Constitutional right to tents and sleeping bags

[Chuck Bao]

How can you have constitutional rights to free speech and assembly without sleeping bags and tents? Surely all those gun-lovin' hunters out there know that.

[ouflak]

Yes we have constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these rights are expected to exercised within reason. That means our most cherished rights; right to bear arms, right to free speech, and yes, even the right to peaceably assemble, must have some reasonable limits so that our society can function. You can't stand up and falsely yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. You can't own a 50 caliber fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1968. You can't peaceably assemble on public property or someone else's private property indefinitely. At some point, we, as a society, with respect to our constitutional rights, must draw a line. There is a such thing as too much of even a good thing, even a constitutional right.

[Okla-homey]

Actually, you can own fully functional automatic weapons. Even a .50 caliber M-2 MG. You just have to have enough money to buy one, pay the taxes, and pay for the associated license.

[olevetonahill]

Actually, you can own fully functional automatic weapons. Even a .50 caliber M-2 MG. You just have to have enough money to buy one, pay the taxes, and pay for the associated license.

Yup , Ya beat me to it Homey

[olevetonahill]

Haven't kept up with why this **** is even going on. Dont know, Dont ****in care

Now with that said , I got NO problem with em Protesting . What I would have a Prob with is them Camping out like that, and expecting the Taxpayers to clean up their mess after em
Now if they wanta Post a cleaning Bond, Install Porta terlets and showers and that kinda ****. then Go for it .
Just dont make a big mess and expect some one else to clean up after ya

[Chuck Bao]

I don't know. Should the disenfranchised be allowed to protest only if they are clean, neat and don't bother anyone? A bar of soap requirement is a pretty slippery slope.

If a mod would like to move this thread over to the other forum, I'd be cool with it.

[olevetonahill]

I don't know. Should the disenfranchised be allowed to protest only if they are clean, neat and don't bother anyone? A bar of soap requirement is a pretty slippery slope.

If a mod would like to move this thread over to the other forum, I'd be cool with it.

Why the need to camp out?there. I dont see it. Course I never saw the need to gather in a pack and bitch an moan either .

[KABOOKIE]

Mods please move this crap of a post to the Oblummerfest board. TIA.

[C&CDean]

You ain't the boss of me.

[olevetonahill]

This is about Peoples rights Not Politics

[badger]

I watched the Occupy lawyer try to tell a judge why they had the right to be there and sleep there and it was kind of funny seeing the occupiers' reactions in the courtroom. A LOT of head nodding :)

The fact that a judge said no greatly hampers their ability to stay overnight now. It might turn into the Tulsa situation, where they're not allowed there after a certain time. I heard the neighbors were starting to get sick of them :)

[hawaii 5-0]

I've mixed feelings about tent cities. They're a public health hazard.

I've seen pictures of Hooverville, which sprung up in DC after WW 1 where Vets returning home from Europe were homeless, jobless and built a shelter city.


5-0

[Trophy Husband]

This is about Peoples rights Not Politics

It's private property they have no "right" to assemble on someone else property.

[pphilfran]

It's private property they have no "right" to assemble on someone else property.

Somehow that always seems to get lost in all the clutter...

[Trophy Husband]

Somehow that always seems to get lost in all the clutter...

we can not let facts get in the way.

[ouflak]

Wow. I didn't think I would ever have a post in this forum. Anyway, I stand by my statement on the legality of owning a fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1968.

Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968)

[badger]

It's private property they have no "right" to assemble on someone else property.

If you're referring to the park in NYC, it's privately owned, but in an agreement with the city, it must be open 24 hours for public use. It's an oxymoron, as the NY Times called it, but accurate: A privately-owned public space park.

More info here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html)

The sticking point is whether sleeping overnight in tents and sleeping bags is considered a "passive activity," which is what is allowed at the private-but-public park 24 hours per day. The Occupy group says it is, the judge yesterday disagreed. Police searched park entrants after it reopened yesterday to ensure that there were no tents or sleeping bags.

