UPDATES: Video of Iraq Vet Hit in Oakland Police Attack , Military Start OWS Support

[Weightaholic]

Yup. Since you decided to just ignore my post, I'll just copy/paste it down here to answer your question again.


public land

See those words you typed? PUBLIC LAND.

public lands in the United States are held in trust for the American people by the federal government

in trust = one person holds the legal title to the property, the trustee, and another has the benefit of the use, in this situation, THE PUBLIC.

They can stay there for as long as they want.


Where do you think a large majority of homeless people are living day in and day out? On public land. In public parks. On public sidewalks. etc..

I didn't ignore. I missed it.

So, as long as someone is ostensibly protesting something, someone (or many someones) are free to essentially co-opt the use of public land. To live on. Forever. Is that right?

Do you really think all politicians have to do is ignore thousands upon thousands of protestors in the biggest protest this country has seen in half a century, then just expect them to leave because its been kind of long?

what... the... ****?

*implying people would just stand around endlessly for years on end for no reason at all

I didn't imply that at all.

Your views are warped.... your priorities are all sorts of ****ed up. No joke.

People protesting elected officials in a legal manner is more of a concern to you than them being ignored by the politicians?

Where did I say that? Again, please stop trying to create strawmen.

where were you when cops were pepper spraying and punching middle aged women in the head infront of their kids?

Where were you when cops were beating people with night sticks for literally no reason, and then walking away?

You are more concerned about rocks and water bottles at cops in full riot gear than people being put inthe hospital and attacked for literally exercising their first amendment rights.

If they were throwing rocks and bottles at policemen, should they be described as peaceable? One would have to think not.

I like how you just creat non existant uncertainty, to create the facade of a *wash*.... well no one really knows so they are both wrong... ROFL.

everyone and their sister has a camera... people do know who started this, get real.

Who's creating non-existent uncertainty? People see what they want to see. I have no real desire or need to see anything, so I am happy to admit to uncertainty. No one who was not there can say definitively who started this. The vast majority of people there wouldn't be able to tell you. Well, they'd be able to tell you, but whether it was actually correct or not would be up for debate.

[Zedbimmer]

If this was another country with a dictator the dictator would be accused of signing off on all this.

[ummmmm0k]

I didn't ignore. I missed it.

So, as long as someone is ostensibly protesting something, someone (or many someones) are free to essentially co-opt the use of public land. To live on. Forever. Is that right?

They don't even have to be protesting to be legally allowed to stay there as long as they wanted. It is PUBLIC PROPERTY. If you are a member of the public, you are free to use it for as long as you want. As long as you aren't stopping the free flow of other citizens.(a.k.a. not allowing anyone to enter the area, or pass through the area)

And I don't see them stopping people from entering where they are, or walking through, or getting to the businesses they are near.

[polarbro]

They don't even have to be protesting to be legally allowed to stay there as long as they wanted. It is PUBLIC PROPERTY. If you are a member of the public, you are free to use it for as long as you want. As long as you aren't stopping the free flow of other citizens.(a.k.a. not allowing anyone to enter the area, or pass through the area)

And I don't see them stopping people from entering where they are, or walking through, or getting to the businesses they are near.

NO YOU DONT GET IT THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW
except people dont understand when the law is wielded only against the powerless, it ceases to be a safeguard against injustice and becomes the primary tool of oppression

[Weightaholic]

They don't even have to be protesting to be legally allowed to stay there as long as they wanted. It is PUBLIC PROPERTY. If you are a member of the public, you are free to use it for as long as you want. As long as you aren't stopping the free flow of other citizens.(a.k.a. not allowing anyone to enter the area, or pass through the area)

And I don't see them stopping people from entering where they are, or walking through, or getting to the businesses they are near.

Ah, I'm going to have to disagree. I am more comfortable in the opinion that the intent behind it is to allow the people to peaceably assemble, rather than set up camp and live where they choose.

Any constitutional lawyers in the house?

[ummmmm0k]

Ah, I'm going to have to disagree. I am more comfortable in the opinion that the intent behind it is to allow the people to peaceably assemble, rather than set up camp and live where they choose.

Any constitutional lawyers in the house?

Yes, the 1st amendment protects their right to peacefully assembly in protest.

The fact that they are doing it on PUBLIC PROPERTY is what allows them to stay there for as long as they want. If they were assembling on PRIVATE PROPERTY then the owner of the property could tell them to leave whenever if they don't have permission to be there.

But since it is PUBLIC PROPERTY they don't need permission to be there. And there is no time limit for being on PUBLIC PROPERTY. As a member of the PUBLIC you have the right to use that property whenever, and for however long.

[Weightaholic]

Yes, the 1st amendment protects their right to peacefully assembly in protest.

I'm well aware of that.

