judge to Occupy Boston: screw!

[Amelia]

Imagine, occupation is not speech but money is. Pacs and individuals can spend unlimited money to influence our politics but they are putting limits on speech when it comes to the only way to counter the big money.

Please. How is telling people that they cannot commandeer land limiting speech?



Oh wait, you don't know the difference between setting up housekeeping on someone else's property and written or verbal communication? That could explain a lot.

When faced with a 1st amendment question of money as speech, the SCOTUS issued a very broad and permissive opinion.

When faced with a 1st amendment question on in-person protest as speech, it seems conservatives would have them hand down a very broad and restrictive opinion.

Not coincidentally both decisions make it easier for the big money to shout down the rabble. I have no doubt of how the Roberts court will decide on any free speech question that would arise from the occupy movement.

Money pays for the dissemination of speech.

Taking over land and setting up house on it for extended periods is one notch away from theft -- before we even start talking about the health hazards. There is no reason and no excuse not to enforce the laws surrounding camping on the property. The rest of the citizens have a right to the laws being enforced. It's a legal matter and a health and safety matter.

I repeat - the fact that you don't see the difference between unlawful confiscation of property and actual speech (or the funding of actual speech) - says much.

The protestors could go there day after day. What they don't get to do is take it over and live there in violation of city ordinances.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ruling doesnt hold precedent in any other state. Although the other states can look to this for support of their own precedent.

Incorrect.

In Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984), the Supreme Court held that ‘sleep-in’ type protests in Washington, D.C. parks with regard to the plight of the homeless was not protected free speech, the National Park Service was authorized to compel the demonstrators to leave.

That the OWS protesters have no First Amendment protection was never at issue, as this been the settled law of the land for almost 20 years, the judge in this case simply followed precedent.


The ruling for those interested:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[RadiomanATL]

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Although the structure would probably hold 1/2" OSB as a roof. Not much more than that, and I wouldn't want to be in it. But it would probably hold it.

Just imagine what will happen when it gets a snow load on it.

Thats why I didn't say OSB and snow.

 

[Amelia]

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

I love this new anarchy!

I know several sites owned by all of us that I would just love. Gonna go get 'em and built me a house!

Make sure you hammer in a political sign out front so you can call the structure "speech".

 

[Avatar4321]

The ruling doesnt hold precedent in any other state. Although the other states can look to this for support of their own precedent.

Incorrect.

In Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984), the Supreme Court held that ‘sleep-in’ type protests in Washington, D.C. parks with regard to the plight of the homeless was not protected free speech, the National Park Service was authorized to compel the demonstrators to leave.

That the OWS protesters have no First Amendment protection was never at issue, as this been the settled law of the land for almost 20 years, the judge in this case simply followed precedent.


The ruling for those interested:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

As I was saying, this case doesnt hold any precedent.

I never said prior cases didn't.

 

[Si modo]

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

I love this new anarchy!

I know several sites owned by all of us that I would just love. Gonna go get 'em and built me a house!

Make sure you hammer in a political sign out front so you can call the structure "speech".

Thanks for the tip!

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I shit you not.

Here is a pic of what got razed Sunday night.

And, here's the suit about proper notice: Occupy DC Wins Legal Victory On Camping In McPherson Square

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

You're kidding, right??

The side walls are canted outward approx 4ft from vertical, and the only thing keeping the wall/roof joint from spreading seems to be 4 joists approx 8 ft apart.

That structure is injuries waiting to happen, especially if there is any significant snowfall.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

You're kidding, right??

The side walls are canted outward approx 4ft from vertical, and the only thing keeping the wall/roof joint from spreading seems to be 4 joists approx 8 ft apart.

That structure is injuries waiting to happen, especially if there is any significant snowfall.

I don't know what codes are in states that receive significant snowfall, but I wouldn't be in a structure that had more than a 16" O.C. wooden truss system up there.

 

[Full-Auto]

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

You're kidding, right??

The side walls are canted outward approx 4ft from vertical, and the only thing keeping the wall/roof joint from spreading seems to be 4 joists approx 8 ft apart.

That structure is injuries waiting to happen, especially if there is any significant snowfall.

Your eye is off. Just by looking at the front OSB, you can see its only leans out a foot. With some CJs it could hold a good load.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

I love this new anarchy!

I know several sites owned by all of us that I would just love. Gonna go get 'em and built me a house!

I'm with you, girl. I would love to have a 3,000 sq ft ranch under the Gateway Arch.

I could take a 200ft walk, and catch 1% of the fish in the Mighty Mississippi.

Occupy The Big Muddy!!!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

You're kidding, right??

The side walls are canted outward approx 4ft from vertical, and the only thing keeping the wall/roof joint from spreading seems to be 4 joists approx 8 ft apart.

That structure is injuries waiting to happen, especially if there is any significant snowfall.

