If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Court orders NYPD to let Occupy Wall Street back into Liberty Plaza with tents   (nydailynews.com) divider line 812
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11863 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



812 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-15 12:37:31 PM

tomcatadam: MeinRS6: The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to camp out where ever they want for as long as they want.

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to stand out where ever they want in public spaces for as long as they want.

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to assemble out where ever they want in public spaces for as long as they want.

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to talk out where ever they want in public spaces for as long as they want.


I think you're getting it.
 
2011-11-15 12:38:11 PM

thelordofcheese: CeroX: My, my, these threads are just full of tiny little fascist scumbags aren't they?

Let's see, the highest law of the land, our constitution protects the rights of those who assemble without violence. These protesters, while lacking focus, still have the right to assemble without violence in any publicly accessible area. No local or state law may directly violate the rights protects under the highest law of the land. Every state in the union had to accept the Constitution and it's laws as the highest law of the land. Therefore, minor laws like "parks close at dark" and "jaywalking" may only be enforced when they do not directly conflict with the protected rights of the people under the highest law of the land. Our government officials are sworn into office under an oath to protect the people, the constitution, and the accept, respect, and obey the highest law of the land.

What the mayor did, what the enforcement officers did, was, without a doubt, a violation of the rights protected by the highest law of the land, the Constitution. This land is considered a Public Place, and by legal definition: A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.

Therefore, just because the park is owned by a private company, it was designated as Public space by said company, and zoned as public space by the city. The public space is reserved and protected exclusively by the first amendment as the legal definition is as such: In the United States the right of the people to engage in speech and assembly in public places may not be unreasonably restricted by the federal or state government.

When a large group of people gather for the sole purpose to establish a long term protest, the basic needs of said group include: Shelter, Food, Water, and Medical Care. These are the BASIC needs for a long term gathering for the purpose of protest. To deny the BASIC needs of a peaceful, long term, assembly, is in direct violation of Constitutional rights.

Well, I think we're done here.

/who the fark am I kidding, Fark is full of retards that won't be able to understand this and still will argue to the contrary despite silly things like facts


All rights have limits. You don't have the right to assemble wherever you want. You can't carry whatever type of weapon you want.

If you think that all rights are unlimited than that means I can own a nuclear weapon or a B-52.

Absolutists slay me.
 
2011-11-15 12:38:22 PM

MeinRS6: And one more time for the people on Fark that think they are Constitutional scholars -

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to camp out where ever they want for as long as they want.

Get that thru your little heads.


Funny, cause an actual Constitutional scholar disagrees. That's why the NYPD thugs have been ordered to stop breaking the law by violating the 1st amendment, and destroying people's property while they were at it.
 
2011-11-15 12:39:02 PM

OtherLittleGuy: E: They find a contract with a TV Network for a Reality Series. I'm thinking CurrentTV or Nickelodeon.



I'd go with a reality show on OWN - because no one understands the fight against the 1% like Oprah.

As a side note - I just don't understand what the OWS folks think they are accomplishing. They are hardly getting media attention, not causing any real inconvenience to those in power, and I would bet those in the 1% probably have to check the internet just to know if they are still protesting at all.

If you truly want to stand up for the inequality in our country do something to make those in power uncomfortable. Organize one huge rally rather than this quiet, well-behaved camp out. Get a group together and actually put together 10 bullet points that everyone can agree on as primary goals and put it out there to the media. Just do something - otherwise you are simply a group of drum beating, tent loving hippies to the majority of onlookers.

There is a legit concern they all share - that 1% of the population is hoarding the countries' wealth and being treated too favorably by the government - start with that and actually do something with it. It's frustrating to see an ideal that could unite people together get pigeonholed into being the cause of the socialist/hippie/entitled.
 
2011-11-15 12:40:08 PM

BroVinny: I think you're getting it.


Then boil it down.

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to assemble in public for however long we feel is too long.
 
2011-11-15 12:40:44 PM

Pochas: MeinRS6: And one more time for the people on Fark that think they are Constitutional scholars -

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to camp out where ever they want for as long as they want.

Get that thru your little heads.

Funny, cause an actual Constitutional scholar disagrees. That's why the NYPD thugs have been ordered to stop breaking the law by violating the 1st amendment, and destroying people's property while they were at it.


You are confused.
 
