judge to Occupy Boston: screw!

[del]

"The judge wrote in her 25-page decision that protesters had no right to seize Dewey Square, which they have occupied since Sept. 30.

She reasoned that “while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during their protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit.”

Drawing a distinction between the “occupation” of the land and the “living activities” on the land, McIntyre wrote, “The act of occupation, this court has determined as a matter of law, is not speech. Nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes.”

Judge rules against Occupy Boston protesters, clearing way for eviction; Mayor Menino urges them to leave - Metro Desk - Local news updates from The Boston Globe

about fucking time

Boy, you have all the wingnuts thanking you for that one.

"once in awhile you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right"

r. hunter

 

[del]

Actual donations to candidates is indeed still covered, but that is not what I was talking about and you know it. In 2110 the SC said that anyone can spend as much as they want on so-called advocacy ads. You can buy as much airtime as you want to broadcast anything you want factual or not as long as you are not directly connected with a specific campaign, you know this stuff. You can't really support a candidate but you can damned sure smear one. TV is going to be unwatchable next year.

Technically there is no such thing as freedom of speech. You can't just say anything to a cop, judge or public official without losing your freedom. Things you say can & will be used against you. Things you say will not exonerate you. The media can suppress speech, slant coverage, edit speech & events to attract viewers or if it is paid to do so. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't speak loudly during quiet hours in most cities.

Freedom of speech is a myth like Santa Clause.

It's also something we should never take lightly when some partisan judge starts defining limits. Kick this on up for appeal and let's see what happens.

is she partisan because she disagrees with you, or is there some basis in fact?

 

[Si modo]

Actual donations to candidates is indeed still covered, but that is not what I was talking about and you know it. In 2110 the SC said that anyone can spend as much as they want on so-called advocacy ads. You can buy as much airtime as you want to broadcast anything you want factual or not as long as you are not directly connected with a specific campaign, you know this stuff. You can't really support a candidate but you can damned sure smear one. TV is going to be unwatchable next year.

Technically there is no such thing as freedom of speech. You can't just say anything to a cop, judge or public official without losing your freedom. Things you say can & will be used against you. Things you say will not exonerate you. The media can suppress speech, slant coverage, edit speech & events to attract viewers or if it is paid to do so. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't speak loudly during quiet hours in most cities.

Freedom of speech is a myth like Santa Clause.

It's also something we should never take lightly when some partisan judge starts defining limits. Kick this on up for appeal and let's see what happens.

Wait? OWS says they are non-partisan - at least that seems to be what they say.

Is the judge partisan, like Democrat, or partisan, like Republican? Any evidence on party affiliation of the judge? And, how would that matter if OWS is non-partisan, as they claim?

 

[Anguille]

wait til you see what's left of the green way! then you'll be sorry.

can i see you on the porch, please?

It won't be any more of a mess than Copley Square is after some stupid Celtics Victory Parade or the Marathon.

Bullshit (with an emphasis on the 'shit').

Please clean up after your bull.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think it is a breach of the Constitution but when have judges ever worried about that.

What part of her decision is a violation of the federal or state constitution?

They are still allowed to peacefully gather and protest they just aren't allowed to break city ordinances in the process.

I think clearing protesters out is a violation a"The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

The judges decision states that they are no longer exempt from the laws of Boston while protesting yet still protects their right to peacefully assemble and protest.

I'm not sure how her decision to cease exempting the protestors from the local laws is a violation of their rights when they can still gather to protest if they want.

 

[Conservative]

I think it is a breach of the Constitution but when have judges ever worried about that.

What part of her decision is a violation of the federal or state constitution?

They are still allowed to peacefully gather and protest they just aren't allowed to break city ordinances in the process.

I think clearing protesters out is a violation a"The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

so to you, freedom of speech is camping out where ever you wish, without the government forcing you out? assembling where ever you wish, without the government forcing you out?

 

[strollingbones]

i agree with cowman....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You guys love the notion of regulating Average Americans into the ground... but when it comes to regulating corporations or banks, the thought repulses you.

If only you sleazeballs put as much effort into protecting the environment and you put into protecting the man made environment.

i agree with cowman....

You guys love the notion of regulating Average Americans into the ground... but when it comes to regulating corporations or banks, the thought repulses you.

If only you sleazeballs put as much effort into protecting the environment and you put into protecting the man made environment.

Ok now that you got your talking points out what do you think of this Judge's Ruling?

By the way she is the same judge that allowed OWS to be protected from police eviction so your post sounds a bit funny in light of the facts. Also Menino is a liberal and supports the OWS movement.

But what do you think of the judges ruling bones?

 

[Anguille]

wait til you see what's left of the green way! then you'll be sorry.

can i see you on the porch, please?

It won't be any more of a mess than Copley Square is after some stupid Celtics Victory Parade or the Marathon.

there's not much grass in copley square, and there's even less on the greenway, now.

Oh please! Next you'll be telling me Columbus Ave is in the Back Bay.

