Judge rules against Occupy Wall Street encampment

A New York judge has upheld the city's dismantling of the Occupy Wall Street encampment, saying that the protesters' first amendment rights don't entitle them to camp out indefinitely in the plaza.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman on Tuesday denied a motion by the demonstrators seeking to be allowed back into the park with their tents and sleeping bags.

news.yahoo.com...

So, they have time limits on the first amendment.

Well, the constitution does not mean much of anything anymore anyway.

The OWS movement will be squashed just like other movements before them.

I think I see a solution..

In order for the protestors to be accepted and get a pass on anything they do "wrong", they must all wear football jerseys and support football.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


The government has proved time and time again that the people do not have rights anymore.
Laws and rulings like this will not stop anything.
The revolution has already started and will not stop growing.

So where will the protestors go that
were in the park? Will they leave or
stay?

Tell the judge to go fuc him self.

Stand up to these little boys and make a point.

We cannot back down now.

Good!

If the protesters want to march or picket then more power to them. Camping in a park is not protesting it's just camping.

Because most judges are apparently semi-retarded and cant count past 1.

Its no a free speech issue. Its a right to assemble issue and that has not one word on how its done. Tents or gypsy caravan. Its a right. Take it back.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


There was thread here earlier in the day saying the opposite. Were there two separate court decisions I wonder?

It's public property. OWS was forbidding other people the use of the park. By controlling a resource, they are claiming the exclusive use of it.

It is just as objectionable as if an ugly corporation had seized it, and was not letting people enjoy the use of it, in the name of "free speech."

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

A New York judge has upheld the city's dismantling of the Occupy Wall Street encampment, saying that the protesters' first amendment rights don't entitle them to camp out indefinitely in the plaza.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman on Tuesday denied a motion by the demonstrators seeking to be allowed back into the park with their tents and sleeping bags.

news.yahoo.com...

So, they have time limits on the first amendment.

Well, the constitution does not mean much of anything anymore anyway.

The OWS movement will be squashed just like other movements before them.

Figured there were would be ignorance abound in connection to this. While the judge's comments are a bit off -- the park is a privately owned space that is available for use by the public, 24-hours a day. Why does OWS get full reign while denying others the enjoyment of that public space?

Also, you are characterizing the judge's order. The order was that tents and structures erected on the park grounds have to be removed -- not the people. So no, there is no "time limit" being imposed on the First Amendment. There is however, law that needs to be followed.

Scream, gather and chant -- I will support you; right up until the moment you are asked to leave private property in which you have been allowed to squat on and you proclaim some injustice when no injustice has occurred.

we need the ar-15 squad here in nyc

What, oh no the establishment wants to end the protest??? well better head back home and try to find employment..........or maybe just maybe the protesters should kick it up a notch maybe instead of cardboard signs and silly slogans maybe just maybe they could actually protest and follow the first amendment to a "T" did Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus because she was told she might go to jail? Did Martin Luther King give up his sit ins when the police came to break them up? Did the kids at Berkley in December of 1964 give up when the military showed up on campus to break up the anti-war protest? HELL no!!! Its time to sack up OWS this is where it separates the protesters from the followers. Be very careful which laws you break, video everything and maintain constant communication on the front lines lets kick this up a notch.... And for petes sake try to come up with a solution to the problems your protesting it adds merit to your cause

reply to post by Jessicamsa


This is what I wa talking about in other threads about a person needing to know their rights, where to find those rights, and how they apply / work depending on whats going on.

The big one was people complaing about TSA. The constitution pretects a persons ability to free movement inside of and across state lines. However, the mode of transportation is not defined in the right. I have had people say that its implied, however that suggestion violates the very stance they take, since they also argue that the government goes beyond consitutional rights.

The 1st amendment guarantees a persons right to protest, for just about anything you can think of. The Judge in this case is right - where does the protest requirements say they have a right to camp at the protest? The one thing people need to look at before throwing stones is those encampments deny the use of that space to people who arent there to protest.

Is it right for protesters to deny rights to the people who dont follow their viewpoint?

They can still protest there. They just can't camp out there.

I am all for the OWS protests, but they need to step it up a notch if they expect to get anything done. I mean in the beginning I was all for it. But after a while, it just seems like a bunch of people crapping in buckets and repeating each other.

They need to start marching and doing something. I mean actually trying to change something. How about their first real GOAL is to get Michael "Mr. 1%" Bloomberg kicked out of office. An office he shouldn't even be in. He had to buy his 3rd term. How about get Ray Kelly kicked out. The NYPD is nothing but corrupt. How about get all the abusive cops locked up. You know the ones that curse you out and punch you in the face if you DARE to question their authority?

Just do SOMETHING. I mean I'm sorry but we are at a point now where all this "pansy" protesting isn't doing a damn thing. Step it up a notch. If the cops come in 100 strong to force you out, ban together 1000 against them. I mean enough of this flower power non-violence crap. Violence begets violence. They use it on you, use it right back. They just aren't accomplishing anything right now, other than debating whether they can occupy a park or not.

When did the whole movement stop being "OCCUPY WALL STREET"? When did it become "OCCUPY ZUCATTI PARK"???

reply to post by DerekJR321


IF they had the demographic numbers to accomplish the things you listed, they would have done so using the ballot box.