The fact that they are doing it on PUBLIC PROPERTY is what allows them to stay there for as long as they want. If they were assembling on PRIVATE PROPERTY then the owner of the property could tell them to leave whenever if they don't have permission to be there.

But since it is PUBLIC PROPERTY they don't need permission to be there. And there is no time limit for being on PUBLIC PROPERTY. As a member of the PUBLIC you have the right to use that property whenever, and for however long.

That's not really true. Just because something is "public property" doesn't mean you can do as you like with it. There are all sorts of regulations concerning the use of public property, and I'm not seeing just any old sundry use being covered by the first amendment.

My only real interest in this now is whether or not the first amendment covers "camping out"? Is a group of squatters that move in to public property protected by the first amendment? Sure, it protects the right for people to peaceably assemble, there's no doubt about that, but is setting up a camp protected? Would erecting a semi-permanent structure be protected? If tents aren't covered by the first amendment per se, are the tents in this case an expression of a political ideal/protest in and of themselves, and thus also protected by the first amendment?

[ummmmm0k]

I'm well aware of that.

That's not really true. Just because something is "public property" doesn't mean you can do as you like with it. There are all sorts of regulations concerning the use of public property, and I'm not seeing just any old sundry use being covered by the first amendment.

My only real interest in this now is whether or not the first amendment covers "camping out"? Is a group of squatters that move in to public property protected by the first amendment? Sure, it protects the right for people to peaceably assemble, there's no doubt about that, but is setting up a camp protected? Would erecting a semi-permanent structure be protected? If tents aren't covered by the first amendment per se, are the tents in this case an expression of a political ideal/protest in and of themselves, and thus also protected by the first amendment?

In the United States the right of the people to engage in speech and assembly in public places may not be unreasonably restricted by the federal or state government. The government cannot usually limit one's speech beyond what is reasonable in a public space, which is considered to be a public forum (that is, screaming epithets at passers-by can be stopped; proselytizing one's religion probably cannot).

everyone has a right to access and use public space, as opposed to private space which may have restrictions

The state supreme court, therefore, concluded that the ordinance violated the First
Amendment.
[1]n a public forum, by definition, all parties have a constitutional right of
access.


An example found not to be constitutional is a Los Angeles ordinance that was only recently modified. It prohibited sitting, lying or sleeping on the city’s streets or sidewalks at any time of day.


The Court said, "Streets and parks...have immemoriably been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public issues. Such use has, from ancient times, been part of the privileges, immunities, and liberties of citizens."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project.../tradforum.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space
http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/lawarts/10OCT01.pdf

[ummmmm0k]

Just read this.

Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice.

Time restrictions regulate when individuals may express themselves. At certain times of the day, the government may curtail or prohibit speech to address legitimate societal concerns, such as traffic congestion and crowd control. For example, political protesters may seek to demonstrate in densely populated cities to draw maximum attention to their cause. The First Amendment permits protesters to take such action, but not whenever they choose. The Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion that no one may "insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech" (Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471 [1965]). In most instances a commuter's interest in getting to and from work outweighs an individual's right to tie up traffic through political expression.

Place restrictions regulate where individuals may express themselves. The Supreme Court has recognized three forums of public expression: traditional public forums, limited public forums, and nonpublic forums. Traditional public forums are those places historically reserved for the dissemination of information and the communication of ideas. Consisting of parks, sidewalks, and streets, traditional public forums are an especially important medium for the least powerful members of society who lack access to other channels of expression, such as radio and television. Under the First Amendment, the government may not close traditional public forums but may place reasonable restrictions on their use.

The reasonableness of any such restriction will be evaluated in light of specific guidelines that have been established by the Supreme Court. First, a restriction must be content-neutral, which means the government may not prohibit entire classes of expression, such as speech concerning poverty, drug abuse, or race relations. Second, a restriction must be viewpoint-neutral, which means that it must apply uniformly to all speech; that is, it may not silence only those speakers whom the government opposes or sanction only those whom the government supports. Third, a restriction must burden speech no more than is necessary to serve an important government interest. Restrictions that are carefully aimed at controlling the harmful consequences of speech, such as litter, unrest, and disorder, will normally satisfy these guidelines.




Them being in a park, not messing with a commuters right is perfectly legal. And they can rightfully stay there as long as they want. As long as that park doesn't have a close time, which most public parks don't.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...r+Restrictions

Restrictions that are carefully aimed at controlling the harmful consequences of speech, such as litter, unrest, and disorder, will normally satisfy these guidelines.


As long as the litter is controlled by the protesters, there are no signs of unrest, there isn't disorder, and the public place you are in doesn't have operating hours. Then they can't tell you to leave the park. If you were doing it in the middle of the street(also public property) then they could tell you to leave because you are inhibiting the free flow of other citizens.

[Weightaholic]

Just read this.