2011-11-15 12:41:17 PM

Gdalescrboz: CapnBlues 2011-11-15 11:18:09 AM

Gdalescrboz: One of these days you hippies are gonna need weapons to defend those rights. I cant wait to see the pics of thousands of hippies heads exploding when that ironic apifony strikes them

i'm a liberal, what you might think of as a hippy. own a gun. a lot of liberals own guns.

Well then how bout you liberals help yourself to a farking English class then; i clearly said hippies, not liberals. Unless being a liberals means you are a dirty stoner who loves Starbucks so much they absorb it through their anus


Hi there -- I apologize for the misunderstanding. Partially it's that so often the terms "liberal" and "hippy" are bandied about as synonyms. The other part is that I assumed you mean this. Again, I'm sorry. I wish you wouldn't imply that I'm illiterate, though. I assume that you are an intelligent person, and I'd appreciate the the same consideration from you. cheers. :)
 
2011-11-15 12:41:43 PM

Public Call Box: So is it time for Hooverville 2.0 yet?

Occupy Central Park.


That would probably ruin the millionaires views, so I don't see that happening.
 
2011-11-15 12:42:14 PM

n8littlefield: put it out there to the media.


Various lists have been assembled. Nobody can agree on what needs to be done because nobody can say for sure because it's endlessly complex.
The base agreement point is that the corporations are out of control, anti-american and that action needs to be taken. Which they've been getting across quite eloquently when possible in the areas where they are not shunted through a prism (i.e. OWS sites).
 
2011-11-15 12:44:35 PM

Public Call Box: So is it time for Hooverville 2.0 yet?

Occupy Central Park.


John Lennon's birthday/assassination anniversary every single year at Strawberry Fields.
 
2011-11-15 12:46:33 PM

tomcatadam: BroVinny: I think you're getting it.

Then boil it down.

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to assemble in public for however long we feel is too long.


The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to encamp. If you want to protest on public land, you may do so, so long as others have fair use of the land and other First Amendment restrictions (time/place/manner, as someone has mentioned) are obeyed.

The First Amendment is not absolutist. There are limits as to what you can say, where you can say it, when you can say it, and how you can say it.
 
2011-11-15 12:46:37 PM

tomcatadam: BroVinny: I think you're getting it.

Then boil it down.

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to assemble in public for however long we feel is too long.


Do you think that the 1st Amend would prevent any gov't agent from stopping you from camping out on the White House lawn indefinitely?
 
2011-11-15 12:47:06 PM

Puo: Stratohead: MeinRS6: Stratohead: Link (new window)
It was not clear how that negotiation went, but at 11 a.m., two protesters dressed in black, wearing black bandannas over the lower part of their faces, used bolt cutters to snip through the chain-link fence and the crowd began streaming in.

Because that church was part of the 1%, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan. If they can't even negotiate with a church, which had been in support of the group, then what do they expect to accomplish?

What asses. I'm glad they got kicked out.


Yeah, that was pretty dickish of them. Way to bite the hand that feeds you, dipshiats.
 
2011-11-15 12:50:02 PM

Devin172: IamKaiserSoze!!!: There is no camp ground or other housing concept in the US that would allow the living standards that OWS has adopted. Even refugee camps in Africa have safer and more sanitary facilities.


Like you'd know anything about either Burning Man or refugee camps in Africa you asshole.


Apparently neither do you.
 
2011-11-15 12:52:08 PM

MeinRS6: Pochas: MeinRS6: And one more time for the people on Fark that think they are Constitutional scholars -

The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to camp out where ever they want for as long as they want.

Get that thru your little heads.

Funny, cause an actual Constitutional scholar disagrees. That's why the NYPD thugs have been ordered to stop breaking the law by violating the 1st amendment, and destroying people's property while they were at it.

You are confused.


You're a stool pigeon. Go listen to some Glenn Beck, adults are talking.
 
2011-11-15 12:52:40 PM

bhcompy: No one is denying those people food, water, medical care, or shelter. No one.


Ok, im going to bit one last time, because i'm HOPING you aren't seriously that stupid and you are just trying to make a point.

The gov't (NYC), raided people who were demonstrating a peaceful protest in a public area, they destroyed (thereby denying them) their shelter (tents), Water and Food (The kitchen), and Medical Care (medical tent).

Destroyed.

If i destroy your house, by burning it to the ground, that would qualify that act as the denial of shelter.

If i destroyed your food by shiatting and pissing on it, that act qualifies as denial of food.

If i infect your water supply with anthrax, that act qualifies as denial of water.