[pphilfran]

Yes, but the company that owns the land has not been able to do the necessary upkeep...

On Oct 11, Brookfield, the owner, sent the NYPD a letter asking for help clearing the area so they can do their nightly upkeep...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/99069159/Brookfields-Letter-to-NYPD-asking-to-clear-Zuccotti-Park-of-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters

[OU_Sooners75]

If the occupiers spent this much energy in finding work, they would be happy campers...not grumpy ones.


Also, if they are protesting about lack of jobs...why hasnt one took it upon themselves to start a trash and **** removal company amongest the campgrounds?

Hell, truth is 99% of those occupiers are spoiled ****ing brats that have had mommy and daddy pay for everything their entire lives and now they want the Government and Wall Street to give them an easy path.

Earn it you lazy ****ers! I am searching for employment...but at the same time enhancing some skills for the jobs that are out there. Stop being ****ing lazy and earn your right to work and earn the money you want to make!

[badger]

Yes, but the company that owns the land has not been able to do the necessary upkeep...

On Oct 11, Brookfield, the owner, sent the NYPD a letter asking for help clearing the area so they can do their nightly upkeep...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/99069159/Brookfields-Letter-to-NYPD-asking-to-clear-Zuccotti-Park-of-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters

Yeah, but that fact that they've never enforced park rules before hurts em... as does the fact that they don't want to look like the bad guys in this very public battle when, like other developers, all they wanted to do was give a park gift to the city to be able to get a building permit (that's apparently how New York works --- give a park, get a permit)

[pphilfran]

I bet there has not been any large groups in the past that were allowed to camp for months at a time...

They are stepping on the toes of those that have used the park in the past but are unable to use the park today...

[Trophy Husband]

they're a bunch of bums using this as an excuse to further avoid having to seek employment.

[Midtowner]

I bet there has not been any large groups in the past that were allowed to camp for months at a time...

They are stepping on the toes of those that have used the park in the past but are unable to use the park today...

To be successful, a protest has to occupy a visible location. The camping part is new. It's never really been tried before. I think there's enough to litigate over for sure. If I had to guess, the city's need to protect health, safety and welfare of its citizens, not to mention, to maintain the cleanliness of public spaces conflicts with the speech.

The park itself probably counts as a public forum, and the government's position is a time/place/manner type of restriction in that the protesters can't stay there indefinitely, and can't camp.

I'm really at a loss to see how this would be resolved by the courts. Clearly, there's enough money behind OWS to take this issue all the way to the SCOTUS, which has been very much in favor of expansive First Amendment rights.

[pphilfran]

To be successful, a protest has to occupy a visible location. The camping part is new. It's never really been tried before. I think there's enough to litigate over for sure. If I had to guess, the city's need to protect health, safety and welfare of its citizens, not to mention, to maintain the cleanliness of public spaces conflicts with the speech.

The park itself probably counts as a public forum, and the government's position is a time/place/manner type of restriction in that the protesters can't stay there indefinitely, and can't camp.

I'm really at a loss to see how this would be resolved by the courts. Clearly, there's enough money behind OWS to take this issue all the way to the SCOTUS, which has been very much in favor of expansive First Amendment rights.

Good thoughts....thanks....

[badger]

To be successful, a protest has to occupy a visible location.

A visible time, too. That's why I wonder if the act of camping overnight will be viewed as not really related to the protest in court.

They're not gonna be chanting or playing up the cameras at 2 a.m. (and if they did, the city might have other beefs with them for not letting their neighbors sleep!).

This just doesn't seem fighting over. You have 24/7 access to the park still, you can still protest, you can still play up the cameras, you can still do everything you used to... you just can't tent and sleep there. It seems that NYC is being more than fair.

[Trophy Husband]

I'm really at a loss to see how this would be resolved by the courts.

Oh my gosh, a liberal who has finally found an issue he doesn't think can be decided by the courts.

[Midtowner]

A visible time, too. That's why I wonder if the act of camping overnight will be viewed as not really related to the protest in court.

