Occupy Wall Street

[White Eagle]

Why not???

Because adbusters has nothing to do with it.

 

[fetaby]

White Eagle is probably correct, these "kids" dont know the genesis of OWS or who/what the agenda

Do you?

I don't get it. It’s circular?

No, pyramidal. The creator of the event invites the people on his/her friend list. If those people accept, they have the choice to invite the people on their friend list, and on and on...

That's why you see the number of people possibly invited expressed exponentially versus the number of people attending...

Because adbusters has nothing to do with it.

You should probably let adbusters know then. Apparently they have claimed a bit of credit in organizing the OWS protests. They say the modeled it after the "Arab Spring" and have coined the term "American Autumn".

 

[White Eagle]

I'm talking about Occupy Corpus Christi. Adbusters don't have anything to do with OCC.

 

[fetaby]

I'm talking about Occupy Corpus Christi. Adbusters don't have anything to do with OCC.

I'm refusing to believe that you are going to be this obtuse. Ask your friends why they decided to name their protest "Occupy"...

Adbusters is claiming origin ties to OWS. It follows that all protests after OWS that are also protesting the same exact things as OWS are tied to OWS.

Adbusters is two degrees away from OCC. But more importantly, that's not a bad thing.

http://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters

 

[hotatlboi]

It is a private park that the owners are required to leave open to the public 24/7. In New York City, in order to get approval for very large building developments that will have a large impact on the public, developers are required to provide certain amenities, like creating parks on the property or other public space, renovating subway stations and keeping them clean, etc. This is one of those parks. When the developer built the building, a condition of its approval was to create a park that would be open to the public at all times.

Another interesting side note, Mayor Bloomberg's girlfriend is on the Board of Directors of the company that owns the park. Bloomberg is a scumbag.

Even that being the case, the owners are well within their right to ask that it be cleaned before any more protests happen or that people not sleep there, as they did. And it can't really be cleaned if all the people are taking up all the space in it.

 

[White Eagle]

fetaby
have it your way. I'm not gonna argue this with anyone!!

 

[White Eagle]

No loki;, the occupiers are doing it the way they want. This is protesting. So some get arrested, the legal lawyers will straighten it out later.
This movement cannot be deterred by local laws!!
Protest!

 

[White Eagle]

This is the trouble with this country these days. People do not care if their rights get taken away. GW took many away and some people are just fed up with the way it is being run.
Protest.

 

[IokuA47]

they're welcome to do whatever they want, but they're totally wrong when they say "The authorities say we don’t have the proper permits to occupy public spaces. Our permit to occupy is the First Amendment."

[Text: Removed by Moderator] The FIRST AMENDMENT clearly says NO LAWS shall be made to prevent FREE SPEECH and the RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE. What about that is so hard to understand? That's right, you ARE OK WITH YOUR RIGHTS being taken away. I hope you don't take up one day and realize, "Well damn, that Occupy movement was right." Instead, I hope you wake up and say, "Well damn, I was wrong about that Occupy movement, good thing they were smarter than me and realized if we didn't make a stand now, I would be screwed."

 

[CFoTsD]

IokuA4, "FREE SPEECH and the RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE" is not a carte blanche right. See post 394

 

[AbnormalDann]

IokuA4, "FREE SPEECH and the RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE" is not a carte blanche right. See post 394

This can't be said enough.

 

[kallipolis]

^He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
~Thomas Paine

 

[kallipolis]

personally, I accept that there may be some limits imposed on the right of assembly to allow society to continue to function.

I would not support, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church assembling down the center of I95 and immobilizing interstate traffic because they wanted to protest the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell. I wouldn't support protestors (whether we're talking about the NYPD or OWS) from blocking off major roads like the Brooklyn Bridge and potentially impeding emergency vehicles.

as long as these limitations are applied fairly and the government does not abuse its power, I sleep soundly at night.

in the Occupy Wall Street incidences, at least from what I've heard about them on the local news and read online, I haven't felt like the government is abusing its powers.

I support the right of public protest even by those (Westboro) whose views, and actions I detest.

 

[kallipolis]

do you support that right without limitations?

every right in the US constitution has some limitations imposed on it.

we have the right to bear arms... but not machine guns and grenade launchers, for example.

I have no problem with demonstrators congregating, even resting in a park that is open for public use.

 

[White Eagle]

I support the right of public protest even by those (Westboro) whose views, and actions I detest.

Bravo!

 

[JB3]

This is more than likely why they postponed the cleanup.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15269..._it_all_down?akid=7708.102503.xFNbJh&rd=1&t=2



So I guess this will take JB3 and others out of saying it is not unconstitutional.

It isn't. Its a privately owned park, and the owners have the right to remove anyone from it. Interesting tidbit: The owners have been complaining to the NYPD since the beginning about the fact that protestors are camping out in the park, which is against the rules. The NYPD have so far refused to do anything about it.

I suspect that the postponed cleaning has less to do with any supposed constitutional violation and more to do with the NYPD and the park's owners not wanting to give the protesters the violent confrontation they seem so desperate to provoke.

 

[zoltanspawn]

This can't be said enough.

Seems like the sort of thing to be said when circumstances require it.

A passion for restrictions on freedom isn't American.

 

[JB3]

It is a private park that the owners are required to leave open to the public 24/7. In New York City, in order to get approval for very large building developments that will have a large impact on the public, developers are required to provide certain amenities, like creating parks on the property or other public space, renovating subway stations and keeping them clean, etc. This is one of those parks. When the developer built the building, a condition of its approval was to create a park that would be open to the public at all times.

Another interesting side note, Mayor Bloomberg's girlfriend is on the Board of Directors of the company that owns the park. Bloomberg is a scumbag.

1) The owners also have the right, per the city of New York, to ban camping in the park. The NYPD has not enforced this rule yet, but the owners of the park have already told the NYPD they better start doing their job or else.

2) If that had any affect on the situation, we would have already seen it in a massive crackdown by the NYPD. It hasn't happened, so what makes you think that's relevant?

 

[Kulindahr]

It isn't. Its a privately owned park, and the owners have the right to remove anyone from it. Interesting tidbit: The owners have been complaining to the NYPD since the beginning about the fact that protestors are camping out in the park, which is against the rules. The NYPD have so far refused to do anything about it.

I suspect that the postponed cleaning has less to do with any supposed constitutional violation and more to do with the NYPD and the park's owners not wanting to give the protesters the violent confrontation they seem so desperate to provoke.

No, they don't -- it's part of the code under which they built the adjoining development. The city requires every developer to include a certain amount of green space, and it has to be completely open to the public 24/7.

It's like a situation here in Oregon: all the beaches were made public, except three stretches which were owned by NfP outfits. They own that beach, and they can set certain rules, but the public has to have access 24/7.

 

[EastMed]

Live coverage worldwide.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/oct/15/occupy-movement-occupy-wall-street