If i shoot your medicine into orbit, that act qualifies as a denial of medical service.

Yes, the situation may be temporary, but once the act of denial has taken place, NO MATTER HOW SHORT TIMELINE, it becomes a violation of rights.

if i rape your daughter, but only for a second, is it still rape? of course it is, the amount of time a violation takes doesn't stop it from being a violation.

Destroying your food, your shelter, your water, and your medical supplies may only be as temporary as going and buying new, but it is still a denial of those needs.

And since the law limits the gov't from being able to deny reasonable accommodations for a peaceful (non-violent) assembly (for example a protest) and that assembly needs to span long term, those necessities of food, water, shelter, and medicine cannot be denied, even for a split second by the gov't.

Am i reaching you at all?
 
2011-11-15 12:53:04 PM

MeinRS6: Do you think that the 1st Amend would prevent any gov't agent from stopping you from camping out on the White House lawn indefinitely?


The White House Lawn is a public space? I thought in effect that was just the Ellipse?

BroVinny: The First Amendment is not absolutist. There are limits as to what you can say, where you can say it, when you can say it, and how you can say it.


Yes. And it's not as simple as "No doing X at Y".
You can say you don't have the right to yell "bomb" in an airport.

Until there's actually a bomb at the airport. Or fire in the theater, or whatever.
i.e., a cause for doing so.

In any case, the point is that it's not cut and dry.
 
2011-11-15 12:54:37 PM

Pochas: You're a stool pigeon.


"[A] person employed or acting as a decoy or informer, especially for the police"?

Is this really the epithet you meant to use?
 
2011-11-15 12:55:02 PM

CeroX: Yes, the situation may be temporary, but once the act of denial has taken place, NO MATTER HOW SHORT TIMELINE, it becomes a violation of rights.


Their rights to walk miles to a homeless shelter or hospital if they're injured have not been denied, no?
 
2011-11-15 12:56:08 PM

Slaves2Darkness: badhatharry: moonscatter: As distasteful as many people find it, protesting is one of the most important rights we have. Let them do their thing.

Frankly, I find them cute and amusing. I really liked it when they marched on my building in Houston. This scraggly guy carried a old, manual typewriter to our building, sat down and typed something, tied it to balloons and yelled "I hope this gets to the top!"

OWS is extended street theatre. Enjoy it.

Apparently, most people are ok with cops tear gassing them, beating them, and destroying their property. They don't consider that it might be them protesting the next time. Americans had a right to complain. It kept us free.

We also have a right to shoot back at the government that keeps us free. The fiery end of the siege of the Branch Dividian compound in Waco TX and the Oklahoma City bombing calmed Janet Reno and her jack booted thugs right the fark down. Timmothy McVeigh is a patriot, as are the OWS people.


You know how we know you are an idiot?
 
2011-11-15 12:59:13 PM

CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.


...But on the other side, it didn't say nothin';
That side was made for you and me.
 
2011-11-15 12:59:16 PM

CeroX: And since the law limits the gov't from being able to deny reasonable accommodations for a peaceful (non-violent) assembly (for example a protest) and that assembly needs to span long term, those necessities of food, water, shelter, and medicine cannot be denied, even for a split second by the gov't.


I've said it ten times you have it backwards.

the government does not have to accomodate them at all.

Further, you have to wake up and realize that these people's occupation of the park is depriving other people the right to use the park as well.
 
2011-11-15 12:59:44 PM
You're focusing on the wrong part of Taibbi's commentary, and then use it to fuel a straw man attack. Bravo.

Taibbi's commentary is best taken as an illustration of contrast of the "law enforcement" resources that each situation is getting. And I think that you know that, and choose to gloss over it. I'm guessing that you work for Wall Street, either directly or as an astroturf jockey.

A pittance has been spent on policing Wall Street. The Madoff affair is an example of that. Manipulation of the ratings agencies, for the purpose of selling bundles of mortgage-backed securities, is an example of that. An overwhelming amount has been spent on running off the OWS people. Last night was an example of that.

This contrast shows clearly who the government serves, and it is indisputable. And that's the whole point of OWS and the current wave of populist anger.

