Occupy Wall Street Eviction

Originally posted by King Kandy
Again, what right? Not just some speculative "I claim I have it, therefore I do" right.

I don't consider "I say this person says I have this right" to be any more substantial.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What rights that have actually been upheld in court to supersede the 1st amendment, have these movements violated? Furthermore, we are talking about the mayors banning free assembly. So to do so, obviously, they need to give an actual good reason. What is this good reason?

They didn't ban assembly, IIRC, they banned blocking streets and then they shut down the park in general, not for any particular use. I think your previous argument establishes that they don't have the right to block streets because they feel like it or take over the park because they want to. The First Amendment is not a shield, if I decide to protest the government by killing a man the murder part of it is still illegal. If you illegally shut down a street while protesting shutting down the street is still a crime.

As Bloomberg himself put it: Where is the constitutional right to camp in Zucotti Park? Where is the constitutional right to make the park unusable for others?

You can call that an excuse (and it obviously is) but the argument is legally sound.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you illegally shut down a street while protesting shutting down the street is still a crime.

that is the paradox of protest though

if you can't protest in any way that impacts others, the only type of protests then are, by definition, entirely ineffective

Ghandi and MLK both caused major disruptions in their society, though, I accept the fact that civil disobedience was a deliberate strategy of theirs as opposed to the OWS group that seems to want to remain a law abiding movement...

Originally posted by inimalist
that is the paradox of protest though

if you can't protest in any way that impacts others, the only type of protests then are, by definition, entirely ineffective

And presumably its the justification for parade permits being required for certain kinds of protests. Without them the government would have to completely forbid any disruptive protest since it has responsibilities toward its other citizens.

Originally posted by inimalist
Ghandi and MLK both caused major disruptions in their society, though, I accept the fact that civil disobedience was a deliberate strategy of theirs as opposed to the OWS group that seems to want to remain a law abiding movement...

I accept civil disobedience as a form of protest but people need to accept that that's what it is. This is why (for example) Gog from Kingdom Come is a character I like very much. He kills the Joker just like everybody has always argued needs to be done and then lets himself be arrested for murder. I'm not arguing that OPY should cooperate with the police, especially in such a blatant push to get rid of them, only that they shouldn't be in denial about what they're doing.

When you break the law for a good reason you're still breaking the law and if the law exists for a reason (ie people are using those streets, people have the right not to be exploded by a mystical staff) the police are not being "facists" or somesuch when they come to arrest you, however hilariously Orwellian their uniforms may be.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And presumably its the justification for parade permits being required for certain kinds of protests. Without them the government would have to completely forbid any disruptive protest since it has responsibilities toward its other citizens.

that I think requires a tricky calculus about which rights come before others

for instance, I don't think the right to get home from work without hitting traffic is more important than the right to peacefully assemble for protest, nor do I think someone that the need to enforce park curfews is more important.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I accept civil disobedience as a form of protest but people need to accept that that's what it is. This is why (for example) Gog from Kingdom Come is a character I like very much. He kills the Joker just like everybody has always argued needs to be done and then lets himself be arrested for murder. I'm not arguing that OPY should cooperate with the police, especially in such a blatant push to get rid of them, only that they shouldn't be in denial.

When you break the law for a good reason you're still breaking the law and if the law exists for a reason (ie people are using those streets, people have the right not to be exploded by a mystical staff) the police are not being "facists" or somesuch when they come to arrest you, however hilariously Orwellian their uniforms may be.

I think we agree

I don't understand why deliberate disobedience has fallen out of fashion for protesting, as I'd much rather participate in something that actually brings an issue to the people and forces them to at least acknowledge it.

I'm sure I've told this story before, but during the 2008(?) Israeli military action in Palestine/Lebanon a group of students had set up a march from one university to another in the city, literally a distance of 1 and a half blocks. When I asked them if they had plans to shut down the street they were walking along (one of the busiest ones in the city, would have been a major deal) they were like, "no, we have these permits we got from the police, etc".

which like, cool... but I think it totally misses the point entirely. How effective is it for one group of angry people to yell at a whole bunch of angry people who all agree with eachother, then go home to talk about how productive the yelling was?

The OWS was never an organize and a clear movement and when it first begin it seem democrats and left wingers wanted to embrace it. Specially that socialist weasel of Michael Moore and the retarded Anonymous group. It would be political suicide to support these weed smoking, college dropouts, communist manifesto reading hippies.

Comparing them to the Tea Party is like comparing ice cream to horse shit. Like them or not, Tea party gain support and organize themselves way more adult than these morons.

I have a pretty good idea why the movement got derail....it had to do with Union organizers getting their people involved. Very likely they told them "Hey, don't worry, you only get a citation from the police and we will pay for your expenses, go on we got your back". I dunno but one thing is for sure this leaves a very nasty Black Eye for Liberals out there...

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
The OWS was never an organize and a clear movement and when it first begin it seem democrats and left wingers wanted to embrace it. Specially that socialist weasel of Michael Moore and the retarded Anonymous group. It would be political suicide to support these weed smoking, college dropouts, communist manifesto reading hippies.

