Before you Occupy

I have watched threads pop up for weeks now on the "OWS" or "Occupy" movement and really have not put my hand in the pot beyond a few posts here and there. The reason for this is I really do not see a clear enough objective for this movement and I was not really sure of the legalities(is that a word?) of the "wants and actions" of the movement.

That being said, I have decided to make a thread dedicated to the potential legal downfall of these protests.Please note I have limited knowledge of the law...that is why I am starting this thread.This is not a anti-"Occupy" nor is it a pro-"Occupy" thread. Please leave those rants to another thread. I would like this thread to be a place to come to as a reference to protest do's and dont's and legal updates on such things as it is found.

The most obvious thing to start with would be the First Amendment. Most of you know your rights given by the Constitution and some of you have probeably took the time to disect and actually read into what it actualy covers.

"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. "

That's cool..but there is a catch! You have the right to assemble and free speech but under certain laws these liberties are inhibited to this:
"Wherever three or more persons assemble with intent or with means and preparations to do an unlawful act which would be riot if actually committed, but do not act toward the commission thereof, or whenever such persons assemble without authority of law, and in such a manner as is adapted to disturb the public peace, or excite public alarm, such assembly is an unlawful assembly." So in short: no violence....no harrasing pedestrians...no burning/stealing or any act against local/state law...and if the police says you cant be there you gotta go.
When it comes to your speeches at these protest be mindful of how you say things because it can get you shut down.The government has the right to legitimately restrict any order of speech that are considered: fighting words,incites illegal activity, obsenity and pornography,commercial speech,symbolic expression or subversive speech.
...Well that kinda takes most the fun out of protesting...

The thing that caught my intrest was the subversive speech. Subversive speech is any speech promoting the overthrow or destruction of a government. That is kind of a touchy topic.Anyone know how far you can go before you are considered being subversive? (Obviously our government has already subverted itself)
That is about all I have for now and look forward to the comments and information to be added. Thank you for reading and I apologize if this was drab or drawn out.

HERE is a great disection of the first amendment from a legal point

Just because there is a first amendment does not mean you can throw out all other laws and city ordinances etc.

By peaceably protesting you do have the right to get a city permit and you can even have the police protect your city permit zone.

Most people don't understand that and will call me a liar though.

I can hear them coming now.

A protest which incites revolution is illegal. Would you like to know what else is illegal? Controlling a monopoly. Yet the latter happens every day without contest as it strips away people's rights, their life's work, their very homes. They break the law to steal from us, printing their own wealth, stomping on Main Street America. We will break their laws to steal it back.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


What then is the legal way to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" without being subversive? Anyone?

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Yes, you condemn those who you feel have stolen from you.

But you have no qualms with stealing from others.

Double standard much?

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


What then is the legal way to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" without being subversive? Anyone?

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


Well you could start with stating your grievances. If they are legitimate people will sign on.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I get that..I am a little on the fence on the topic though. The whole objective of a protest is to take matters in your own hands and sometimes the objective can not be fulfilled without breaking the law. You got to weigh your options..is it worth it? If not do it legally.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


Your doing great and yes you can.

I am impressed, you are smarter than alot of folks. I can tell just by your opening post. Star and Flag!

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Amuse me a little and for the objective of this thread explain what you mean. I couldnt begin to know who/where or how to properly address a grievance. Im sure a few others do not know as well.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


The question itself is a trick, because any "legal" non-subversive protest would be [and is] a fruitless effort. This isn't threatening a clothing company to stop using fur, or company to stop discrimating against race and/or sex. This is telling an entire class of people that their way of life will no longer be tolerated. Change, especially the sort of change the OWS as well as a majority of the world is looking for, can only come about through the denouncement and, as it were, destruction of the archaic system which the elite have used to enslave mankind. Change of that sort cannot happen over night, and it will not happen willingly on the part of the top souls who control the monetary policies that we are trying to alter. You are going to have to pry the bone from the beast's jaw, and when you do, they are going to bite. We have to be prepared to bite back, legal ramifications or not. No one ever said it was going to be easy. No one ever said blood wouldn't be spilled.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


OWS is a great example of what not to do.

Granted they do have a list of Do's and Do nots.

The problem is that they DO NOT have a definite objective and those that are joining on are ignorant to the point where they think they can be as unlawful as possible. Though they state that it is a peaceful movement they can not guarantee that no one will cause any violence, though I don't think that the people behind the movement itself understand the objective, so it is somewhat attractive to those who are adept to breaking the law. Some are openly advocating the overtaking of the United States etc. Even in it's creation I would be lead to believe that those who created the blueprints did not intend for it to remain peaceful, that is just good PR, because to have a movement you have to try to win the hearts and minds of the masses.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

reply to post by Cyberboiraves

 

The question itself is a trick, because any "legal" non-subversive protest would be [and is] a fruitless effort. This isn't threatening a clothing company to stop using fur, or company to stop discrimating against race and/or sex. This is telling an entire class of people that their way of life will no longer be tolerated. Change, especially the sort of change the OWS as well as a majority of the world is looking for, can only come about through the denouncement and, as it were, destruction of the archaic system which the elite have used to enslave mankind. Change of that sort cannot happen over night, and it will not happen willingly on the part of the top souls who control the monetary policies that we are trying to alter. You are going to have to pry the bone from the beast's jaw, and when you do, they are going to bite. We have to be prepared to bite back, legal ramifications or not. No one ever said it was going to be easy. No one ever said blood wouldn't be spilled.