The fact that they're staying overnight definitely makes these protests more of a spectacle than, say, the nonsense which happens in free-speech zones in San Francisco. I don't think it's really even disputable that the physical occupation of the park, along with the tents has given this protest more notoriety.


This just doesn't seem fighting over. You have 24/7 access to the park still, you can still protest, you can still play up the cameras, you can still do everything you used to... you just can't tent and sleep there. It seems that NYC is being more than fair.

We'll see. How worth it this is to fight over will be decided by the parties involved, not by message board speculators; if it goes that far, whether NYC is being fair will be an issue for a judge or judges or justices to decide.

[Midtowner]

Oh my gosh, a liberal who has finally found an issue he doesn't think can be decided by the courts.

1) I'm not a liberal.

2) I do think this can be resolved by the courts, everything can be resolved by the courts, otherwise, violence and who has the biggest/most guns decides right vs. wrong. I just can't off-hand think of any case law which is very helpful in this situation, or at least anything which gets us to a precise answer where both the rights of the protesters and the duties of the city are both accounted for.

[Trophy Husband]

I do think this can be resolved by the courts,


I'm really at a loss to see how this would be resolved by the courts.

Well, which is it?

[Trophy Husband]

everything can be resolved by the courts

I was before it before I was against it kind of thing???


I'm really at a loss to see how this would be resolved by the courts.

[NormanPride]

I don't know. Should the disenfranchised be allowed to protest only if they are clean, neat and don't bother anyone? A bar of soap requirement is a pretty slippery slope.

If a mod would like to move this thread over to the other forum, I'd be cool with it.

i c wat u did thar

[Midtowner]

Well, which is it?

It's both. I don't know how the courts are going to come out on this one, but I think they can resolve it.

[badger]

We'll see. How worth it this is to fight over will be decided by the parties involved, not by message board speculators; if it goes that far, whether NYC is being fair will be an issue for a judge or judges or justices to decide.

Now now, if that "we don't decide so we shouldn't debate" reasoning had any merit, I could have gotten out of Lincoln-Douglass debating in Senior English class. Man, debating used to be of the most unconvincing, SH!TTY format known. :mad:

I recall trying to use such reasoning for a stupid debate topic, saying that we should at least get to debate something we might have some relative impact on whatsoever after tons of research... to no avail. Gawd, Lincoln-Douglass debating sucked :mad:

[diverdog]

Actually, you can own fully functional automatic weapons. Even a .50 caliber M-2 MG. You just have to have enough money to buy one, pay the taxes, and pay for the associated license.

Pffft, thats cheap compared to the cost of ammo. One burst is like burning a hundred dollars or more.

[Midtowner]

Now now, if that "we don't decide so we shouldn't debate" reasoning had any merit, I could have gotten out of Lincoln-Douglass debating in Senior English class. Man, debating used to be of the most unconvincing, SH!TTY format known. :mad:

I recall trying to use such reasoning for a stupid debate topic, saying that we should at least get to debate something we might have some relative impact on whatsoever after tons of research... to no avail. Gawd, Lincoln-Douglass debating sucked :mad:

All I'm saying is that I can get so far as framing the issues. From there, I think the courts are going to do their thing. I'll withhold judgment 'til I know what that is.

[Sooner5030]

meh......camping and tents =/= speech or assembly.

camping/tents = habitation.

habitation on public property =/= right

/not a JD

[soonercruiser]

I don't know. Should the disenfranchised be allowed to protest only if they are clean, neat and don't bother anyone? A bar of soap requirement is a pretty slippery slope.

If a mod would like to move this thread over to the other forum, I'd be cool with it.

Yah! The next thing you know, they will have to have toilet paper, rather than wiping their butts on the cop car tires.
(Now THAT..... is a slippery slope!)

[soonercruiser]

To be successful, a protest has to occupy a visible location. The camping part is new. It's never really been tried before. I think there's enough to litigate over for sure. If I had to guess, the city's need to protect health, safety and welfare of its citizens, not to mention, to maintain the cleanliness of public spaces conflicts with the speech.

