FishyFred: This college professor says the First Amendment guarantees your right to A. Free speech. B. Be on the news. C. Convince everyone your opinions are correct. If you answered B and C, you can probably guess which college he works for didn't read the farking article

QFT. That isn't what Reich is saying, at all.

Durendal: Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws?

There have been tons of protests in the past that camped out in parks and went on quite a while.

This is the third Reich I heard about today.

Aw, poor Subby, I give you an "E" for effort and a "T" for nice try.

Before I clicked through to the article, I was guessing that this was going to be someone defending Fox News.

I thought the courts ruled that public safety concerns outweighed the first ammendment? Tarps aren't even IN the constitution!

WhyteRaven74: Durendal: Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws?

There have been tons of protests in the past that camped out in parks and went on quite a while.

Also, Civil Disobedience, it's an American tradition.

Whaa?

Durendal: WhyteRaven74: Durendal: Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws?

There have been tons of protests in the past that camped out in parks and went on quite a while.

I can't recall any unless it specifically had to do with the park itself.

Does the Occupation of Alcatraz count?

This is good news... for area hotels, motels and the 1%!

The fark are you on about, Subby?

Durendal: The New York State Court of Appeals along with many mayors and other officials say Occupiers can picket -- but they can't encamp. Yet it's the encampments themselves that have drawn media attention (along with the police efforts to remove them).

Okay...and since when is camping in city parks legal? Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws? He talks about how wrong it is that monetary donations are considered free speech, and I can largely agree with that, but since when is camping out in a public park considered free speech? He complains that not being able to camp out limits their right to protest. You know what? That's true. And it's perfectly farking legit, too. Maybe I should complain that bathrooms limit my right to shiat because I can't do it wherever and however I want.

This is a good point. It's also a point that is apparently not in contention, because Reich never argues otherwise, despite what the submitter wrote in the headline. Reich is stating a fact: the occupation has led to media interest. Whether Reich thinks the action of occupation is a constitutionally protected activity is not discoverable from this article.

You're all lucky some protesters about 235 years ago didn't worry overmuch about whether their cause was legal according to the government they were protesting...

It's okay, we'll keep fighting for you.

Durendal: The New York State Court of Appeals along with many mayors and other officials say Occupiers can picket -- but they can't encamp. Yet it's the encampments themselves that have drawn media attention (along with the police efforts to remove them).

Okay...and since when is camping in city parks legal? Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws? He talks about how wrong it is that monetary donations are considered free speech, and I can largely agree with that, but since when is camping out in a public park considered free speech? He complains that not being able to camp out limits their right to protest. You know what? That's true. And it's perfectly farking legit, too. Maybe I should complain that bathrooms limit my right to shiat because I can't do it wherever and however I want.

Exactly. You don't have the right to deprive other people of access/use of public property. Just because you're the 99% doesn't mean you're not being a greedy farkwit who also happens to be harming the public.

I understand civil disobedience, but civil disobedience is breakingunjust laws. It doesn't just mean breaking other laws to get attention because there's no actual unjust law you can break.

Not that there aren't unjust laws, but these people are breaking laws completely unrelated to their cause, mostly because it makes things easy on them and gets them attention. As long as their point is not that camping in parks should be legal it is not civil disobedience, they just happen to be committing crimes while making an unrelated point.

Wow, Subby has some awesome reading comprehension skills there........

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Reich?

You know who else....

Durendal: WhyteRaven74: Durendal: Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws?

There have been tons of protests in the past that camped out in parks and went on quite a while.

I can't recall any unless it specifically had to do with the park itself.

Bonus Army/Hooverville, and the sit-in from the sixties are all I can think of off the top of my head.

spamdog: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Reich?

You know who else....

[members.iinet.net.au image 209x300]

Sir Elton John?

Subby obviously went to either Oral Roberts or Bob Jones University.

Why the fark did the mods greenlight this?

Barakku: Durendal: The New York State Court of Appeals along with many mayors and other officials say Occupiers can picket -- but they can't encamp. Yet it's the encampments themselves that have drawn media attention (along with the police efforts to remove them).