Under the First Amendment, the government may not close traditional public forums but may place reasonable restrictions on their use.

[Valid restrictions] Restrictions that are carefully aimed at controlling the harmful consequences of speech, such as litter, unrest, and disorder, will normally satisfy these guidelines.

Alright, I've snipped a bit for brevity, pulling out only what I feel are the salient parts.

I agree that them being in a park not messing with commuters would, at first glance, be legal. I can see no problem with that, but does the construction of a small village fit that? Does an extended mass-campsite fall under the restrictions that may be placed? One would have to say that yes, restrictions can be placed on a large tent city being erected on public property, for indeterminate periods of time, if only on the grounds of public sanitation, if nothing else.

Also, would the erection of tents, or any form of semi-permanent structure be covered? I agree totally, they have the total right to peaceably protest in whatever manner they see fit, but to erect a small village in the middle of a public park? Is that covered? I can't see that it is based on the info you provided.

[ummmmm0k]

Alright, I've snipped a bit for brevity, pulling out only what I feel are the salient parts.

I agree that them being in a park not messing with commuters would, at first glance, be legal. I can see no problem with that, but does the construction of a small village fit that? Does an extended mass-campsite fall under the restrictions that may be placed? One would have to say that yes, restrictions can be placed on a large tent city being erected on public property, for indeterminate periods of time, if only on the grounds of public sanitation, if nothing else.

Also, would the erection of tents, or any form of semi-permanent structure be covered? I agree totally, they have the total right to peaceably protest in whatever manner they see fit, but to erect a small village in the middle of a public park? Is that covered? I can't see that it is based on the info you provided.

I agree with you that restrictions could be placed. But, I'm not sure if it would only be because they setup tents. Like you said, it would have to be because of litter/sanitation. But from what I've seen, they have kept it fairly clean. Someone also posted earlier about the cops trying to move a group of the protesters(i forgot what city they were in) because of litter. So they cleaned up the park, and the cops didn't have reason to restrict them after that.

But in regards to just the tents, we would need a constitutional lawyer like you mentioned earlier to weigh in on that.

[xVagrant]

Be thankful, flaming tards. The efforts thus far have been incredibly nonviolent. But that will change. It will change when you soft Americans realize that a true calm is after a storm and not before one. Extreme changes are beget by extreme emotions. This "peace and love" **** will not work.

[Weightaholic]

But I'm going to make an assumption here at risk of making myself look like an ass. And that is, as long as the object, in this situation a tent, isn't prohibiting commuters, isn't litter, causing unrest, or disorder then it is probably allowed.

This is the part I have to disagree with. Erection of a living area, in this case, a tent, is trending away from the "peaceably assembling", and more into "living in". To me at least.

And a tent doesn't do any of those things. If anything it helps keep sanitation under control.

Not really, especially with a lot of people. I'm thinking mainly food scraps here (and the vermin that go along with that). The basic infrastructure of a park, or the surrounds, isn't built to provide amenities for a few hundred people living there.

Cheers.

[ummmmm0k]

This is the part I have to disagree with. Erection of a living area, in this case, a tent, is trending away from the "peaceably assembling", and more into "living in". To me at least.

Not really, especially with a lot of people. I'm thinking mainly food scraps here (and the vermin that go along with that). The basic infrastructure of a park, or the surrounds, isn't built to provide amenities for a few hundred people living there.

Cheers.

I don't think they would designate tents to just dump food scraps in to be honest. I was thinking of some of them being used as 'restrooms', with toilets in them. So you aren't in the middle of the sidewalk taking a dump into a bucket.

It wouldn't be hard to discard food scraps/garbage in a sanitary way IMO. A few garbage bags placed throughout, and then someone just brings them to the dump or a dumpster at the end of the day/every few days.


It really would come down to the city I guess. If it gets to a point where it stops proper care of the park itself, then they could tell them to leave and set a time restriction for when they can actively protest.

[ummmmm0k]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0288_ZS.html

Showed to me by: Hagakure24

Pretty much the same thing. A tent city went up in protest.

So, yes. The government could stop them from doing it if they wanted too. But for now, I guess they don't think it is inhibiting anything so they are allowing it.


Edit: Setting up tents is allowed. It's the sleeping in the parks overnight that is not allowed. And this case has to do with a national park, so it may be a bit different in just a regular public park.

Temporary structures may be erected for demonstration purposes but may not be used for camping

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...l=468&page=293

CCNV and several individuals then filed an action to prevent the application of the no-camping regulations to the proposed demonstration, which, it was claimed, was not covered by the regulation. It was also submitted that the regulations were unconstitutionally vague, had been discriminatorily applied, and could not be applied to prevent sleeping in the tents without violating the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Park Service. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 227 U.S. App. D.C. 19, 703 F.2d 586 (1983). The 11 judges produced 6 opinions. Six of the judges believed that application of the regulations so as to prevent sleeping in the tents would infringe the demonstrators' First Amendment right of free expression. The other five judges disagreed and would have sustained the regulations as applied to CCNV's proposed demonstration. 3 We granted the Government's petition for certiorari, 464 U.S. 1016 (1983), and now reverse. 4 [468 U.S. 288, 293]

[nutsy54]

Typical Voodoo lies to support his position... Since it wasn't a "peaceful assembly".

