Skip to main content

View Diary: Actually read the documents released by the FBI about OWS (319 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  tresspassing for one (10+ / 0-)

    That was the whole idea behind Occupy - it was predicated on occupying spaces that did not belong to the occupiers.

    Civil disobedience, whether peaceful or not, is all about disobeying laws that are considered wrong or misguided.

    47 is the new 51!

    by nickrud on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:40:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Parks (6+ / 0-)

      public parks, or as Zuccotti was a "Privately owned public space (POPS)" -- that's not trespassing.  

      Sleeping in public spaces is also not trespassing in NYC.


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:45:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  in a lot of other places it was (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emelyn, Shuruq

        Preventing the use of public spaces by others - which it did, you cannot dispute that - is not legal. There's a fine line there but it does exist.

        47 is the new 51!

        by nickrud on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:53:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are limits on what people can do (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pdx kirk, Shuruq, indubitably

        with public spaces.

        Suppose, hypothetically, that a newspaper were to put up its offices or printing presses on public land. Even though newspapers are protected by the First Amendment, and even though the land is public (and so available for anyone to use), I think we'd all agree that the newspaper had no right to claim that use of the land for itself.

        Occupy's use of public lands is obviously different -- but how different? While putting up tents isn't as permanent a change to the land's use as putting up a printing press, it's still a significant claim on the use of that public land. I am not a lawyer, but I think a good case could be made that putting up tents is not a protected activity under the First Amendment.

        To be really clear, I did not want Occupy to be evicted, but I did expect the evictions.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:46:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  alright--let's leave the tent cities aside. We (9+ / 0-)

          all know how they've dealt with tent cities in this country--because that's not new with OWS.  At least they didn't BURN them out this time--just some plain old crash, bash and destroy.

          What about just walking peacefully down the street, or protesting outside a building, walking across a bridge, sitting down across a campus road...ALL THOSE THINGS apparently merited riot police intervention, eh?

          If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

          by livjack on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:15:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not what I was saying. (7+ / 0-)

            If you're looking for someone who's arguing that appropriate force was used against Occupy, you're looking at the wrong guy. I have huge issues with the way that the law was enforced, just as everyone else here does. There was no merit or justice in the use of riot gear, pepper spray, tear gas, etc. Those were criminal acts of a greater degree than anything associated with OWS.

            However, I think you know as well as I do that some of Occupy's activities were illegal. You can't take over a heavily-trafficked thoroughfare, at least not without a permit. You can't stage a sit-in that blocks access to a building without the permission of the building owner. I'm sure you know this. The First Amendment does not grant the right to break the law.

            But the law's response should have been much different.

            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

            by Nowhere Man on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:28:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  OWS was/is avowedly peaceful; teahadists (6+ / 0-)

      are full of blather about armed revolt.

      Go figure.

      The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

      by magnetics on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:32:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site