Judge rules AGAINST OWS

[RetiredGySgt]

Judge rules against Occupy Wall Street encampment - Yahoo! News

There is a thread here that claims just the opposite. So which is it?

 

[tinydancer]

Judge rules against Occupy Wall Street encampment - Yahoo! News

There is a thread here that claims just the opposite. So which is it?

I've got that the new judge ruled that the city has every right to evict them.

 

[paulitician]

It's a privately owned public space. Huh? Only in New York. Is it private or public property? Come on New York,get it together. SHEEESH!

 

[paulitician]

Yea New York is a very confused place. Zucotti Park is a privately owned public space. It's pretty confusing and stupid. The owners of the park are required by law to keep the park open 24/7 to the public. But they have the right to set up rules on how the park can be used. These owners have become very concerned with the poor sanitary conditions at the park. Therefore they have decided to ban all tents and camping equipment. They will also now require the protesters to use proper sanitation procedures. These owners have actually been very reasonable throughout this whole thing. Their main concern is keeping the park clean and undamaged. And that's why this ruling went down this way. I think it was a fair ruling.

 

[martybegan]

It's a privately owned public space. Huh? Only in New York. Is it private or public property? Come on New York,get it together. SHEEESH!

Privately Owned Public Space - New York City Department of City Planning

See the attached. The POPS program allows builders to exceed building height limits by trading for space near ground level. The ground level space is public access, but maintained and controlled by the private owner.

Most of these are simply plazas with benches, and some plants, but some are more complex. One property owner added seating on the roof of a smaller building of thier property, another added a plaza in a skylight covered sublevel, and even added resturant kiosks for people to have lunch. For a while there was a guy playing piano for tips (yes, they had a grand piano in the space)

Most of them are used by workers in NYC for lunch, breaks, etc.

 

[Avatar4321]

deleted

That seems to be the general idea of the more radical members of the group. Hopefully they wont actually make attempts. They are trying to make the Judge's life a living hell though. Seriously messed up people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judge rules against Occupy Wall Street encampment - Yahoo! News

The politics of it likely kept it from happening sooner.

In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), the Court ruled that a content-neutral regulation prohibiting sleeping in Washington, DC parks was not a violation of the First Amendment and was narrowly focused on a substantial governmental interest: keeping parks ‘clean’ and ‘intact.’

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW This likely wont be the final ruling against them.

 

[Lovebears65]

It's a privately owned public space. Huh? Only in New York. Is it private or public property? Come on New York,get it together. SHEEESH!

Yeah but it was the cities tax dollars paying for all that security too.

 

[Inthemiddle]

BTW This likely wont be the final ruling against them.

I agree. This is going to be appealed. I think it's going to be an interesting legal showdown. I thought the initial ruling was a little odd, viewing the park as a strictly private area. That's when I did a little more digging and now understand a little better the dual nature of the park. At the same time, I think the latest ruling, at least what little I know about it, is also a little odd. I can't think of any kind of precedent that puts any kind of time limit on people's first amendment rights. So, as this works its way up the appellate ladder it seems a new precedent is inevitable either way, either affirming or rejecting that the government can put a time limit upon first amendment rights.

I have a feeling this will go all the way to the SCOTUS. The state supreme court will become instrumental in laying out the definition of the park's status regarding it's dual public/private status and the government's jurisdiction over it versus the private ownership's jurisdiction to expel individuals. And the federal Supreme Court will decide whether the first amendment does indeed have time limits or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have a feeling this will go all the way to the SCOTUS. The state supreme court will become instrumental in laying out the definition of the park's status regarding it's dual public/private status and the government's jurisdiction over it versus the private ownership's jurisdiction to expel individuals. And the federal Supreme Court will decide whether the first amendment does indeed have time limits or not.

The Court already ruled – see post 9.

This issue is: does the City have a compelling governmental interest, and the situation with OWS is almost identical to that of Clark. Obviously a private property owner is not subject to First Amendment restrictions, and if determined public property the Clark precedent is on point.

The people have the right to peaceably assemble, but no right is absolute and government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on a given right. In the OWS case the regulation is content-neutral, singles out no specific group, and the City’s desire to keep the parks in good condition is reasonable.

The long-term ‘occupation’ of a given public or private venue is clearly not protected free-speech.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Eh, I should have said the state Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in NY.