Debeo Summa Credo: jonnyh: Matt Taibbi says it best: (new window)

This is a profound statement about who law enforcement works for in this country. What happened on Wall Street over the past decade was an unparalleled crime wave. Yet at most, maybe 1,500 federal agents were policing that beat - and that little group of financial cops barely made any cases at all. Yet when thousands of ordinary people hit the streets with the express purpose of obeying the law and demonstrating their patriotism through peaceful protest, the police response is immediate and massive. There have already been hundreds of arrests, which is hundreds more than we ever saw during the years when Wall Street bankers were stealing billions of dollars from retirees and mutual-fund holders and carpenters unions through the mass sales of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.


Law enforcement enforces laws. Just because idiots like Matt Taibbi and you think that laws were broken on wall street doesn't mean they were. Where laws are broken by individuals, those individuals are prosecuted -either on Wall street or in Zucotti park.

This whole pervasive myth that 'Wall Street stole" is the underlying cause of all this anger, and the problem is that it is a myth. A myth put forth by liars like Taibbi and swallowed whole like morons like you, who have absolutely no understanding of finance, economics, business, or banking.

If you want more progressive taxation, that's fine. If you want single-payer healthcare, that's fine too. I'd agree with you, to an extent. However when you delve off into tinfoil hat land where you delude yourself into believing that the mean old bankers are knowlingly fleecing the 99%, with the underlying support of law enforcement and congress, in some grand conspiracy, you lose any support you would otherwise get from reasonable people.

 
2011-11-15 01:01:03 PM
Like the cops give a flying-f*ck what a judge orders. They'll keep evicting them, they'll just call it something else.
 
2011-11-15 01:04:08 PM

netweavr: Like the cops give a flying-f*ck what a judge orders. They'll keep evicting them, they'll just call it something else.


Public sanitation and correctional health measures.
 
2011-11-15 01:06:41 PM
So.... we found step 2.

Step 1: Protest, have your civil rights violated.
Step 2: Sue the city for violations of said rights.
Step 3: Profit! Become part of the 1%.

Seems like their plan to get their student loans paid off and get jobs is working. Suing people is a respected profession in modern america.
 
2011-11-15 01:06:58 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Timmothy McVeigh is a patriot

dead, mentally retarded, cow farking POS.

FTFY.
 
2011-11-15 01:08:06 PM

tomcatadam: MeinRS6: Do you think that the 1st Amend would prevent any gov't agent from stopping you from camping out on the White House lawn indefinitely?

The White House Lawn is a public space? I thought in effect that was just the Ellipse?


So the White house is private land and/or private space. Ok.

Do you think that the 1st Amend would prevent any gov't agent from stopping you from camping out on the Ellipse indefinitely?
 
2011-11-15 01:08:27 PM

CeroX: Ok, im going to bit one last time, because i'm HOPING you aren't seriously that stupid and you are just trying to make a point.

The gov't (NYC), raided people who were demonstrating a peaceful protest in a public area, they destroyed (thereby denying them) their shelter (tents), Water and Food (The kitchen), and Medical Care (medical tent).

Destroyed.

If i destroy your house, by burning it to the ground, that would qualify that act as the denial of shelter.

If i destroyed your food by shiatting and pissing on it, that act qualifies as denial of food.

If i infect your water supply with anthrax, that act qualifies as denial of water.

If i shoot your medicine into orbit, that act qualifies as a denial of medical service.


Peaceful and public doesn't make it legal.

I could peacefully build a log cabin on public land, is the state denying me shelter if they don't allow it to stay there as long as I claim it is a protest?
 
2011-11-15 01:11:11 PM
I hope someone throws balloons full of butyric acid at OWS.
 
2011-11-15 01:12:05 PM

urger: WTFDYW: Oh and YES. The park is private property.

This eviction was on behalf of the private owner. However since the rule against camping in the park was created after the protest started it ran afoul of the constitution's prohibition against post ipso facto laws.


Do you have a source on the camping regulation being created after the protest started? No flame, just curious.
 
2011-11-15 01:12:45 PM

erveek: ...But on the other side, it didn't say nothin';
That side was made for you and me.


Ownership of real property is determined in accordance with the laws of the states, which are in turn based on centuries-old concepts of common law, and not by the lyrics of a folk song.

Even if we all sang the less controversial verses of the song as schoolchildren.
 
2011-11-15 01:16:36 PM

Born2Fart: I hope someone throws balloons full of butyric acid at OWS.


that attitude stinks
 
2011-11-15 01:18:21 PM

CeroX: bhcompy: No one is denying those people food, water, medical care, or shelter. No one.