The park itself probably counts as a public forum, and the government's position is a time/place/manner type of restriction in that the protesters can't stay there indefinitely, and can't camp.

I'm really at a loss to see how this would be resolved by the courts. Clearly, there's enough money behind OWS to take this issue all the way to the SCOTUS, which has been very much in favor of expansive First Amendment rights.

There's got to be an disgruntled, unemployed lawyer in the crowd that could stand a part-time job on that issue!
(sarcasm emoticon, please....)

[OU_Sooners75]

Well, which is it?

Not to bright are you?

You just quoted two very different statements that are not contradictory at all!

[soonercruiser]

Not to bright are you?

You just quoted two very different statements that are not contradictory at all!

"To" bright; or not "too" bright. That is the question.
:shame:

[Chuck Bao]

It almost seems that some of you are saying that a person can’t join a political protest unless he/she has a job/money/hotel room.

Originally, this thread wasn’t supposed to be only about Occupy Wall Street, but a growing trend worldwide of groups making political statements by occupying high profile public spaces.

Last year, the Red Shirts (read poor provincial farmers) in Thailand camped out in the heart of commercial Bangkok. They claim that they had no recourse except to occupy a highly visible site after an army putsch dislodged a democratically elected government and the army arm twisted politicians to get the government the military brass wanted.

Then, I watched in horror, along with the rest of the world, as the Thai army came crashing through the street barricades set up by Red Shirts, buildings were set on fire and snipers on roof tops picked off people seeking sanctuary inside Buddhist temple grounds. The Red Shirts eventually got what they wanted – a representative government – but it came at a huge price.

We’ve seen some different variations of that in the Middle East and Europe and to greater and far less success, but the “occupy” strategy seems to be upping the ante on the “price”.

Is the US the beacon for democracy for the rest of the world, or not? Are we the world’s policeman without a moral high ground to stand on? Can we arrest and physically dislodge protesters here and then condemn other countries that do the same?

I don’t know the answers to any of these questions.

I think giving people a chance to camp out and vent and express their outrage however trivial seems like not a bad option. It is not like New York City has never experienced traffic, media attention, crazies, homeless and people ****ting on the streets before.

[Chuck Bao]

Concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement, some of you are under the impression that they are just a bunch of lazy ***, whiney bitches looking for a handout. You may be right.

But, I have to agree with some of their points. This is the best article that I have read that far better explains my view than I could have ever have written myself. And, I have worked for several big bank/broker/Wall Street conglomerations. Obviously, the risk profiles of banks and investment banks are very different and, in my experience, the management could not easily achieve a balance between risk and bottom line.

I have highlighted the suggestions made by the writer, Thomas Friedman. I would be very happy to see others take up these points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html?_r=1


Did You Hear the One About the Bankers?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 29, 2011

CITIGROUP is lucky that Muammar el-Qaddafi was killed when he was. The Libyan leader’s death diverted attention from a lethal article involving Citigroup that deserved more attention because it helps to explain why many average Americans have expressed support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. The news was that Citigroup had to pay a $285 million fine to settle a case in which, with one hand, Citibank sold a package of toxic mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting customers — securities that it knew were likely to go bust — and, with the other hand, shorted the same securities — that is, bet millions of dollars that they would go bust.

It doesn’t get any more immoral than this. As the Securities and Exchange Commission civil complaint noted, in 2007, Citigroup exercised “significant influence” over choosing $500 million of the $1 billion worth of assets in the deal, and the global bank deliberately chose collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s, built from mortgage loans almost sure to fail. According to The Wall Street Journal, the S.E.C. complaint quoted one unnamed C.D.O. trader outside Citigroup as describing the portfolio as resembling something your dog leaves on your neighbor’s lawn. “The deal became largely worthless within months of its creation,” The Journal added. “As a result, about 15 hedge funds, investment managers and other firms that invested in the deal lost hundreds of millions of dollars, while Citigroup made $160 million in fees and trading profits.”

