If donating millions of dollars is considered " Free Speech"

[rustydog]

Isn't standing together in taxpayer funded parks free speech? isn't walking to a jail to protest, free speech, isn't pointing out to thw world that Corporations are NOT people and do not have more or superior rights over humans free speech?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Why did Oakland police so brutally end a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech rights?
Did a police officer deliberately shoot the veteran in the head with a: tear gas cannister, rubber bullet, concussion grenade?

"Somethings happening here, there's a man with a gun over there telling me I got to beware...."

[gratuitous]

1. No, because . . . uh, you see

It kills the grass! We must protect the lawns in our public places and spaces or it will be anarchy!

Bet you didn't know how environmentally sensitive the folks who'd like to strip mine Yosemite or blow the tops off of mountains to get at the coal inside are. They're just a bunch of tree-huggers, they are.

[valerief]

2. Only money is speech. And now it's the law. nt

[Capitalocracy]

15. Pay to say is the American way.

Nowadays, anyway.

[Cumberland Guy]

3. So how long can #OWS stay?

I'm with you on this one but wonder, how long can they stay? Yes, it is Constitutionally protected to gather in a public place and protest. No question about that. But what if the protest turns into a camp and it goes on for days. What about weeks...months? Then is it really still a protest? What about the freedoms of those who wish to use the park for it's intended purpose; a peaceful place in the city to relax and enjoy a little nature. Doesn't the rest of the city have a right to enjoy the park?

Just a thought.

[arbusto_baboso]

4. So, who are you proposing sets these limits?

Especially when the people using these commons have, themselves, helped pay for them?

[Cumberland Guy]

7. Its a good question - I'm thinking it should be...

Someone has to eventually say to the encampment that is so permanent that no longer functions as a protest must move along. These park areas were not designed for long term residential use. Eventually everyone will get used to the presence and it no longer functions as a protest. I'm from Maine and I gotta say, I think we all have an ambivalence to the protest at this point. I used to see kids playing in that park. Even on colder fall days folks would eat lunch there. All that's gone.

It looks like a homeless encampment and we are all getting so used to it - it no longer functions as a protest. It resembles a homeless encampment.

If I had to say who - it's gotta be the town council. They are the elected representatives and they must be the ones to decide. Give the protesters a week or so to file an injunction and if not - move 'em out. The point has been made (albeit vaguely) and the protest can take it's next logical step without violence or destroying a public park.

[arbusto_baboso]

9. Riiiiiight. What you really mean is "move them into a free speech zone".

Sorry, but the 1st Amendment must be asolute in this case, or it is utterly meaningless.

[Cumberland Guy]

11. Should the protestors be able to

Should the protesters be able to build permanent foundations under their tents? I'm talking like a poured concrete foundation. Should they then be able to dig up a portion of the park to run water and sewer to the tent? It is all in the name of protest so I guess zoning laws get thrown out the window. And the fact that a public park is for temporary enjoyment of the space (not permanent residential living) just be completely ignored?

What if I pitched a tent on your private property, your front lawn in a form of protest? (the park in NYC is privately owned) What if I made it my intention to permanently stay on your lawn as a form of protest? Would absolutism rule the day?

[arbusto_baboso]

12. All straw man arguments, and your desperation is now showing.

NO ONE is pouring foundations or trying to build permanent structures at these encampments, so put that absurdity away.

And private property is another matter entirely; the OWS people are on PUBLIC property, and you are comparing apples to bicycles.

You have an axe to grind here. I noticed your low post-count. You are no doubt here on DU with an agenda, and are likely NOT a progressive. GO AWAY. YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE.

[Cumberland Guy]

14. True on a several points

Yes, I'm new. Yes, no one has built foundations. However, the protestors (whose rather vague message I kind of support by the way) (I know that was lame) have declared their intention to stay. I know in Maine they've declared to stay through the winter. When does protest become permanent? And doesn't that permanence in a public park eventually interfere with the rights of others?

No axe to grind here. I just found out about this site. I support Gay Marriage by the way. Nuff said.

I came looking for answers, debate, information and enlightenment. I'm very excited to have found this forum. Sorry if I have offended with my questions. (Which I think conform to my old high school rules of debate!) #LONGTIMEAGO

My "straw man" argument was only to bring up the point of permanence and maybe the #OWS protests are starting to infringe rather than instruct. #justsayin

Besides, the "GO AWAY" attitude is not helpful. I thought #OWS was about no one being silenced. Wasn't that one of the tenants being discussed?

By the way, Zucotti park is not PUBLIC property under any definition. The public may have a right to be there, like an easement (subject to certain rules). But it is not public in the sense of other public parks. That makes this particular protest very interesting.

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

[rustydog]

5. As long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to use the park

they can stay forever. I am not in favor of encampments, but if $ is free speech, isn't a tent?

I think that as long as the protesters do not infringe on the rights of others, they can stay until the second coming if they so choose.

[rustydog]

6. The best test of the constitution is protecting the speech you do not agree with!

[Cumberland Guy]

8. by permanently occupying a space....

I think they are indeed infringing on the rights of others to use the park.

I like this protest, but I hope they can all agree that they've made their point (vaguely) and move along peacefully.

[rustydog]

13. In the 60's the protests ended a war. 2011 we are trying to

end working your ass off for 40 plus hours a week so a CEO can make 17,000.00 dollar an hour off of your sweat.
they are protesting in the hope that those who crashed the economy actually may see the inside of a jail one day. So that the filthy rich who did nothing to earn their wealth except to be squeezed out of the womb of a wealthy mother, pay their fair share in taxes. They drive the same roads, walk in the parks, breathe the air we breathe. Shouldn't they pay also? they protest because a company who makes 14 billion a year and does not pay taxes while receiving a REFUND of 2 billion dollars is just too obscene when our country under GOP sponsored attacks closes schools, defunds aid to the needy while cutting regulations on clean air, labor safety etc...
They have every right to be in that park protesting as you have sitting there breathing in the air. maybe your presence offends them...but you still have the same right to be there.

[Fumesucker]

10. Because shut up..

That's why..