Okay...and since when is camping in city parks legal? Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws? He talks about how wrong it is that monetary donations are considered free speech, and I can largely agree with that, but since when is camping out in a public park considered free speech? He complains that not being able to camp out limits their right to protest. You know what? That's true. And it's perfectly farking legit, too. Maybe I should complain that bathrooms limit my right to shiat because I can't do it wherever and however I want.

Exactly. You don't have the right to deprive other people of access/use of public property. Just because you're the 99% doesn't mean you're not being a greedy farkwit who also happens to be harming the public.

I understand civil disobedience, but civil disobedience is breakingunjust laws. It doesn't just mean breaking other laws to get attention because there's no actual unjust law you can break.

I don't like crowded parks either - can I have the authorities clear out a park using pepper spray and clubs for me?

Barakku: Durendal: The New York State Court of Appeals along with many mayors and other officials say Occupiers can picket -- but they can't encamp. Yet it's the encampments themselves that have drawn media attention (along with the police efforts to remove them).

Okay...and since when is camping in city parks legal? Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws? He talks about how wrong it is that monetary donations are considered free speech, and I can largely agree with that, but since when is camping out in a public park considered free speech? He complains that not being able to camp out limits their right to protest. You know what? That's true. And it's perfectly farking legit, too. Maybe I should complain that bathrooms limit my right to shiat because I can't do it wherever and however I want.

Exactly. You don't have the right to deprive other people of access/use of public property. Just because you're the 99% doesn't mean you're not being a greedy farkwit who also happens to be harming the public.

I understand civil disobedience, but civil disobedience is breakingunjust laws. It doesn't just mean breaking other laws to get attention because there's no actual unjust law you can break.

MLK Jr disagrees (new window)

Hoovervilles (new window)

Barakku: Not that there aren't unjust laws, but these people are breaking laws completely unrelated to their cause, mostly because it makes things easy on them and gets them attention. As long as their point is not that camping in parks should be legal it is not civil disobedience, they just happen to be committing crimes while making an unrelated point.

You understand that illegal occupation has been used as a form of civil disobedience for decades now right?

Barakku: Not that there aren't unjust laws, but these people are breaking laws completely unrelated to their cause, mostly because it makes things easy on them and gets them attention. As long as their point is not that camping in parks should be legal it is not civil disobedience, they just happen to be committing crimes while making an unrelated point.

Look, to start with, the occupation of spaces that are nominally public spaces is very on the nose. These are spaces that are supposed to be held in the public trust for public use. When Occupy Seattle was barely started, the city's first real attempt to evict us was based on a justification that we were "denying access to valid permit-holders". Those self-same permit holders categorically denied this, and, indeed, we weren't. We took great pains to make sure we were not blocking entrances to stores, denying access to the facilities, or taking up the stage at the north end of Westlake when other people wanted to use it. We were absolutely not denying anyone equal use of public facilities.

The justification, therefore, was essentially that were making it harder for the city government to use what is supposed to be a public space for public use as a profit center. This is exactly in line with what we are protesting. Every level of government and every public entity are shirking their duties as elected representatives and public trustees, and instead serving, without shame or self-awareness, for the solitary benefit of an illegitimate and tiny aristocracy. Treating public spaces as rent sources, as if they are our landlords rather than public servants, is just one small but visible element of that.

(Also, as an aside: Easy? Really?)

eepopoarkahah: Bonus Army/Hooverville

The Bonus Army makes OWS look rather tiny. And it went on and on and on.

FTFA:

This tsunami of big money into politics is the real public nuisance. It's making it almost impossible for the voices of average Americans to be heard because most of us don't have the dough to break through. By granting First Amendment rights to money and corporations, the First Amendment rights of the rest of us are being trampled on.

This is where the Occupiers come in. If there's a core message to the Occupier movement it's that the increasing concentration of income and wealth poses a grave danger to our democracy.

Yet when Occupiers seek to make their voices heard -- in one of the few ways average people can still be heard -- they're told their First Amendment rights are limited.

A passive protesting... by Americans... protesting, passively, what we all know to be true - that big money now owns/runs our country. Big monied interests take center stage with our elected officials. The rest of us... tazed, beaten and jailed from right off the streets and parks our taxes paid to build and maintain.