Citigroup, which is under new and better management now, settled the case without admitting or denying any wrongdoing. James Stewart, a business columnist for The Times, noted that Citigroup’s flimflam made “Goldman Sachs mortgage traders look like Boy Scouts. In settling its fraud charges for $550 million last year, Goldman was accused by the S.E.C. of being the middleman in a similar deal, allowing the hedge fund manager John Paulson to help choose the mortgages and then bet against them without disclosing this to the other parties. Citigroup dispensed with a Paulson figure altogether, grabbing those lucrative roles for itself.” (Last Thursday, the U.S. District Court judge overseeing the case demanded that the S.E.C. explain how such serious securities fraud could end with the defendant neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing.)

This gets to the core of why all the anti-Wall Street groups around the globe are resonating. I was in Tahrir Square in Cairo for the fall of Hosni Mubarak, and one of the most striking things to me about that demonstration was how apolitical it was. When I talked to Egyptians, it was clear that what animated their protest, first and foremost, was not a quest for democracy — although that was surely a huge factor. It was a quest for “justice.” Many Egyptians were convinced that they lived in a deeply unjust society where the game had been rigged by the Mubarak family and its crony capitalists. Egypt shows what happens when a country adopts free-market capitalism without developing real rule of law and institutions.

But, then, what happened to us? Our financial industry has grown so large and rich it has corrupted our real institutions through political donations. As Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, bluntly said in a 2009 radio interview, despite having caused this crisis, these same financial firms “are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they, frankly, own the place.”

Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery. One consumer group using information from Opensecrets.org calculates that the financial services industry, including real estate, spent $2.3 billion on federal campaign contributions from 1990 to 2010, which was more than the health care, energy, defense, agriculture and transportation industries combined. Why are there 61 members on the House Committee on Financial Services? So many congressmen want to be in a position to sell votes to Wall Street.

We can’t afford this any longer. We need to focus on four reforms that don’t require new bureaucracies to implement. 1) If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and needs to be broken up. We can’t risk another trillion-dollar bailout. 2) If your bank’s deposits are federally insured by U.S. taxpayers, you can’t do any proprietary trading with those deposits — period. 3) Derivatives have to be traded on transparent exchanges where we can see if another A.I.G. is building up enormous risk. 4) Finally, an idea from the blogosphere: U.S. congressmen should have to dress like Nascar drivers and wear the logos of all the banks, investment banks, insurance companies and real estate firms that they’re taking money from. The public needs to know.

Capitalism and free markets are the best engines for generating growth and relieving poverty — provided they are balanced with meaningful transparency, regulation and oversight. We lost that balance in the last decade. If we don’t get it back — and there is now a tidal wave of money resisting that — we will have another crisis. And, if that happens, the cry for justice could turn ugly. Free advice to the financial services industry: Stick to being bulls. Stop being pigs.

[AlboSooner]

Yes we have constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these rights are expected to exercised within reason. That means our most cherished rights; right to bear arms, right to free speech, and yes, even the right to peaceably assemble, must have some reasonable limits so that our society can function. You can't stand up and falsely yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. You can't own a 50 caliber fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1968. You can't peaceably assemble on public property or someone else's private property indefinitely. At some point, we, as a society, with respect to our constitutional rights, must draw a line. There is a such thing as too much of even a good thing, even a constitutional right.

The point is, what's reasonable for you in not reasonable for someone else. Look, we all find reasons for the causes we like and support. I don't agree with the line your draw, and you don't agree with the line I draw.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I don't live there so I don't really care. If I lived there and were accustomed to using the park for recreation, I might be annoyed. Do other citizens have a RIGHT to use the public park without weaving through tents and dodging smelly people?

[C&CDean]

Alright already. Give em' tents and fart sacks. Just no gay secks in them, ok?

[Chuck Bao]

Alright already. Give em' tents and fart sacks. Just no gay secks in them, ok?

Where's the fun in that?

Fine. I will pitch my tent in another public park.