Ok, im going to bit one last time, because i'm HOPING you aren't seriously that stupid and you are just trying to make a point.

The gov't (NYC), raided people who were demonstrating a peaceful protest in a public area, they destroyed (thereby denying them) their shelter (tents), Water and Food (The kitchen), and Medical Care (medical tent).

Destroyed.

If i destroy your house, by burning it to the ground, that would qualify that act as the denial of shelter.

If i destroyed your food by shiatting and pissing on it, that act qualifies as denial of food.

If i infect your water supply with anthrax, that act qualifies as denial of water.

If i shoot your medicine into orbit, that act qualifies as a denial of medical service.

Yes, the situation may be temporary, but once the act of denial has taken place, NO MATTER HOW SHORT TIMELINE, it becomes a violation of rights.

if i rape your daughter, but only for a second, is it still rape? of course it is, the amount of time a violation takes doesn't stop it from being a violation.

Destroying your food, your shelter, your water, and your medical supplies may only be as temporary as going and buying new, but it is still a denial of those needs.

And since the law limits the gov't from being able to deny reasonable accommodations for a peaceful (non-violent) assembly (for example a protest) and that assembly needs to span long term, those necessities of food, water, shelter, and medicine cannot be denied, even for a split second by the gov't.

Am i reaching you at all?


First off, those aren't "rights". That's property. Food, water, shelter, and medicine are property. You have property rights. There are lawful ways for property to be confiscated and destroyed, such as when these items are used while doing something illegal. An illegal shelter can be confiscated and disposed of. Since the park has posted rules about shelters not being allowed, it stands to reason that if the shelter is not removed it can be confiscated and disposed of.

Secondly, you have no right to a medical tent or mess tent on public property.

Third, your rights granted by the 1st amendment do not force the government to provide you reasonable accommodation in a public space for the purpose of exercising those rights short-term or long-term. There is no "reasonable accommodation clause". The only time the government is required to provide reasonable accommodation EVER is when you are incarcerated per the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment(or provide reasonable compensation when your property is subject to eminent domain, which can be a way of facilitating reasonable accommodation). If you have a judicial decision that shows me that you are granted more than what the 1st amendment stipulates("the right of the people peaceably to assemble") I'd like to see it. The only "reasonable accommodation" concept I've seen dealing with public spaces in American law is reasonable accommodation for those with disabilities(ie. a ramp for someone in a wheelchair).
 
2011-11-15 01:18:43 PM

poot_rootbeer: erveek: ...But on the other side, it didn't say nothin';
That side was made for you and me.

Ownership of real property is determined in accordance with the laws of the states, which are in turn based on centuries-old concepts of common law, and not by the lyrics of a folk song.

Even if we all sang the less controversial verses of the song as schoolchildren.


Yes, that was totally what I was driving at.
 
2011-11-15 01:18:49 PM
Hey, let the ows'ers do their thing. At least their occupying is becoming more noticed by many and garnering some attention.

/understands why it's being done
 
2011-11-15 01:21:53 PM

liam76:
I could peacefully build a log cabin on public land, is the state denying me shelter if they don't allow it to stay there as long as I claim it is a protest?


Maybe if you were protesting squatting laws, which is essentially what these people are doing. Squatters are routinely evicted from public lands(particularly in national forests and parks and such) and their property is disposed of if it is not removed.
 
2011-11-15 01:22:36 PM

Boxingoutsider: thelordofcheese: CeroX:

If you think that all rights are unlimited than that means I can own a nuclear weapon or a B-52.

Absolutists slay me.


Please highlight the section of the legal definitions i copied and pasted that gives unlimited rights?

Because i'll highlight from my own post the limitations for you:

n the United States the right of the people to engage in speech and assembly in public places* may not be unreasonably restricted by the federal or state government.

*A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.

So the restriction is, they may not assemble on private property (which is any property owned by the gov't, individual, or organization that is NOT designated or zoned as a public area).

A public park, whether it is owned by the gov't, an individual, or an organization that has been zoned as public is considered a public area, which is by legal definition a protected zone for peaceful demonstration.
 
2011-11-15 01:24:05 PM

halfof33: cameroncrazy1984: Isn't this thread about the campers going to court and winning?

No, it is about the squatters finding a helpful judge at home


You STILL playing the squatter card? Holy crap. It's amazing that you can even reach the keyboard against that black hole of derp surrounding you.
 
