payer expense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna

Spot on.

However, there are those on every side of the political spectrum who do not necessarily believe that those with opposing views should be protected by the First Amendment.


15 posted on 11/18/2011 1:02:18 AM PST by trumandogz (In Rick Perry's Nanny State, the state will drive your kids to the dentist at tax payer expense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna

If you have to ask if pitching a tent in NYC is a First Ammendment issue, it’s no wonder you have to ask if pitching a tent in NYC is a First Ammendment issue.


16 posted on 11/18/2011 1:07:10 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor; abigkahuna

“What a bullshit analogy. You are not going to see a million rifle toting Tea Partiers marching. Don’t try to stuff your moral equivalency crap down our throats.

It wasn’t an analogy. Anyway, you’re entitled to your opinion even if you seem to feel abigkahuna isn’t. But “stuff down our throat”? What’s with that? And what is with the “our”? You don’t speak for us.

Good question, IMO, Abigkahuna.


17 posted on 11/18/2011 1:09:56 AM PST by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Unfortunately I agree.


18 posted on 11/18/2011 1:10:21 AM PST by abigkahuna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor

richardtavor

I think you are mis-interpreting my question. I am not equating the OWS with the Tea party. Although I might like to see the reaction if a million rifle toting tea party members march down the street.

My question is overall, at what point do citizens give up their petition to the government for redress of grievances, When the government tells them to go home? Then if that is the case, then the citizens do not have the right to petition for redress. See my point here? It has nothing to do with moral equivalency of tea party and ows. Take your head out of your suitcase and quit thinking red/blue. Both political parties are the problem and neither one of them is the solution.

Do you think if you pull the handle for red party, or blue party, then magically things will be better? Is Gingrich, Cain, Bachman, Perry, Paul, or any of them really going to get rid of government agencies? No.

I’ll bet you a tasty soda drink that come 2014, it will be the same-o, same-o, just a different group of people holding the cocktail parties in Washington.

With that in mind, look at my question again, at what point does the citizenry obey/disobey the government when it tells you to disperse and that your petition will not ever be heard.


19 posted on 11/18/2011 1:20:35 AM PST by abigkahuna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Rudy Giuliani: A reason to be against term limits!


20 posted on 11/18/2011 1:53:01 AM PST by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Giuliani is right; this should have been stopped as soon as it started. The First Amendment does not give you the right to squat on private or public property, harrass people who are not with you, attempt to shut down businesses or destroy public or private property. It gives you the right to speak.

If they wanted, they could have come back every day to chant their silly slogans (but that would have been too much effort and they would never have done it). But they should have been forced to follow NYC law to begin with. If this had been done, the thing would never have turned into the destructive circus (and enormous loss of money to NYC) that it did.


21 posted on 11/18/2011 3:22:51 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Bloomie should be drug through the 5 Burroughs behind a yellow cab


22 posted on 11/18/2011 3:37:15 AM PST by Joe Boucher (FUBO ( Real conservative or go fish) Sooo, that leaves you out Mitt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
I don't know about other cities, but at its height OWS in NYC was never more than a thousand people.

The media interviewed these clowns every day and every interviewee stuck to the script: "We represent 99% of the country" and "This movement is growing and growing dramatically."

Several hundred self-absorbed morons were allowed to wreak havoc and disrupt a city of more than 8 million people for two months while the mealymouthed mayor just watched.

A serious failure of leadership.

23 posted on 11/18/2011 3:47:31 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Gingrich/Guiliani 2012


24 posted on 11/18/2011 3:48:30 AM PST by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor

+1


25 posted on 11/18/2011 3:49:42 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knarf

I can imagine the scene now....Jefferson talking with Ben Franklin. Some dude walks in and talks to the two guys over the right to be added to the list....the right to camping. Jefferson is standing and just wondering what camping has to do with the Constitution. Franklin? He’s probably never camped in his life and wondering why a guy would make such a big deal about camping.

What we need is a broad based support agenda....the right to camp....to be added to the Constitution. A guy should be able to camp anywhere, anytime, with any possible set-up. It’s an American dream....camping.


26 posted on 11/18/2011 3:50:51 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
I took a trip to New York with the wife just after Guiliani was mayor. It was still the same place that he had made it once he cleaned it up. People were so darn nice, I couldn't believe it was the same place. We rode a bus uptown and it was a very mixed crowd. All of the guys got up and offered their seats to women as they entered, for which they graciously thanked us. The bus driver was smiling and waved "Bye"...my wife and I were constantly looking at each other and saying "Wow"...

I heard from some friends who go there regularly that this was pretty consistent at that point in time, but now it's kind of reverted back to where it was before. I don't know personally, but I'd hate to think it changed from the place we experienced that trip.

