While the fire hazard argument does in fact hold weight with me (it has the potential to violate the "peaceably" language of the 1st amendment) I just don't hold local nuisance ordinances at the same level as public safety requirements.... But that is simply my opinion.
I am curious though.... in response to "Uh, no."
Are you saying There aren't numerous posts asserting they don't know what they stand for then also claiming (albeit tacitly) that they don't agree with them?
Are you saying that there aren't numerous posts that claim OWS is an unorganized mob yet later suggesting some group, organization or individual is secretly behind it all?
Are you saying that there aren't posts here that acknowledge OWSer's do in fact enjoy first amendment protections ("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.") yet somehow local nuisance ordinances trump those protections?
And to nip a potential bud, I can already see "outbreak of disease" argument coming up in an attempt to paint this as a public safety issue but we are no where near that level of unsanitary conditions for that sort of situation to occur. No I don't have specific data or expert testimony regarding this.... but neither does anyone else and if they do I would love to read it.
Here this is my point....
Do we really want to go down the road where local ordinance "designed to manage use and ensure reasonable access" trumps Constitutional protections? I can understand public safety issues regarding constitutional right... i.e. not yelling fire in a crowded theater, highjack on a plane, speech that incites riots or violence upon others, and yes perhaps local fire safety violations as you pointed out. You're the lawyer not me, but aren't we supposed to be enjoying a system of laws that are gauged with regards to their Constitutionality as opposed to a system where Constitutional Rights are gauged as to there adherence to local "use and reasonable access" regulation?Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls told The Enquirer, “I believe in the constitutionally protected right of speech, right of assembly, and right to petition government to redress grievances. I do not believe that 'occupying' public space by camping out and violating regulation designed to manage use and ensure reasonable access is protected. I do not think the protesters should be allowed to stay overnight.”
EDIT: If the vice mayor is saying that protesters being there during normal business hours is fine just not over night, then you can ignore her "reasonable access claim" as no one is allowed in the park after, what is it 10 pm? In essence if they are only filling the park during normal business hours reasonable access protects are still being violated. That leaves use with the "manage use" portion and this sounds a lot like we (local government) don't have to allow you to protest here simply because we don't want to allow it.
Last edited by Swit; 10-22-11 at 04:31 PM.
I can't begin to tell you how much I loathe our current judicial system. The judge in this case is a perfect example of the judicial system usurps congress. Legally speaking, he/she may not enforce or write policy. It's their job to interpret the constitution and make a ruling. They must not lean right or left when they come up with their decision.
With that being said, I applaud the Cincinnati police for writing these tickets. It's gonna be interesting to see what the cops do with this federal judges "order." My hope is that you'll ignore this unconstitutional order and call out the judge for attempting to legislate from the bench.
The OWS is a movement that can't be ignored. I pretty much despise all of their arguments. The only people that I sympathize with are the END THE FED folks. The other people who claim the We are the 99% consist of the utterly ignorant and cling onto governing concepts. All of which have failed miserably.
my short list of failed governmental policy that I believe they are rallying against:
1. Trickle down and supply side economics
2. Big Corp bailouts and influence in politics
3. The general dismantling of the power of labor organizations
Have you ever read John Rawls "A Theory of Justice"? In particular the concepts behind of the "veil of ignorance" and/or the "original position"? quick link
EDIT: Can I ask who gets to decide what the definition of "right things" is, more importantly what if your personal view of this concept differs from that of person who decides this?
Last edited by Swit; 10-22-11 at 11:19 PM.
Well being a Kentuckian that lives a mile from the "forbidden zone" I can tell you Cincinnati is a giant **** pile. I don't know exactly what there is to protest about Cincinnati other than it being one giant pile of suck. If a nuclear bomb went off that somehow only destroyed everything in the Cincinnati area America would be a better place. The only good things that come out of Cincinnati is Krogers and P&G the rest of Cincinnati can suck it.
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan