first amendment question

[Proserpina]

This response tells me that you have no interest in effecting REAL change....so I am done with helping you. You seriously believe that the police that the police sent mentally ill people or recently released criminals to your camps? That is not only irrational but foolish.

If you want to effect REAL change then maybe the rest of the country would begin to take you seriously. However, keep up with those kinds of arguments and you will continue to be nothing more than marginal.

I'm sensing a tin-foil hat situation, LdiJ.

 

[occupyideas]

Strange

With whom to you people assume you're speaking. We're "against civil rights attorneys?" That makes no sense. Most civil rights attorneys support the occupy cause. Nor did we say we're against voting. We came to this site because we thought we might chance upon people who would assist us in this case law search, not for a debate over occupy with people who have not done their due diligence researching the movement.
That said, we cannot let pass your assertion that our claims (re police releases) are unfounded. So far this has only been covered by Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC, but it has been covered, and it is currently being investigated. It's certainly not outlandish in the least.
Again, however, please, let's dispense with the occupy arguments and move to suggestions that might help us locate legal decisions - and thank you btw to those of you who have done this.

 

[Proserpina]

With whom to you people assume you're speaking. We're "against civil rights attorneys?" That makes no sense. Most civil rights attorneys support the occupy cause. Nor did we say we're against voting. We came to this site because we thought we might chance upon people who would assist us in this case law search, not for a debate over occupy with people who have not done their due diligence researching the movement.
That said, we cannot let pass your assertion that our claims (re police releases) are unfounded. So far this has only been covered by Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC, but it has been covered, and it is currently being investigated. It's certainly not outlandish in the least.
Again, however, please, let's dispense with the occupy arguments and move to suggestions that might help us locate legal decisions - and thank you btw to those of you who have done this.

Law schools.
Law libraries.
Lawyers.

Another three - right off the bat.

"We" are not going to do this for you.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Again, however, please, let's dispense with the occupy arguments and move to suggestions that might help us locate legal decisions - and thank you btw to those of you who have done this.

Your question as posed is too broad. Your right to free speech does not supersede ALL other rights, but it does supersede SOME rights.

Which rights, specifically, do you feel free speech should supersede?

 

[justalayman]

City ordinances requiring permits, or restricting protesters to certain spaces, are not necessarily constitutional, and we're sure courts have said as much in the past.

You really believe that? Got some case law to support your statement?

 

[cbg]

JAL, JAL, that's exactly what he wants us to find for him...

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Is there legal precendent to support the claim that our right to protest does in fact supercede other rights? or is weighted more heavily in the eyes of the law? We know that free speech is malleable: we cannot "yell fire in a crowded theater" because in that instance our free speech is outweighed by other concerns. But haven't courts also determined in certain cases that our right to petition the govt for grievances outweighs other concerns?

Occupy Boston managed to get a temporary restraining order issued. You may want to read up on their pleadings: http://aclum.org/occupy_legal

 

[cyjeff]

Ah, the sweet smell of irony....

The Occupiers are finally figuring out that protesting actually has to have an effect on the people you are trying to influence. When drum circles, cutthroat hacky sack games and camping in a city park didn't influence rich people into throwing buckets of money into the park, you are now trying to figure out how much longer you can stay in the hopes that the third or fourth month will suffice better than the time already served.

Release criminals and psych patients into the crowd? Yeah, that's garbage. Post a list of names of released folks and the names of the police departments and individuals that brought them to the protest.

Otherwise, when you decide to have a protest where people live in a tent for months on end, you aren't going to get people that work for a living or have a life to keep up with.

Allow me to wrap this up this way... your right to protest doesn't mean that anyone has to care you are protesting... and you don't have the right to demand to continue your protest until someone cares.

Your protest has had zero influence on anyone you need to influence to realize a change... no legislators back you (even if they agree with planks of your convoluted platform, no lawmakers attach themselves to a bunch of nutbags), no rich people have seen the light and decided to be poor, and the only people you are hurting are the poor people in the local areas you are protesting in because you are burning tax dollars that could be spend aiding the less fortunate.

So far, the Occupyers have accomplished nothing except the destruction of public green spaces. How marvelous.

 

[cyjeff]

Again, however, please, let's dispense with the occupy arguments and move to suggestions that might help us locate legal decisions - and thank you btw to those of you who have done this.

Oh goody... another example of the Occupyers mindset.... the only ones allowed to utilize free speech are the Occupyers because only their hearts are pure.....everyone else should keep their opinions to themselves because the Occupyers don't want to hear them.

Occupyers that are living in tents in public green spaces so that THEIR voices can be heard are telling other people to shut up.

That smell of irony is starting to get chokingly strong.

 

[tranquility]

There is not a hierarchy of rights. In almost all cases, the court will apply a balancing test if all options seem to address compelling government interests with a narrowly-tailored method with the least restrictive means for violations of civil rights.

As to the freedom of speech theory of it being important, I can call most any choice I make is "speech". I choose to not pay my taxes because I oppose the government. I put a laser show pointing up to the sky in the glidepath of the local airport to show how much I love live. Whatever. Time, place and manner restrictions are repeatedly allowed, and there is no case which says what you want.

Why?

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[JennK2009]

This response tells me that you have no interest in effecting REAL change....so I am done with helping you. You seriously believe that the police that the police sent mentally ill people or recently released criminals to your camps? That is not only irrational but foolish.

If you want to effect REAL change then maybe the rest of the country would begin to take you seriously. However, keep up with those kinds of arguments and you will continue to be nothing more than marginal.

Governor Walker made the comment that he had considered putting "troublemakers" into the peaceful assembly this past February. It is a REAL concern. How dare the peasants revolt! Also, to the smarty that said we don't have legislatures backing us:

Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics | ThinkProgress

OCCUPY!

 

[Silverplum]

Oh goody... another example of the Occupyers mindset.... the only ones allowed to utilize free speech are the Occupyers because only their hearts are pure.....everyone else should keep their opinions to themselves because the Occupyers don't want to hear them.

Occupyers that are living in tents in public green spaces so that THEIR voices can be heard are telling other people to shut up.

That smell of irony is starting to get chokingly strong.

Another example of the "occupy" mindset: they see no irony or incongruity in getting on the internet (who invented laptops, and did all the profits go to the "poor" instead of the inventors and investors, producers and sellers? which internet cafe or parents' home is providing the internet service?) and repeatedly requesting that we do their homework FOR them.



Poster, who ARE we the respondents? Do we automatically ascribe to your "movement" and want to help you? What do WE all do for a living? Hint: I can assure you we are not all attorneys.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Governor Walker made the comment that he had considered putting "troublemakers" into the peaceful assembly this past February.

Aren't troublemakers part of your 99 percent?

 

[tranquility]

I'm part of the 50% of the 99% and 7% of the 45%.

34.456%ers UNITE!

 

[JennK2009]

Aren't troublemakers part of your 99 percent?

No, they are not. Especially if they are planted. In Wisconsin, we had very peaceful assemblies while rallying against the Koch puppet, Walker. Thank goodness those union thugs alerted us to his agenda for the "Budget Repair Bill". Because when we looked closer, we found out it was the tip of the iceberg.

Of course civil disobedience creeps into these kinds of groups, but hey, at least we got people to PAY ATTENTION. Part of organizing IS agitating people enough to do something about it (vote, write your elected officials, educate others, etc.) Nobody wants to hear someone just complain. People need to act.

I don't begrudge companies earning profits, but cooperate greed has really gotten out of control. The laws have enabled this to the detriment of the majority of society. They have to money to put up the ads to mislead the people - the lazy ones that don't check their facts. ("It was on tv, so it must be true") Walker's new ads are a joke. The 99% don't have access to that kind of cash. So, we must spread the word, person to person. We have been complacent for too long and we need to pay attention to ensure it doesn't get any worse.

Corporations are not people until Texas executes one.