Amelia
Rookie
- Banned
- #41
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.