Skip to comments.How is squatting a 1st amendment right? (vanity and serious question)
Posted on 11/16/2011 9:29:36 PM PST by Feline_AIDS
What is OWS's argument here? Why do they think they can live on public property for one night, much less indefinitely?
Is anyone denied a protest permit based on what he/she wants to protest? If not, what on earth is the argument for letting them stay at all?
I may be wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that Zucotti Park is actually private property.
Yes and it is owned by buddies of obama.
“what on earth is the argument for letting them stay at all? “
The OWS are ALL Democrats...and to the Left of the Democrats. The cities they are camping in are also all Democrat governed.
End of story.
If the Tea Party folk had camped out anywhere(not that they would) ...they’d of been labeled “terrorists” and cleared out long ago.
Yes. Yes they do.
I have to think of Juvenal, “But on what charge was he condemned? Who informed against him? What was the evidence, who the witnesses, who made good the case?” - “Nothing of the sort; a great and wordy letter came from Capri.” - “Good; I ask nothing more.”
This is a synopsis of the demise of Sejanus, the heir apparent to Tiberius, the author of the “great and wordy letter”. Although the context is somewhat different, what strikes the chord is the implication of arbitrary and ultimate authority, airily wielded. This was chafed under even in those days, and can we no longer recognize it?
In places where they’re on government-owned property, are they exercising their right to peaceably assemble when they stay 24 hrs?
Isn’t assembling different from staying overnight?
They can’t even articulate exactly what they are protesting about....and what exactly they want.
How in the world can you expect them to articulate the legal rationale for camping on the street?
I’m old enough to remember real protesters from the ‘60s. I often didn’t agree with them (even though I was only a kid...), but at least they knew what they wanted.
This latest group is just ‘60s wannabes...
The Freedom of Speech allows one to speak your mind about the Government without fear of being thrown in jail as retribution. For some reason, it has become popular lately for people to wrap themselves in the first amendment without any concept of its original meaning or limits.
The 1st Amendment does not allow you to...
... endanger the public (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater)
... endanger the public (incite to riot)
... endanger the public (commit acts otherwise unlawful - urinating in public, vandalism, arson, drug use, etc.)
... speak out against an employer without fearing retribution (like these people actually have jobs)
... speak in the public arena without fearing recourse for the content of your speech (e.g., a pro athelete bashing Jews on twitter may lose his endorsement deals)
Certainly, people should know they are responsible for the consequences of their speech/actions when making any kind of statement or protest. You could be fired from a job with a military contractor if you are found to be protesting against a war that your employer supports with weapons or other materials. This is the part they usually conveniently forget.
Where it regrettably gets fuzzy involves cases of personal conduct in which a seemingly unrelated party opts to take action.
Example: a public school teacher does nude modeling on the side during the summer when school is not in session. No relation whatsoever to his/her classroom job. School boards have fired teachers over less when such things are found out, but we’ve seen multiple reports each way on stuff like this.
Note in all of this, ‘Peaceable assembly’ is related - and for this, no: of course you cannot violate basic property rights or break other laws. As part of an orderly society, local municipalities typically have permitting or other limits on what it means to ‘peaceably assemble.’
All that said, these ne’r-do-wells don’t have a coherent message, or agenda, or even factual clues. They are being propped up (Probably) to counter the Tea Party movement... and the notion that OWS and the TP protests are somehow on equal footing is ludicrous at best.
I know most of us know this stuff — but it was time for a rant. As you were...
How is fomenting riots and encouraging the burning down of NYC legal? Why aren’t these people being put into jail????
Well heck what about all the OTHER places #Occupy is that aren’t “owned by buddies of obama”?
That is my question.
So instead of paying a mortgage, taxes and insurance all these years all I had to do was buy a tent and paint a sign? And I could live free on taxpayer property? I think I could come up with a “cause” or two. Dang it..duped again.
No matter, I DO love my creature comforts.
This is well orchestrated behind the scenes. Monica Crowley tonight was saying the first objective was to get the mob assembled after which the useful idiots are incited with the communist mantra and the mob will suddenly finds it's purpose.
This is their big chance and I think they are totally blowing it because too many people are really disgusted ..... and the majority of us, while struggling, are still working. Obama hasn't been as successful as they probably wanted - it isn't bad enough yet for their ugly takeover to be successful.
Since deliberately wasting taxpayers’ money doesn’t qualify as “peaceably” assembling, they should’ve been disbanded after a reasonable amount of time for waving signs and chanting their socialist slogans. They have the right to fritter away their own money, not anyone else’s.
Burning the US flag is a First Amendment right too according to our courts....go try burning a Muslim flag
How about “Why are the protestors being allowed to break the law?”
Try pitching a tent on your own front lawn and see how long you could get away with it.
Your 1st Amendment Rights DO NOT END WHEN YOU FALL ASLEEP.
Your 1st Amendment Rights DO NOT END WHEN YOU USE BATHROOM FACILITIES.
Your 1st Amendment Rights DO NOT END WHEN YOU CLEAN YOUR BODY.
Or do you prefer to limit the scope of the 1st Amendment permanently by threat of uniformed militarized gun-toting LEOs to suit your particular set of mores and taboos?
You have nailed it! In fact, in the case of pro-lifers, they do not even have the full access that the OWS crowd does. There are severe restrictions on where pro-lifers may stand, pray, etc. Of course, they abide by them, but I have seen the police walking along to check that they don't have so much as a toe over the line.
It isn't. Nothing prevents them from demonstrating daily from now until the rapture. And the city setting limits on people living in parks doesn't interfere with that.
I believe that the park is supposed to be open all hours, but the rules do not allow camping. I believe that the city would not let the property owners stop the camping at the beginning. The city most likey though no be deal they will only be here for a couple of nights and be gone. Boy were they wrong.
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,” 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.” Forty-two years later this case was distinguished in Hague v. C.I.O. (See p. 808.) And in 1948 in Saia v. New York 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. 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.
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. So also are ordinances which forbid, without exception, any distributions of handbills upon the streets. Even where such distribution involves a trespass upon private property in a company owned town, or upon Government property in a defense housing development, 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. 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. 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.
Federal Judge in Southwest Florida ruled yesterday that the Fort Myers to allow OWS to camp out in a park. He said that he believes they have standing. They say that the park rules go against their 1st amendment right. For now they are allowed to stay and the city cannot enforce the laws.
We are coming apart at the seams.