Considering its purpose is to be "speech", I'd think it adequate. As for any injuries, the injured would most likely sue the DC authorities and win all kinds of "redistributed" wealth.

 

[Si modo]

I believe the design was on purpose because on the radio I could hear them calling it the "People's Pentagon".

Catchy, huh?

 

[Si modo]

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

I love this new anarchy!

I know several sites owned by all of us that I would just love. Gonna go get 'em and built me a house!

I'm with you, girl. I would love to have a 3,000 sq ft ranch under the Gateway Arch.

I could take a 200ft walk, and catch 1% of the fish in the Mighty Mississippi.

Occupy The Big Muddy!!!!

Wouldn't you rather something in Ladue?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I believe the design was on purpose because on the radio I could hear them calling it the "People's Pentagon".

Catchy, huh?

Thats why they canted the sidewalls then.

Doesn't look like a 4ft cant, probably about 18 inches. Either way, with any significant snow on the roof it's gonna come down.

 

[Si modo]

I believe the design was on purpose because on the radio I could hear them calling it the "People's Pentagon".

Catchy, huh?

Thats why they canted the sidewalls then.

Doesn't look like a 4ft cant, probably about 18 inches. Either way, with any significant snow on the roof it's gonna come down.

Yeah.

And, we can get heavy snows here, for sure.

I know that lumber isn't cheap. We just spent about $500 a couple of weekends ago to rebuild a shed we have for mowers and stuff. That was just on lumber and our shed is smaller than that. We still have more stuff to get, too.

So, they are unemployed?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

You're kidding, right??

The side walls are canted outward approx 4ft from vertical, and the only thing keeping the wall/roof joint from spreading seems to be 4 joists approx 8 ft apart.

That structure is injuries waiting to happen, especially if there is any significant snowfall.

Your eye is off. Just by looking at the front OSB, you can see its only leans out a foot. With some CJs it could hold a good load.

Look at the top of that front piece compared to the bottom. The top is much wider than the bottom, and I would put the bottom at 1ft wide. Without being up close and personal, I think the top is 3.5 - 4 ft wider than the bottom.

 

[occupied]

Well, it's no wonder they didn't get their blueprints looked at. It would never have been approved. The way the side walls are canted outward, it would have collapsed before they finished constructing the roof.

When they wanted the design, they must have gone to Andrew Lloyd Wright instead of Frank Lloyd Wright.

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

You're kidding, right??

The side walls are canted outward approx 4ft from vertical, and the only thing keeping the wall/roof joint from spreading seems to be 4 joists approx 8 ft apart.

That structure is injuries waiting to happen, especially if there is any significant snowfall.

They obviously meant to close off the end walls, That alone would provide sufficient sheer strength to keep it up under any conditions it would be likely to encounter. However were it empty and not tied down it would roll over in a high wind but it would remain fairly intact. The roof structure has sufficient triangular bracing to keep it's shape and a steep enough pitch to shed heavy snow, also any source of heat would melt the snow off of an uninsulated roof. I cannot tell from the picture but i also suspect it was partially prefabricated and put together with screws. If it was screwed together it was not going anywhere under any circumstances.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I love this new anarchy!

I know several sites owned by all of us that I would just love. Gonna go get 'em and built me a house!

I'm with you, girl. I would love to have a 3,000 sq ft ranch under the Gateway Arch.

I could take a 200ft walk, and catch 1% of the fish in the Mighty Mississippi.

Occupy The Big Muddy!!!!

Wouldn't you rather something in Ladue?

Oh, Hell No.

They're all Yuppies.

They won't even let folks like me into their restaurants to eat, let alone take baths in their restrooms.

 

[Full-Auto]

You're kidding, right??

The side walls are canted outward approx 4ft from vertical, and the only thing keeping the wall/roof joint from spreading seems to be 4 joists approx 8 ft apart.

That structure is injuries waiting to happen, especially if there is any significant snowfall.

Your eye is off. Just by looking at the front OSB, you can see its only leans out a foot. With some CJs it could hold a good load.

Look at the top of that front piece compared to the bottom. The top is much wider than the bottom, and I would put the bottom at 1ft wide. Without being up close and personal, I think the top is 3.5 - 4 ft wider than the bottom.

Maybe 18 inches as earlier suggested. The top of the sheet is only two to two and a half feet. Sheets are 4 wide and it isnt there. I would still guess the foot though. If everything is fastened properly it could still take a good load.

 

[Amelia]

This is actually not that bad, from what I can see it would serve it's purpose.

I love this new anarchy!

I know several sites owned by all of us that I would just love. Gonna go get 'em and built me a house!

I'm with you, girl. I would love to have a 3,000 sq ft ranch under the Gateway Arch.

I could take a 200ft walk, and catch 1% of the fish in the Mighty Mississippi.

Occupy The Big Muddy!!!!

Yes!

The possibilities!