I like grass as much as the next person, (though maybe not as much as Biker Sailor) however I think it's been a fair trade trade off. The Greenway may be slightly less green for the moment but the issues the occupiers have brought to the attention of the public won't just disappear like brown spots in a lawn after a spring shower. Something genuine needs to be done about rising poverty and unemployment in the US.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"The judge wrote in her 25-page decision that protesters had no right to seize Dewey Square, which they have occupied since Sept. 30.

She reasoned that “while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during their protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit.”

Drawing a distinction between the “occupation” of the land and the “living activities” on the land, McIntyre wrote, “The act of occupation, this court has determined as a matter of law, is not speech. Nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes.”

Judge rules against Occupy Boston protesters, clearing way for eviction; Mayor Menino urges them to leave - Metro Desk - Local news updates from The Boston Globe

about fucking time

Merge me del...MERGE ME! http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-get-ready-for-the-rules-to-be-enforced.html

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"The judge wrote in her 25-page decision that protesters had no right to seize Dewey Square, which they have occupied since Sept. 30.

She reasoned that “while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during their protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit.”

Drawing a distinction between the “occupation” of the land and the “living activities” on the land, McIntyre wrote, “The act of occupation, this court has determined as a matter of law, is not speech. Nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes.”

Judge rules against Occupy Boston protesters, clearing way for eviction; Mayor Menino urges them to leave - Metro Desk - Local news updates from The Boston Globe

about fucking time

They are still allowed to protest just not allowed to violate our laws or be exempt from the rules every other protest group must follow.

I'm glad she reversed her decision to exempt them from the rules everyone else is expected to follow.

 

[Dragon]

My thoughts on this:

1) Nonviolent civil disobedience always involves breaking laws. At some point the protesters must and do expect the laws to be enforced and to be facing arrest.

2) The courts have a duty to enforce the law.

I have no criticism at this point of either the protesters or the judge. I might criticize some of the behavior of police at various times during the course of this movement so far, when they have exceeded reasonable levels of force or engaged in harassment. But I have no problem with this judge's ruling.

One third thought: it's not over. Not even close.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I doubt seriously that "Freedom of Speech" extends to the right to take over public lands indefinitely.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

My thoughts on this:

1) Nonviolent civil disobedience always involves breaking laws. At some point the protesters must and do expect the laws to be enforced and to be facing arrest.

2) The courts have a duty to enforce the law.

I have no criticism at this point of either the protesters or the judge. I might criticize some of the behavior of police at various times during the course of this movement so far, when they have exceeded reasonable levels of force or engaged in harassment. But I have no problem with this judge's ruling.

One third thought: it's not over. Not even close.

Well said sir!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My thoughts on this:

1) Nonviolent civil disobedience always involves breaking laws. At some point the protesters must and do expect the laws to be enforced and to be facing arrest.

2) The courts have a duty to enforce the law.

I have no criticism at this point of either the protesters or the judge. I might criticize some of the behavior of police at various times during the course of this movement so far, when they have exceeded reasonable levels of force or engaged in harassment. But I have no problem with this judge's ruling.

One third thought: it's not over. Not even close.

Yeah, it's for the most part over. They ran 'em off here in New Orleans, then a judge ruled they cold come back, and like 3 came back.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

My thoughts on this:

1) Nonviolent civil disobedience always involves breaking laws. At some point the protesters must and do expect the laws to be enforced and to be facing arrest.

2) The courts have a duty to enforce the law.

I have no criticism at this point of either the protesters or the judge. I might criticize some of the behavior of police at various times during the course of this movement so far, when they have exceeded reasonable levels of force or engaged in harassment. But I have no problem with this judge's ruling.

One third thought: it's not over. Not even close.

Yeah, it's for the most part over. They ran 'em off here in New Orleans, then a judge ruled they cold come back, and like 3 came back.

I hope they all go to the true source of the problem, washington DC, and respect the local laws while there protesting them.

 

[Si modo]

My thoughts on this:

1) Nonviolent civil disobedience always involves breaking laws. At some point the protesters must and do expect the laws to be enforced and to be facing arrest.

2) The courts have a duty to enforce the law.

I have no criticism at this point of either the protesters or the judge. I might criticize some of the behavior of police at various times during the course of this movement so far, when they have exceeded reasonable levels of force or engaged in harassment. But I have no problem with this judge's ruling.

One third thought: it's not over. Not even close.

Yeah, it's for the most part over. They ran 'em off here in New Orleans, then a judge ruled they cold come back, and like 3 came back.

I hope they all go to the true source of the problem, washington DC, and respect the local laws while there protesting them.

(I never could understand why they didn't in the first place.)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I just uploaded this......i think its funny let me know if it is or isnt

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogGeZyaS8o]Camp Occupada Song - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

That is funny.

Once the movement was mocked, it was another nail in it's coffin.

 

[paulitician]

Where do your rights end and mine begin? It's an age-old question. I have to agree with this Judge on this ruling. 'Occupying' is an aggressive act which results in seizure and possession of property and does infringe on others' rights. Therefore removal of these protesters is both legal and justified.