2011-11-15 01:24:30 PM

CeroX: A public park, whether it is owned by the gov't, an individual, or an organization that has been zoned as public is considered a public area, which is by legal definition a protected zone for peaceful demonstration.


Key word. Demonstration does not mean taking as residence, permanent or temporary.
 
2011-11-15 01:24:57 PM

tomcatadam: n8littlefield: put it out there to the media.

Various lists have been assembled. Nobody can agree on what needs to be done because nobody can say for sure because it's endlessly complex.
The base agreement point is that the corporations are out of control, anti-american and that action needs to be taken. Which they've been getting across quite eloquently when possible in the areas where they are not shunted through a prism (i.e. OWS sites).


Right - but the majority of the public and apparently even the media can't be bothered to go read a website on a group's political views. Frankly, the cause needs some form of 30 second pitch that's consistent, something easily digestible that makes it clear it's not just a bunch of kids looking for hand outs - something a non-protester can wear on a shirt and have the message be clear outside of a campsite or website.

There are simply too many hangers-on pushing their agenda muddying the waters and it's too easy for outsiders to immediately write off camping in a park as dirty hippie/commie type stuff. The OWS movement will die if they don't find a united voice and start annoying people with it.
 
2011-11-15 01:25:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: BroVinny: I am, in principal, opposed to OWS, mainly because I don't see a reason to get behind it,

So you think it's just fine that corporations co-opt the government to allow the wealthiest 1% of our country to control 40% of the wealth?


U sound jelly bro.
 
2011-11-15 01:27:35 PM

thelordofcheese: Pollexabator: PanicMan: You know who else the world still talks about?

Jesus? Gandhi? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Yes, having a leader and a coherent message helps build consensus and strengthen the movement. Remember all those other leaderless passive non-resistance movements that changed the world by raising awareness and not pushing for specific changes to specific laws? Yeah, those were awesome.

/lolJesus

I don't see any Roman empire around anymore, do you?


Yes, the Roman Empire was torn apart by massive series of peaceful protests whose only purpose was to illuminate the financial and social burdens faced by the slave classes and centurions. After that, the Nazis marched in and the German unicorn hoards burned the Library of Alexandria and broke the nose off the Sphynx.

/is your favorite historical documentary 300 too?
 
2011-11-15 01:32:38 PM

tomcatadam: CeroX: Yes, the situation may be temporary, but once the act of denial has taken place, NO MATTER HOW SHORT TIMELINE, it becomes a violation of rights.

Their rights to walk miles to a homeless shelter or hospital if they're injured have not been denied, no?


No, but that is unreasonable, in fact you emphasized walking miles to try and be snarky, but in fact shows you how unreasonable a person you are.

Unreasonable: someone who cannot be reasoned with.

That's you. Because of your political tribalization you abandon reason to beat your chest for your tribe.
 
2011-11-15 01:36:20 PM

CeroX: n the United States the right of the people to engage in speech and assembly in public places* may not be unreasonably restricted by the federal or state government.

*A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.

So the restriction is, they may not assemble on private property (which is any property owned by the gov't, individual, or organization that is NOT designated or zoned as a public area).

A public park, whether it is owned by the gov't, an individual, or an organization that has been zoned as public is considered a public area, which is by legal definition a protected zone for peaceful demonstration.


Unreasonably restricted. Key phrase. What about other people that may have requested use of the park over the past few months? Their plans went right out the window. What about their rights to use that public space?

Also, as someone else has mentioned, a demonstration is one thing. Squatting is another. I mean, I wonder why the homeless have not 'demonstrated' against homelessness by creating a tent city in the park for the past 30 years?
 
2011-11-15 01:38:44 PM

bhcompy: CeroX: A public park, whether it is owned by the gov't, an individual, or an organization that has been zoned as public is considered a public area, which is by legal definition a protected zone for peaceful demonstration.

Key word. Demonstration does not mean taking as residence, permanent or temporary.


Residence is not temporary and is permanent.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary
14th edition, Vol. II, page 470

Residence indicates permanency of occupation, as distinct from lodging, or boarding, or temporary occupation, but does not include so much as domicil [sic], which requires an intention continued with residence. 19 Mc. 293; 2 Kent, Comm. 10th ed. 576.
 
2011-11-15 01:40:46 PM

Giltric:
I'll take the OWS people more seriously if they were willing to die for their cause.....