See I think he just proved my point.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul

I compleatly understand what you are saying. Wars are won through battles and battles are often bloody. But wouldn't it be sweet to go all sleeper cell and get the same job done within the system. Take down with their own sword..I guess that is the point of the thread. How to be just as conniving as "they" are and be legal about it...

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


I think he is not stating that you should obey the law.

I am stating to have a successful movement, you should.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Really trying to keep with the objective of the thread..but i got to say that is the reason I am relunctant to join the cause....Its foolish to overthrow a foundation without something ready to take its place..so i guess my next question(and this is not too far off from the thread) what should/could take the current problem(s) place? What exactly is the objective..without the "they are bad" response.....before anything can be done peacefuly,which is what i gather this movement is trying..it would be nice to know whats being asked. Then I and everyone else can act in an appropiate manner...there may be no reason for blood shed and ignorance

reply to post by thehoneycomb

There is no double standard. We are merely returning what was stolen.
Playground rules:

An elementary school teacher has instructed her class during recess to have fun, do whatever they wish during playtime, but to “share.”
Sounds reasonable. Everyone is doing as they wish; Sally is playing dodgeball, Jack is tossing a football, Clark is playing basketball, all is well. Morgan, the son of the school’s number one contributor, who also put the word in to hire the class teacher is sitting in the sandbox, bored. Sally and her sister are happily enjoying their game of dodge when here comes Morgan. He decides he wants to play with the dodgeball, so he takes Sally’s ball away. She protests, but Morgan replies “Share. Remember?” Sally realizes the teacher’s rule, and so she stops her protest. Morgan then decides he wants a basketball to go along with his kickball so he runs over to Clark and takes his ball as well. Clark is about to snatch the ball back when Morgan points to the teacher. Clark remembers the share rule and halts. Morgan is on a roll now and decides he wants a football. He obtains this ball as well, protected by the law of the land. He then spots another kid on the playground.
Tom is quietly sitting alone, tossing a baseball into the air and catching it. The ball is dirty, old, unremarkable, but carries sentimental value. This ball has been in Tom’s family for 60 years, and was handed down to him by his late father, but wouldn’t you know it, here comes Morgan, and he’s got his eye on Tom’s heirloom. In two shakes of a lamb’s tail Morgan has swiped Tom’s ball is making his way to the sandbox to stash his “earnings.” He’s fumbling along, so many balls he can barely walk straight.
Understandably, Tom is p!$$ed. He and Clark decide they’ve had enough of the system, Teacher’s rule or not, and so they walk over to the sandbox and begin to protest verbally. “Give me my ball back.” – “You have plenty.” Yada yada yada…. All of that (supposed) socialist talk that everyone seems to despise, but people forget where Morgan got all of those balls, but I digress. Tom and Clark, realizing that their words are having no affect, decide they out number Morgan, and so they merely push him over and take back the balls, "sharing" them with the rest of the class.

Do you see my point? You can’t actually steal what was stolen from you. You can either demand it back or take it by force. The point is, it belongs to you. And if the law of the land is designed to protect the thief, or if the thief owns the people who make the rules, then the rules no longer carry any weight. Maybe my choice of words were poor when I said “steal back”, but then again… I didn’t think I’d need to illustrate the obvious.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


I can not answer that for you.

Only you can answer that question for yourself. What do you believe in? What are your grievances? What is the objective you seek? Does it fall within the OWS movement? Or do you believe in something else?

Originally posted by Cyberboiraves
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

I compleatly understand what you are saying. Wars are won through battles and battles are often bloody. But wouldn't it be sweet to go all sleeper cell and get the same job done within the system. Take down with their own sword..I guess that is the point of the thread. How to be just as conniving as "they" are and be legal about it...

Except there are no more chairs at the table for people like you and I. We’re dealing with families that have controlled the system for generations. Both World Wars, every POTUS of the last 80 years, every major corporation is; planned, chosen, and owned by these men. Their Great-Great-Grandparents began the chess game we find ourselves pawns in now, and the game is getting aggressive. The people have spoken and so they have been punished. Everyday more and more rights are stripped, privacy taken away, our way of life stunted. Everyday they charge us more and more for earning our own money, while they collect and stow, boasting record profits, while still rationalizing down sizing. The game is reaching its apex.
Remember.
A pawn can never be a King, but a pawn can always get checkmate.