Comparing them to the Tea Party is like comparing ice cream to horse shit. Like them or not, Tea party gain support and organize themselves way more adult than these morons.

I have a pretty good idea why the movement got derail....it had to do with Union organizers getting their people involved. Very likely they told them "Hey, don't worry, you only get a citation from the police and we will pay for your expenses, go on we got your back". I dunno but one thing is for sure this leaves a very nasty Black Eye for Liberals out there...

Where do you get your news?

Anywhere except your sources troll.

(back to ignore)

what do you mean by black eye?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No its not.

They have the right to protest. That right does not shield them from other things they do while protesting.

You can incorrectly apply a meaning to my words but it is quite obvious the "right to protest" is the point I was making.

Vandalizing a local business is not covered in your right to protest.

Let's stick with context, please.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can incorrectly apply a meaning to my words but it is quite obvious the "right to protest" is the point I was making.

Um, no it's not?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Vandalizing a local business is not covered in your right to protest.

Let's stick with context, please.

The context, as expressed by the mayor, is that they were making a mess of the park and rendering it unusable for others. That seems to fit under the same umbrella that vandalizing stuff does.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Um, no it's not?

Um, yeah it is.

You're taking my response out of context, still, even after I clarified for you.

Context is clearly defined by the tangent conversation I included:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.

Also, I consider the right to protest...

Oh...shiiiit. There it is.

Well, it was a nice try on your part to troll me, Sym. I guess better luck next time, eh? 😐

The right to destroy property, block streets, and so forth. That's obviously not protected. The right to protest, as the context of my post clearly indicates for you, is.

Any other meanings you want to apply to my post are explicitely wrong as that was not my intention nor is it the context.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The context, as expressed by the mayor, is that they were making a mess of the park and rendering it unusable for others. That seems to fit under the same umbrella that vandalizing stuff does.

Only if you chose the path that contradicts my clarification and context of my post. Since I have shown you why you are applying an incorrect context, this discussion is not needed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The context, as expressed by the mayor, is that they were making a mess of the park and rendering it unusable for others. That seems to fit under the same umbrella that vandalizing stuff does.

Also note that when under court order to allow the protesters back, Bloomberg REFUSED to obey the ruling. Instead, he ignored it until another court order came out that was more favorable. So whether it is constitutional or not Bloomberg doesn't care; he will not comply to any orders against him.

Bloomberg has also arrested reporters trying to cover the eviction. What is your excuse for this? So in addition to completely disregarding freedom of speech, he also does not care much for freedom of the press. Are the reporters "vandalizing" too?

So...what does Occupy Wall Street mean when they say 'Down with Wallstreet'?

Is that literal, as in they actually want to shut Wallstreet down to help the economy?

If so --and bear with me since I know little about economics-- isn't that like trying to cure a skin infection by cutting your jugular?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Also note that when under court order to allow the protesters back, Bloomberg REFUSED to obey the ruling. Instead, he ignored it until another court order came out that was more favorable.

I wasn't aware of that. That would make Bloomberg decision to shut down the park indefensible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bloomberg has also arrested reporters trying to cover the eviction. What is your excuse for this? So in addition to completely disregarding freedom of speech, he also does not care much for freedom of the press. Are the reporters "vandalizing" too?

I never mentioned the reporters, though, yes, I agree with you that forbidding their entry is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So...what does Occupy Wall Street mean when they say 'Down with Wallstreet'?

one of the problems with the movement is that when "they" say that, it means every possible interpretation of the phrase with no pervasive coherence

For some of them, yes, I think they want it to not exist any more, and I would agree, that probably isn't the plan that would produce the most immediate benefit to the economy 🙂 lolz

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So...what does Occupy Wall Street mean when they say 'Down with Wallstreet'?

Is that literal, as in they actually want to shut Wallstreet down to help the economy?

If so --and bear with me since I know little about economics-- isn't that like trying to cure a skin infection by cutting your jugular?

Down with wallstreet doesn't mean they want to kill it; just make it stop ruling our government. Like if I said "down with the king", I would be equally fine if he abdicated.

My roommate watches Fox News, its hilarious and cringeworthy how many different ways their pundits and guests try to spin it to indict Obama.

"They're socialists inspired by Obama"
"They're honest Americans enraged at Obama's unethical policies that have gotten us into this mess"
"They're both at the same time. Obama sux." (Sarah Palin's position more or less, at least as I heard it)

Not that I'm surprised.

WE ARE THE 99 PERCENT

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
The OWS was never an organize and a clear movement and when it first begin it seem democrats and left wingers wanted to embrace it. Specially that socialist weasel of Michael Moore and the retarded Anonymous group. It would be political suicide to support these weed smoking, college dropouts, communist manifesto reading hippies.

Comparing them to the Tea Party is like comparing ice cream to horse shit. Like them or not, Tea party gain support and organize themselves way more adult than these morons.

I have a pretty good idea why the movement got derail....it had to do with Union organizers getting their people involved. Very likely they told them "Hey, don't worry, you only get a citation from the police and we will pay for your expenses, go on we got your back". I dunno but one thing is for sure this leaves a very nasty Black Eye for Liberals out there...

Where did you get this "Union organizers" idea from?