- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,862
- Reaction score
- 30,126
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I don't get it? what does someone paying to camp at a park have to do with people assembling, did OWS forget to pay the poor tax on the use of the constitution?
On the contrary, there is the right to limit how long a person/group of people are allowed to use public land. It is a fairness issue.
It isn't is all about this thing called the right to assemble? There is no constitutional limit on this, unless your referring to the work around and call it a safety issue and kick everyone out. We could use the voucher system and handout a 1 lifetime voucher to everyone for 2 weeks of protesting then you will have to use your money to speak, because I was told money talks.
Where does it say that protests rights trump fairness? I'm pretty sure that is not a part of the Constitution. The right to protest is not the end all, be all right.
It can certainly clash with other people's rights, and if there is a viable alternative that still allows the protesters to protest, do so legally, and allow others a little fairness, then that is what should happen. And I have already suggested viable alternatives in other posts that the protesters could partake of besides usurping public land that is really not in connection to their purported protests.
It is up to the courts, ultimately, to decide, but they have upheld protests limitations in the past, at least to a point, so I really don't see them overturning time and other limitations on public access to parks just for protesters. It is possible, just not likely since many of those limitations are in place for good reasons.
I have no problem with people protesting whatever, for however long they want, but people do not have a right to usurp public property in order to make their protests more convenient for them. That is not a part of the right to protest. And that is what the camping is about. The camping is not an actual part of the protests.
Show me where in the Constitution that it talks about fairness when it comes to occupying public land. If you can't find it then the right to protest definetely trumps "fairness".
Show me where peacebly protesting can interfere with other peoples rights.
I would imagine that any limitations that SCOTUS has upheld were those involving violence and private property. I've never heard of them upholding a limit that restricts the amount of time a protest may last at a specific spot.
The camping is not a part of the protests. It is simply a convenience thing for them. It is to make their protests against the corporations/government/both more convenient.
Maybe the acronym is starting to loose what the protesters are doing, they are "occupying" wall street. which if they leave the protest would be essentially over, being that they would not no longer be an occupier and it will return to what it was before they occupied " Wall Street" and would continue to be just what they are protesting.
This is your opinion. OWS'ers that are there have stated that it is a part of thier protest.
I can shoot someone only to "send a message," the First Amendment does not protect me. I may have been expressing myself, but my actions broke the law and violated people's rights in a manner that has nothing to do with speech. Now, OWS is perfectly free to protest in the park and get their message out there. They do not have the right to squat on public land at taxpayer expense.
I can shoot someone only to "send a message," the First Amendment does not protect me. I may have been expressing myself, but my actions broke the law and violated people's rights in a manner that has nothing to do with speech. Now, OWS is perfectly free to protest in the park and get their message out there. They do not have the right to squat on public land at taxpayer expense.
Even it is, they are still violating reasonable city ordinances/laws by doing so. If they wish to fight those ordinances/laws, they should expect to do so in court, not on the streets with the police.
Is it reasonable to deny a protest by telling the people to go away? Is it reasonable to tell people to get off of private land that is open to the public and which the owners of that private land said that they could be there?
Just a note here but I have read that the park that the OWS protestors are using in Oakland is actually privately owned by BNY Mellon and his spokesmen has stated that they (BNY Mellon) is not blocking any access.
So....what right did the police have of forcing those that are camping there out?
Is it reasonable to deny a protest by telling the people to go away? Is it reasonable to tell people to get off of private land that is open to the public and which the owners of that private land said that they could be there?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?