So, you say they need to be shot first? Immolate themselves? What? From my readings of these threads, that kind of sacrifice would only get the OWS protesters rebranded, from "smelly hippies" to "suicidal lunatics".
Really, you can't take them seriously until they DIE?
 
2011-11-15 01:45:10 PM

CeroX: Sentry1407: I thought all these years that laws applied equally to everyone. Apparently, as I'm learning now, that is not the case. If I (a person holding a job and dressed like it) go downtown to the park and pitch a tent and camp, I get arrested. However, if I grow some dreadlocks, grab a megaphone and chant dem rhetoric, carry a sign displaying abject stupidity, oh and let's not forget about the drums, then I don't get arrested. I get to ignore the law! Hmmm. What else could I do while sporting the correct legally immune attire and accoutrements?

Camping trip to Central Park anyone?
How about Daytona beach?
I bet Governors Island would be a cool place to camp this time of year.
Statue of Liberty?

Oooh, I've got it. Camping on Teddy Roosevelts Mustache on Mt. Rushmore would rule!

I just hope no one r@pes me :(

Why is it you RETARDS can't see the difference between a personal camping trip and a LONG TERM DEMONSTRATION?

Operating words here: LONG TERM

Do you know what that means? It means A LONG farkING TIME spanning DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS, OR EVEN YEARS. The constitution doesn't add the caveat that peaceful assembly is only legal if it's done in a summer afternoon. Sometimes to get the point across you have to be seen, day in, day out, in large numbers, for AS LONG AS IT TAKES.

Oh wait, here it is in your post right hereSentry1407: dem rhetoric

I see, so this OWS is a democratic party thing and since these people didn't join your primitive tribe they must all be from that OTHER tribe.

Did you ever stop and think that the people are protesting a system that is currently RUN by your rival tribe?

"BUT BUT, THEY ARE HIPPIES RIGHT, and all hippies are from that OTHER TRIBE!"

Do you have to wear a helmet to keep your retarded brain from cracking your skull open?


LOL, for a liberal, your reply is actually pretty funny. Funny, but stupid nonetheless.

So your point is you can break the law if it's done over a long period of time. Ok got it. So add 2 to 3 weeks or months to my comment. Be patient with me. I'm still trying to figure out this whole ignore the law and get away with it thing.

BTW, if by OTHER tribe you mean tea party, don't even go there. You'll lose and lose badly...

Oh and one other thing. OWS is owned lock, stock, and barrel by Obama, Pelosi, et al. It will be their down fall. Main stream America doesn't take kindly to anarchist wannabe cry babies demanding cradle to grave everything while the rest of America works or tries to find a job.
 
2011-11-15 01:46:41 PM

CPennypacker: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sorry, but I'm with the Mayor on this one - the right to free speech IS NOT absolute, and there is NOTHING unconstitutional with saying "you're free to protest here, but you can't LIVE here, and you have to go somewhere else at night so we can clean up after your dumb asses, and then you are welcome to come back in the morning." Nothing.

You can't come into my house to practice your right to free speech.
You can't say "somebody needs to kill the president"
etc., etc. There are limits to free speech, always have been.

You absolutely have freedom of Speech, but not here, and not now. Go over there. Further. Further. OK, now down those stairs. OK good, close the door boys.

See? Freedom of Speech. They can protest in that broom closet.



"welcome to come back in the morning" != "they can protest in the broom closet"

Not real good at reading comprehension (or understanding the constitution), are ya?
 
2011-11-15 01:53:50 PM
img42.imageshack.us

Reggie: What have the bloody corporations ever done for us anyway?

JPF: What about the founding of Jamestown, the Mayflower and Plymouth Colony?

Reggie: Well of course there's that!

JPF: What about the building of the first turnpikes, the Erie canal, steamship lines and the transcontinental railroad?

Reggie: Well, certainly that.

JPF: What about industry? Coal, oil, iron and steel. Manufacturing? Automobiles, defense, pharmaceuticals, medicine, roads, bridges, dams, home construction, plastics, computers, biotech, consumer goods, electronics, appliances, power plants, rail lines, skyscrapers, communication, hospitals, universities and scientific research? Agriculture. After all, Reggie, American agribusiness feeds millions both here and abroad.

Reggie: Well, that goes without saying doesn't it? Okay besides early settlement, infrastructure, food, education, scientific research, industry and food what have the bloody corporations done for us?

JDF: Brought jobs?

(Apologies to Monty Python)
 
Displayed 50 of 812 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report