Skip to main content

View Diary: Occupy Wall Street Wins LawSuit Against City of New York & Brookfield Properties - A Win is a Win (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  IANAL and you are, but... (6+ / 0-)

    there are other perspectives other than the law. Changing society involves first changing the discussion. OWS has done that.

    I also suspect that in a legal sense as more cases are decided there will be a growing body of law that applies directly and favorably to OWS.

    Solidarity.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:14:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You'd have to get the Supreme Court to change (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, charliehall2, erush1345, VClib

      long-standing First Amendment law.  That link I cited to was a Supreme Court decision holding that people did not have the right to camp out in the National Mall as a protest, when there were content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions in place against camping in the National Mall and they were violating those.  

      The notion that the government cannot restrict what you say, but CAN restrict where, when and how you say it (they can say you can't use a bullhorn at 3 a.m. in a neighborhood, they can say you can't block streets), as long as they treat all content the same, is a long-standing principle.  If there's a city ordinance against camping in a public park, and its a reasonable ordinance, and you have alternative avenues for protesting (you can get a permit, or you can protest during the day), and the ordinance treats all "speech" the same, government can enforce those kinds of rules.  If it couldn't, we'd have chaos, with groups like the Westboro Baptist Church blocking streets all over the place any time they wanted to.  

      Occupy is entitled to get its message out.  They do not have the right to do it in ways that violate the rights of others to have reasonable use and access to those public areas, or to be able to go about their own lives without disruption, as expressed in those kinds of time, place, and manner ordinances and laws.  

      •  No argument on that point (4+ / 0-)

        That isn't the discussion I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of social justice and what kind of a society we want to live in.

        Speaking only for myself, I don't want to live in serfdom and we have a choice whether the 1% agrees or not but it's going to take a lot of work.

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:30:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a completely different question (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          charliehall2, erush1345, nextstep, VClib

          Occupy originally was about this:

          Speaking only for myself, I don't want to live in serfdom and we have a choice whether the 1% agrees or not but it's going to take a lot of work.
          But over time, it became more about whether a group of people has the right to take over a public space and camp out there indefinitely, making it essentially unusable by the rest of the public for any purpose other than being a part of that group (and when you have a lot of people living outdoors in a relatively small space for an extended period of time, for most people, that space becomes unusable at all, as the people downwind of some long-time occupy sites could probably tell you).  Most people do not want that to happen.  

          If Occupy wants to have an influence over the public at large, it needs to be more about economic issues and less about some supposed right to take over public parks in the middle of cities and use them as campgrounds.

          •  In Madison WI, occupying-space (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            isabelle hayes, markthshark, Just Bob

            has become a a focal point in a transformative way, for and by the homeless -- people who are denied the very basics of space to occupy.

            Excellent journalism here in The Isthmus:

            A place called OCCUPY MADISON: How a homeless community turned into a political force

            The current Madison Occupy-ers are (for the most part) not the ones who first resonated with the encampment at Zucotti Park -- but encampment has different resonances when you have nowhere else to go, and the homeless Occupy group of Madison continues to exert positive pressure on the powers-that-be.

            Sometimes, economic issues and occupying-space issues are one and the same.

            If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

            by AnnieJo on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 10:12:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  NYC has such an ordinance (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, markthshark

        almost all public parks in NYC are closed during the early morning hours. We also have a noise ordinance.

    •  That's what I think too... (4+ / 0-)

      One magnanimous, civil-minded judge could spark a turnaround in fortune.

      I also suspect that in a legal sense as more cases are decided there will be a growing body of law that applies directly and favorably to OWS.

      "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

      by markthshark on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:40:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? What would that law say? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bill W, erush1345, VClib

        Would it invalidate the notion of content-neutral, time place and manner restrictions, and hold that my Free Speech right means I can speak anywhere, any time, and in any manner I want even if it deprives others of their rights and causes disruptions in the lives of others who don't want to be a part of my speech?

        •  I know this much... (5+ / 0-)

          There are some anti-abortion militants out there that would LOVE to see such a change take place.

        •  No. It isn't that. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          markthshark, JesseCW, shaharazade

          There will not be one law. There will be a body of law concerning trumped up charges, about changing the law during and/or after an enforcement action. It will be about excessive force and oppression. It will be about privacy violations. It will be about entrapment. It will be about failure to attend to injuries. It will be about treating a civil rights movement as terrorists. It will be about many things.

          Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

          by Just Bob on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 08:38:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bob - laws must be content neutral (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk

            So any law that benefits an OWS protestor would have to apply equally to any anti-abortion rights protestor.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 01:32:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just stop it (0+ / 0-)
              So any law that benefits an OWS protestor would have to apply equally to any anti-abortion rights protestor.
              When have you ever seen anti-abortion protesters dealt with in the same manner as OWS? Those who wish in inject abortion into this discussion have an ulterior motive...distract and side track.

              Anyone who wishes to stand with that crowd is free to do so. They will not be beaten. They will not be dealt with as terrorists (until they kill a doctor).

              As for me, I'll stand with OWS.

              Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

              by Just Bob on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 05:56:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "wish to inject" (0+ / 0-)

                Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

                by Just Bob on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:01:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  How about the Westboro Baptist Church? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk

                My only point is that the laws regarding protests have been well-litigated and there is a long line of Supreme Court cases on this topic. No group can hold a large rally without a permit and permits are constitutional as long as those who grant them apply the same standards to all groups and their decisions are content neutral. This was the primary difference between OWS encampments and Tea Party rallies. The Tea Party followed all the rules and obtained all the necessary permits. With a few exceptions OWS didn't obtain permits for their encampments, were breaking the law, and finally removed from public parks.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:33:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not talking about occupying Zuccotti Park... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Just Bob

          for extended periods of time. Or anywhere else for that matter.

          I'm talking about how protesters were treated, specifically, the protesters who weren't 'occupying' anything but the streets in general during protest marches.

          The general level of response to protest marches by law enforcement was disproportionate to say the least. Protesters' rights to assemble were violated, along with other civil rights.

          Just one good, civil-minded judge could change that and start a trend, in which other judges become more empathetic, and the authorities give more respect and deference to protesters.

          Long term occupations simply won't work anymore.

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 05:00:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site