Skip to main content

View Diary: Holding the Line at #OccupyBoston (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Individuals have a right to use that site (0+ / 0-)

    But when groups want to use it, they have to get permission from the landowner and a permit from the city.

    That's the law. It's not the group's right to use it, per the law that citizens have had their representatives pass and the US Supreme Court has ruled are reasonable laws with regard to peaceable assembly.

    •  That law is just one of many to ensure that the (7+ / 0-)

      masses can't amass.

      We have a system now where all public venues of getting our voice heard are blocked.

      Our so-called representatives don't pass the laws that we want. They pass the laws which their money-men want.

      The whole point to this movement is that system is corrupted. We're purposefully challenging it.

      Our constitution says we have a right to assemble. It doesn't say, "in small groups" or "only when the powers that be give you permission to."

      The founders put the right to freely assemble for the express purpose of making it legal for the citizens to amass when they are disgruntled with their government. This is not something that those in power get to control. We reject that premise.

      Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

      by UnaSpenser on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 07:20:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, laws do restrict and limit protests (0+ / 0-)

        And courts have ruled that for the overall benefit of the populace, laws can do that!

        All public venues aren't blocked - you're not telling the truth.

        And this has nothing to do with politicians being manipulated and influenced by those with money.

        And you're wrong about what the Constitution says. The courts, not you, interpret what the Constitution says, and generations of those wise men have said that there are reasonable limits that can be placed upon that assembly.

        They've determined that the Constitution DOES actually say that!

        You don't get to "reject that premise". The courts get to interpret our laws and our Constitution. Your freedom to protest isn't unlimited, and shouldn't be unlimited.

        •  Dolly, the Supreme Court can err (example: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          Dred Scott) and it is only pushback by citizens that can get errors corrected.

          Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

          by Wee Mama on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:17:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, the Supreme Court can't error in that way (0+ / 0-)

            There have been countless decisions over 200+ years that have limited freedom of assembly.

            Here's a link to just a few of them.

            Liberty and freedom for individuals in our nation ends when one starts impigning on the freedoms and liberty of another individual. That's why you can't legitimately and without sanction yell FIRE in a crowded theater, and that's why you can't protest whenever, wherever and however you want to protest!

            The courts aren't wrong about this!

            The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "laws regulating the time, place or manner of speech stand on a different footing than laws prohibiting speech altogether." First Amendment jurisprudence provides that time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutional if (1) they are content neutral (i.e., they do not treat speech differently based on content); (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve a governmental interest; and (3) they leave open ample alternative means of expression.

            They've repeatedly used the same criteria to rule here. It's set and settled law with tons of precedence and no overturning of the general principle.

            The right to assemble is not an absolute right. There are some restrictions on this right as there are with other rights. The right to assemble is not as strongly protected by the government as other rights, such as the freedom of speech. This is because groups that assemble often do so, not with just speech, but with some type of conduct, such as picketing, protesting, marching or gathering in a park, which may disrupt the peace.

            The courts have ruled that, while it is the responsibility of the government to protect the people's right to assemble, it is also the government's responsibility to keep the peace. Because of this, the courts have allowed governments to make reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of these assemblies. The government may place restrictions on the right to assemble that will maintain law and order, facilitate traffic, protect private property and reduce noise congestion.

            The courts allow these restrictions, as long as the restrictions are not aimed at squelching a particular group's free speech because it is unpopular or not liked. Reasonable restrictions would include such things as requiring permits to hold a large public gathering in a park or to hold a parade downtown, making local curfews for teenagers or preventing protesters from holding up traffic.

            There's no error here with respect to the limitations on the right to have freedom to assemble that allow reasonable limitations. One of those limitations is the demand that agreement be reached with the municipality about any long-term encampment, since it's so disruptive.

            •  Dolly, I didn't say the SC was in error in this (0+ / 0-)

              specific case, only that the SC can indeed be mistaken and that after a time its errors can be corrected.

              While I agree the government has responsibility to maintain the peace it seems clear to me that the convenience of pushing demonstrations as far as possible from the center of action has much too often led to an effective suppression of the right of assembly. Bush's "free speech zones" were an obscenity.

              Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

              by Wee Mama on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 12:07:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  The Law is an ass (8+ / 0-)
      “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

      ~ CHARLES DICKENS
      Oliver Twist

      It's not how many votes are cast, but counted.

      by ozsea1 on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:15:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Time to change the Rules.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      UnaSpenser

      "Will it go round in circles?

      Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky? ...

      ...We got a song that ain't got no melody."

      Join us.

      • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." -Thomas Paine
      • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King

      by Tommymac on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 09:19:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site