But since they are not a majority, their only hope is to subvert the democratic process by occupying someone else's space, and demanding to be heard when they actually have nothing to say other than "Everyone should do what I say."

So, they are crapping in buckets and repeating each other. Sounds like the beginnings of a political party!

Originally posted by tovenar
reply to post by DerekJR321

 

IF they had the demographic numbers to accomplish the things you listed, they would have done so using the ballot box.

But since they are not a majority, their only hope is to subvert the democratic process by occupying someone else's space, and demanding to be heard when they actually have nothing to say other than "Everyone should do what I say."

So, they are crapping in buckets and repeating each other. Sounds like the beginnings of a political party!

Ok lets be honest.. we're all adults here. This whole "get out and vote" nonsense we know does NOT work. Every 4 years we have a bunch of shills thrust upon us and we're supposed to pick the lesser of the two evils. Americas current form of government does not work. Period. Democrats, republicans... they are all the same. Bought and paid for by the highest bidder. They are supposed to have the peoples interests at hand. But we know they don't. And they haven't for a very long time.

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Ok lets be honest.. we're all adults here. This whole "get out and vote" nonsense we know does NOT work. Every 4 years we have a bunch of shills thrust upon us and we're supposed to pick the lesser of the two evils.

Could it be that voting does work and the only reason it looks like it failed is because we elect house members every 2 years, president every 4 years and the senate every 6 years?

If people voted in all elections, instead of just every 4 years, maybe somethings would change?

I am absolutely and thoroughly SHOCKED by Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman final decision, which is absolute, binding AND THE LAW.

While he may had not DARED to trample upon the sacred Constitution by curtailing free speech and right to protest, he had only and certainly proven WHAT AN ANIMAL he is.

Anyone can accept that rulings can be made so quick, twice, each differing in tone in days, for many know at times, more so in this era, justice had been perverted to serve only the elites, even though many other more pressing rulings are needed over matters concerning citizens that is not related to OWS and yet not given similar time frames.

Anyone can accept that appeals against that decision will only be long drawn and time consuming, even though justice was seen to fawn upon the elites by given them quick acess, than for citizens.

Anyone can accept that due to 'public safety concerns', justice is allowed to trample over rights of citizens, and yet thousands of citizens get robbed and murdered with little or no recources, nor does justice ruled that no human is allowed on the streets for fear of 'public safety'.

BUT WHAT ANYONE CANNOT ACCEPT is justice that is NOT TAMPERED WITH COMPASSION!!!

Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman had allowed protests to be carried out at the park, with NO time frame, BUT had he considered about the WELL - BEING of his fellow humans - the protestors? Had he notice it is winter and furthermore, his fellow humans are not robots and would need food and rest to sustain themselves while holding their ASSEMBLY ground?

NO, he did not. He cared not a fig. The protestors can freezed, faint and die for all he and the elites that he fawns upon cares. Is this serving justice? or merely the Supreme Court pandering to the elites?

This case is secular in nature and will remain so. But USA pride itself on its Christian heritage. It is sad to see Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman made this ruling that certainly holds no hallmark of Christian charity and mercy. What are laws if they are harshly enforced, in the manner likened to the Spanish Inquisition? It broke up the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Empire itself, with the dominant denomination Protestants embarking upon a course of better and more compassionate enlightenment, in the spirit as the Messiah intended, and created a better world then till the corruptions of today.

May Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman find peace with himself in his quiet moments, as OWS is preparing themselves to ensure TRUE justice is finally serve.

Originally posted by DerekJR321


Ok lets be honest.. we're all adults here. This whole "get out and vote" nonsense we know does NOT work. Every 4 years we have a bunch of shills thrust upon us and we're supposed to pick the lesser of the two evils. Americas current form of government does not work. Period. Democrats, republicans... they are all the same. Bought and paid for by the highest bidder. They are supposed to have the peoples interests at hand. But we know they don't. And they haven't for a very long time.

It doesn't get you power, if you are in the minority.

So, it sounds like you are saying we should disregard democracy when the majority disagrees with you?

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Anyone can accept that due to 'public safety concerns', justice is allowed to trample over rights of citizens, and yet thousands of citizens get robbed and murdered with little or no recources, nor does justice ruled that no human is allowed on the streets for fear of 'public safety'.

Governments exist to protect people. "public safety" is why we have rules. The fact that you've got no concern for other people's safety indicates that your safety isn't ever in danger. In other words, your home is in a nice enough neighborhood you don't fear being robbed; you are young and healthy enough not to fear having to walk alone--you aren't afraid of being mugged. Probably because you have a car, and a bank account.

There are lots of people--the people who were living in the parks before the "occupy" people came and displaced them, for whom the threat of violence is quite real, and the overriding concern after where to get the next meal.

But you aren't worried about them, and where they will sleep tonight. You're concerned that your student loan will be a burden to you, or that corporations have made themselves a lot of money, and not given any to you.

Where are the thousands of people murdered? Do they show up in police reports? There hasn't been anything in the news, or on America's Most Wanted.

Oh, I see. You accuse your enemies of fantasy murders, to justify your hatred of them, while you're ignoring the very real needs of the homeless, who you could easily help by volunteering some time in a soup kitchen or night shelter, instead of marching in circles and screaming about imaginary murders....

And you have the temerity to shout that other people should wake up and change the world. Hilarious.