But, as long as he can use some former military members as pawns to support his insane agenda, then why not turn off the vile hatred he normally shows towards anyone in uniform?

[Weightaholic]

But, as long as he can use some former military members as pawns

That's what originally got me interested in this thread. Propaganda. It's not just the bailwick of Fox news.

Unfortunately, it's an emotive topic, and people prefer to see things they want to see.

[ZachSmash]

Lmao looks like he never learned to follow orders.

He stopped being a person who is "peacefully assembling" the second he disobeyed a lawful order.

Notice how the tea party never got gassed?

[ummmmm0k]

This is the part I have to disagree with. Erection of a living area, in this case, a tent, is trending away from the "peaceably assembling", and more into "living in". To me at least.

I think I've found a definitive answer to this.

The actions here claimed as speech entitled to the protections of the First Amendment simply are not speech; rather, they constitute conduct. As Justice Black, who was never tolerant of limits on speech, emphatically pointed out in his separate opinion in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 578 (1965):

"The First and Fourteenth Amendments, I think, take away from government, state and federal, all power to restrict freedom of speech, press, and assembly where people have a right to be for such purposes. . . . Picketing, though it may be utilized to communicate ideas, is not speech, and therefore is not of itself protected by the First Amendment." (Emphasis in original; citations omitted.)
Respondents' attempt at camping in the park is a form of "picketing"; it is conduct, not speech. Moreover, it is conduct that interferes with the rights of others to use Lafayette Park for the purposes for which it was created. Lafayette Park and others like it are for all the people, and their rights are not to be trespassed even by those who have some "statement" to make. Tents, fires, and sleepers, real or feigned, interfere with the rights of others to use our parks. Of [468 U.S. 288, 301] course, the Constitution guarantees that people may make their "statements," but Washington has countless places for the kind of "statement" these respondents sought to make.
It trivializes the First Amendment to seek to use it as a shield in the manner asserted here. And it tells us something about why many people must wait for their "day in court" when the time of the courts is pre-empted by frivolous proceedings that delay the causes of litigants who have legitimate, nonfrivolous claims. This case alone has engaged the time of 1 District Judge, an en banc court of 11 Court of Appeals Judges, and 9 Justices of this Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...l=468&page=293


So they can set up the tents, but can't camp in the park or use the tents to sleep in.

[Rowbro]

I don't think it's necessarily legal to occupy/live on public property such as a street or a public park. I'm pretty sure it's technically illegal for homeless people to live on the streets of NYC.

[Weightaholic]

I think I've found a definitive answer to this.

Interesting. Thank you. Reps on recharge for the civil and interesting discussion.

[Rowbro]

I think I've found a definitive answer to this.

The actions here claimed as speech entitled to the protections of the First Amendment simply are not speech; rather, they constitute conduct. As Justice Black, who was never tolerant of limits on speech, emphatically pointed out in his separate opinion in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 578 (1965):

"The First and Fourteenth Amendments, I think, take away from government, state and federal, all power to restrict freedom of speech, press, and assembly where people have a right to be for such purposes. . . . Picketing, though it may be utilized to communicate ideas, is not speech, and therefore is not of itself protected by the First Amendment." (Emphasis in original; citations omitted.)
Respondents' attempt at camping in the park is a form of "picketing"; it is conduct, not speech. Moreover, it is conduct that interferes with the rights of others to use Lafayette Park for the purposes for which it was created. Lafayette Park and others like it are for all the people, and their rights are not to be trespassed even by those who have some "statement" to make. Tents, fires, and sleepers, real or feigned, interfere with the rights of others to use our parks. Of [468 U.S. 288, 301] course, the Constitution guarantees that people may make their "statements," but Washington has countless places for the kind of "statement" these respondents sought to make.
It trivializes the First Amendment to seek to use it as a shield in the manner asserted here. And it tells us something about why many people must wait for their "day in court" when the time of the courts is pre-empted by frivolous proceedings that delay the causes of litigants who have legitimate, nonfrivolous claims. This case alone has engaged the time of 1 District Judge, an en banc court of 11 Court of Appeals Judges, and 9 Justices of this Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...l=468&page=293


So they can set up the tents, but can't camp in the park or use the tents to sleep in.

Ah excellent research, would rep you but I think I'm on spread (and on r/c right now). Pretty solid foundation to what I had just posted: they are illegally living in the parks, that's why they have to be moved at some point.