27 posted on 11/18/2011 4:01:47 AM PST by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna

The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Edited by Edward Corwin

>

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS IN PUBLIC PARKS AND STREETS

Notable also is the protection which the Court has erected in recent years for those who desire to use the streets and the public parks as theatres of discussion, agitation, and propaganda dissemination. In 1897 the Court unanimously sustained an ordinance of the city of Boston which provided that “no person shall, in or upon any of the public grounds, make any public address,” etc., “except in accordance with a permit of the Mayor,”[144] quoting with approval the following language from the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the same case. “For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in the house. When no [Pg 785]proprietary right interferes the legislature may end the right of the public to enter upon the public place by putting an end to the dedication to public uses. So it may take the less step of limiting the public use to certain purposes.”[145] Forty-two years later this case was distinguished in Hague v. C.I.O.[146] (See p. 808.) And in 1948 in Saia v. New York[147] an ordinance forbidding the use of sound amplification devices by which sound is cast directly upon the streets and public places, except with permission of the chief of police, for the exercise of whose discretion no standards were prescribed, was held unconstitutional as applied to one seeking leave to amplify religious lectures in a public park. The decision was a five-to-four holding; and eight months later a majority, comprising the former dissenters and the Chief Justice, held it to be a permissible exercise of legislative discretion to bar sound trucks, with broadcasts of public interest, amplified to a loud and raucous volume, from the public ways of a municipality.[148] Conversely, it was within the power of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, following a hearing and investigation, to issue an order permitting the Capital Transit Company, despite the protest of some of its patrons, to receive and amplify on its street cars and buses radio programs consisting generally of 90% music, 5% announcements, and 5% commercial advertising. Neither operation of the radio service nor the action of the Commission permitting it was precluded by the First and Fifth Amendments.[149]

[Pg 786]

Under still unoverruled decisions an ordinance forbidding any distribution of circulars, handbills, advertising, or literature of any kind within the city limits without permission of the City Manager is an unlawful abridgment of freedom of the press.[150] So also are ordinances which forbid, without exception, any distributions of handbills upon the streets.[151] Even where such distribution involves a trespass upon private property in a company owned town,[152] or upon Government property in a defense housing development,[153] it cannot be stopped. The passing out of handbills containing commercial advertising may, however, be prohibited; this is true even where such handbills may contain some matter which, standing alone would be immune from the restriction.[154] A municipal ordinance forbidding any person to ring door bells, or otherwise summon to the door the occupants of any residence, for the purpose of distributing to them circulars or handbills was held to infringe freedom of speech and of the press as applied to a person distributing advertisements of a religious meeting.[155] But an ordinance forbidding door to door peddling or canvassing unless it is invited or requested by the occupant of a private residence is valid.[156]


28 posted on 11/18/2011 4:23:48 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna
At what point does the citizenry have the obligation to dismantle the existing structure?

We do have instructions for that ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

29 posted on 11/18/2011 4:30:48 AM PST by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
fwiw, did Guiliani give this opinion while the whole encampment thing was going on or when it first started?....or is he just now letting us know how he felt.

It might have made a difference if he had said his mind at the onset.....just saying

30 posted on 11/18/2011 5:08:46 AM PST by Guenevere (....We press on.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna
With that in mind, look at my question again, at what point does the citizenry obey/disobey the government when it tells you to disperse and that your petition will not ever be heard.

At the point when multiples of millions of armed American citizens believe that death is equal to or better than living with whatever the conditions are that cause that belief.

We ain't there...yet.

31 posted on 11/18/2011 5:16:27 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke The Terrorist Savages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: He wears pants.

Current New York City Mayor little mike: He gave his pants to his live-in girl friend and now wears a cute dress.


32 posted on 11/18/2011 6:01:57 AM PST by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abigkahuna
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.

(1) the right of the people peaceably to assemble There is no right to assemble in a non-peaceful way. Nor is there a right to create a public health hazard, riot, or make threats of violence. None of these fall under "peacably".

(2) The 1st amendment applies to the government Zucotti park is private property. There is no constitutional right to use someone else's property to exercise your free speech rights. Had OWS chosen a publicly owned park, they might be on firmer ground here.

(3) assemble Assemble does not imply a permanent condition. I'll admit the time frame is fuzzy here, but declaring you will be camping out indefinitly (possibly years) stretchs the meaning of assemble beyond the breaking point.

33 posted on 11/18/2011 7:01:31 AM PST by Brookhaven (The media is throwing smoke bombs at Cain and claiming the smoke is proof of fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
You're correct. The Founders included all your points implicitly when they wrote the First Amendment.

There should be some sort of time limit on those "assembling" and "petitioning" thingees. This is so that government can't be indefinitely distracted from the vital work of governing.

Also, there should some verbiage in there stating that the government and the media should have the final say on the definition of "peaceably", so's the People don't get any wrongheaded ideas about who's really in charge.

assemble Assemble does not imply a permanent condition. I'll admit the time frame is fuzzy here, but declaring you will be camping out indefinitely (possibly years) stretches the meaning of assemble beyond the breaking point.

Exactly. Why should a government have to tolerate endless antagonization from a malcontented group of its subjects?

34 posted on 11/18/2011 9:06:15 PM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: livius
Giuliani is right; this should have been stopped as soon as it started. The First Amendment does not give you the right to squat on private or public property, harrass people who are not with you, attempt to shut down businesses or destroy public or private property. It gives you the right to speak.

If they wanted, they could have come back every day to chant their silly slogans (but that would have been too much effort and they would never have done it). But they should have been forced to follow NYC law to begin with. If this had been done, the thing would never have turned into the destructive circus (and enormous loss of money to NYC) that it did.

So, as a government, what I do is allow you to speak, and/or to assemble.

I then proceed to make it illegal to speak anywhere, or assemble anywhere. But it's still all good!

Guess you don't remember the holding pens around the corner from some of Clinton's appearances, where the protesters were allowed to "demonstrate" all they wanted..

35 posted on 11/18/2011 9:17:00 PM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
Note: this topic is from 11-17-2011. And that's future VP nominee Rudy Giuliani to you. ;') Thanks expat1000.

36 posted on 11/25/2011 6:28:29 PM PST by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson