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

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?

Serious question.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; chat; dirtyhippies; gotakeabath; ows; vanity

1 posted on 11/16/2011 9:29:40 PM PST by Feline_AIDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
Next they'll be taking over foreclosed, repossessed and VA/HUD homes.
2 posted on 11/16/2011 9:32:07 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

I may be wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that Zucotti Park is actually private property.


3 posted on 11/16/2011 9:32:11 PM PST by JosephMama (First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JosephMama

Yes and it is owned by buddies of obama.


4 posted on 11/16/2011 9:35:54 PM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JosephMama
Zucotti Park is private property.

There is no enumerated right in the Bill of Rights to describe what OWS is doing. The people have the right to peaceably assemble, not to do so chaotically or to increase the danger. (Do they want the president to invoke the suspension of habeas corpus?)
5 posted on 11/16/2011 9:36:19 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

“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.


6 posted on 11/16/2011 9:38:36 PM PST by AnalogReigns (because REALITY is never digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Yes. Yes they do.


7 posted on 11/16/2011 9:39:00 PM PST by JosephMama (First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

8 posted on 11/16/2011 9:39:05 PM PST by Bobalu (More rubble, less trouble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
When has a lib protester ever obeyed the law?
9 posted on 11/16/2011 9:41:21 PM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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?


10 posted on 11/16/2011 9:41:33 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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?


11 posted on 11/16/2011 9:44:10 PM PST by Feline_AIDS (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
No Squatting Allowed

12 posted on 11/16/2011 9:49:10 PM PST by Bobalu (More rubble, less trouble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobalu

13 posted on 11/16/2011 9:51:26 PM PST by Bobalu (More rubble, less trouble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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...


14 posted on 11/16/2011 9:51:57 PM PST by AnalogReigns (because REALITY is never digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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...


15 posted on 11/16/2011 10:01:22 PM PST by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

How is fomenting riots and encouraging the burning down of NYC legal? Why aren’t these people being put into jail????


16 posted on 11/16/2011 10:30:50 PM PST by TEXOKIE (The Tea Party outnumbers the Flea Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Please Donate!!

FReepathon Day 47!!

17 posted on 11/16/2011 10:35:03 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREHEE REPUBLIC BY DONATING NOW! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

Well heck what about all the OTHER places #Occupy is that aren’t “owned by buddies of obama”?


18 posted on 11/16/2011 10:51:47 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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.


19 posted on 11/16/2011 11:03:05 PM PST by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Who has paid attorneys to go to court for them?

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.

20 posted on 11/16/2011 11:07:10 PM PST by Aria ( "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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.


21 posted on 11/17/2011 1:05:53 AM PST by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

Burning the US flag is a First Amendment right too according to our courts....go try burning a Muslim flag


22 posted on 11/17/2011 1:09:01 AM PST by dennisw (I heard the old man laughing What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having-Sting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

How about “Why are the protestors being allowed to break the law?”


23 posted on 11/17/2011 3:20:33 AM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
It depends upon WHO is doing the squatting. If, for instance, Pro Life were doing exactly as OWS are doing (without the viciousness and violence) they'd be rounded up and in jail in one day. This is not hyperbole.
24 posted on 11/17/2011 3:40:17 AM PST by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

Try pitching a tent on your own front lawn and see how long you could get away with it.


25 posted on 11/17/2011 3:45:16 AM PST by almost done by half
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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?


26 posted on 11/17/2011 3:58:59 AM PST by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
If, for instance, Pro Life were doing exactly as OWS are doing (without the viciousness and violence) they'd be rounded up and in jail in one day.

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.

27 posted on 11/17/2011 4:21:41 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
How is squatting a 1st amendment right?

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.

28 posted on 11/17/2011 4:23:51 AM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Yes it is privately owned but it is a public park, one of those we will doo this as part of our site plan to build our building.

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.

29 posted on 11/17/2011 4:28:18 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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]


30 posted on 11/17/2011 4:39:02 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

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.


31 posted on 11/17/2011 5:31:19 AM PST by bbernard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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