I understand the fine distinction of protesting and encampment. What I don't understand is why so many are willing to throw OWS to the wolves and allow big monies power grab to continue on. You guys have a better idea? Or does "cut and run" flow through your veins?

Sell outs.

Oral Roberts U: the first amendment only protects the right of God to speak through you... poorly.

eepopoarkahah: Durendal: WhyteRaven74: Durendal: Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws?

There have been tons of protests in the past that camped out in parks and went on quite a while.

I can't recall any unless it specifically had to do with the park itself.

Bonus Army/Hooverville, and the sit-in from the sixties are all I can think of off the top of my head.

The Poor People's campaign is what came to my mind when OWS began. Near the end of his life MLK was shifting his message from racial equality to social and economic equality; shortly after his death demonstrators created "Resurrection City" (basically a shantytown) on what I think was a park in DC.
They were trying to get an economic "bill of rights" passed but were unsuccessful.

The parallels to OWS are obvious, but I'd say OWS has been more successful not just in terms of longevity, but also in terms of shifting the national dialogue. Not that anyone asked.

Sock Ruh Tease: This is the third Reich I heard about today.

Must be twelve in a thousand odds of that happening.

The same University that John Yoo works for, Subby?

It stops local representatives of law enforcement from arresting congressmen on the way to session.

AND NOTHING ELSE

As re-applied by SCOTUS it means you cannot be arrested for anything you say nor detained for talking about explosives, terrorists, murder, rape or even politics.*

*Applies only on actual Federal or Federally Supported property.

According to the Supreme Court, money is now speech and corporations are now people. But when real people without money assemble to express their dissatisfaction with the political consequences of this, they're treated as public nuisances and evicted.

Amazing. They've turned our most protected freedoms against us. The 1st Amendment (meant to give people freedom of speech) is now being used to give the rich the right to buy elections, and the 14th Amendment (created to give Blacks rights after the Civil War) to say that corporations are people.

Hence, corporations are now human beings that have a right to buy elections.

Oh no, trying to convince people! The point of any worthwhile conversation ever! THOSE BASTARDS!

Convincing is not the same thing as coercion.

bighasbeen: Barakku: Not that there aren't unjust laws, but these people are breaking laws completely unrelated to their cause, mostly because it makes things easy on them and gets them attention. As long as their point is not that camping in parks should be legal it is not civil disobedience, they just happen to be committing crimes while making an unrelated point.

Couldn't you claim that assembling and camping in the park is in and of itself political speech? I know that classifying something as political speech doesn't mean it is completely exempt from rules or regulations but a higher level of scrutiny is needed to restrict political speech than to restrict an individual from taking up residency in the park simply because they have nowhere else to live or feel like vacationing there.

In this thread... Liberals who have not read court precidence in regards to assembly nor speech.

If restrictions are agnostic to speech, they are legal. If assembly interferes with private property it is not allowed. If noise from assembly breaks local ordinance it is too much. Basically the supreme court has ruled you can assemble to be heard bit you can't force others to listen. Google "court rulings free speech" or "court rulings assembly" for a plethora of cases showing ows to be breaking ordinance. In fact you will find one special case where ows not being charged fees while tea party was is actually against the constitution.

Durendal: WhyteRaven74: Durendal: Does it being a protest change the laws on vagrancy, improper use of public facilites, health concerns, and other related laws?

There have been tons of protests in the past that camped out in parks and went on quite a while.

I can't recall any unless it specifically had to do with the park itself.

Hooverville. Look it up in a history textbook.

Robert Reich is on my short list of very smart economic and political commentators, but this was a Captain Obvious article. Granted, some people still need to hear the Obvious.

LoneWolf343: Oh no, trying to convince people! The point of any worthwhile conversation ever! THOSE BASTARDS!

Convincing is not the same thing as coercion.



But socialism

RTFA, then saw this little gem: Patriotic Millionaires To Grover Norquist: 'Move To Somalia'

Now, read that and tell me: what kind of utterly delusional, insane nutbar do you have to be to think that Somalia has too much government? Unless you think "government" means "anyone, anywhere, trying to tell anyone to do anything" in which case we're right back at delusional and insane.