Federal Judge Orders Cincinnati Not To Ticket OWS'ers

TurtleDude said:

The law has been the law for as long as I remember. Parks have always had closing hours. These people are violating a reasonable law. Time to start making them pay the fines or put their asses in jail. They are hurting some of the local businesses.

Click to expand...

Turtle - now that you are on record as loathing actions which hurt local businesses, do you also feel the same anger and disapproval of outfits such as WalMart who come into towns all across America and hurt local businesses taking away customers, dollars and often driving them right out of business? Its hard to get more harmful to local business that that.

So how about it?

Pinkie said:

I am now BEYOND confused. On what basis did a federal judge TRO the City of Cincinnati against enforcing tickets to clear its parks after-hours?

Click to expand...

Well, the judge needs to balance two things. The state's interest in having the parking lots empty out at night with the people's interest in free assembly and speech. In this case, the judge found that the people's interests outweighed the state's. Sometimes they find the other way. It's a case by case balancing test. If you just allowed the state to use any pretense they wanted to stop people from assembling and speaking their minds, the freedoms of speech and assembly would be meaningless because, for example, if they didn't like a protest they could just blurt out that it was disrupting business or something and get suppress it. On the other hand, if you let any speech or assembly right always beat out any state interest at all, everything would collapse because, for example, just one person could prevent the state assembly from meeting by protesting on the speaker's dias. So, judges need to balance the interests. In this case I assume he didn't think the state's interest in emptying a parking lot at night was really very significant, where clearly this is a whole lot of speech and assembly going on that is very important to those folks, so that outweighs.

teamosil said:

Well, the judge needs to balance two things. The state's interest in having the parking lots empty out at night with the people's interest in free assembly and speech. In this case, the judge found that the people's interests outweighed the state's. Sometimes they find the other way. It's a case by case balancing test. If you just allowed the state to use any pretense they wanted to stop people from assembling and speaking their minds, the freedoms of speech and assembly would be meaningless because, for example, if they didn't like a protest they could just blurt out that it was disrupting business or something and get suppress it. On the other hand, if you let any speech or assembly right always beat out any state interest at all, everything would collapse because, for example, just one person could prevent the state assembly from meeting by protesting on the speaker's dias. So, judges need to balance the interests. In this case I assume he didn't think the state's interest in emptying a parking lot at night was really very significant, where clearly this is a whole lot of speech and assembly going on that is very important to those folks, so that outweighs.

Click to expand...

You missed the memo....
They stay was lifted and the police started issuing fines for the camping after the judges official ruling came down.

Caine said:

You missed the memo....
They stay was lifted and the police started issuing fines for the camping after the judges official ruling came down.

Click to expand...

Ok. I don't know anything about the specific case, I'm just explaining how the law works for that stuff. The balancing test.

haymarket said:

NO it is not.

Does your statement about rights being limited apply to all the rights we enjoy as Americans or are there some rights we enjoy that you feel are without limits?

Click to expand...

You are being obtuse. Your rights stop where mine begin.

If you want to continue to play games, get to whatever the hell point you are trying to make..... otherwise, adios.

Gill said:

You are being obtuse. Your rights stop where mine begin.

If you want to continue to play games, get to whatever the hell point you are trying to make..... otherwise, adios.

Click to expand...

I am making it perfectly but I strongly suspect you see where it is going. I strongly suspect that you have no compunction telling others that their rights are limited in nature when they mean not so much to you but then will get all righteous and indignant when one of the rights you take extremely seriously is said to have similar limits and reasonable boundaries.

So how about it. Are you honest enough to say this is true or do you agree that all of the rights we have as Americans have limits and boundaries attached to them?

Again, here is what you originally said

The right to assemble and protest is not an unlimited right. There comes a point when other people's rights start being affected, so reasonable restrictions must be taken. These people protesting that their student loans should be forgiven don't have any right to harm others. Their right's don't supersede others.

Click to expand...

So we get the point that you are not exactly a fan of these protests.
We get the fact that you tell us that the right to assemble is not an unlimited right.
We get the fact that you tell us that the right to protest is not an unlimited right.

Now I want to know do we have any rights as Americans that in your opinion are unlimited rights?

haymarket said:

I am making it perfectly but I strongly suspect you see where it is going. I strongly suspect that you have no compunction telling others that their rights are limited in nature when they mean not so much to you but then will get all righteous and indignant when one of the rights you take extremely seriously is said to have similar limits and reasonable boundaries.

So how about it. Are you honest enough to say this is true or do you agree that all of the rights we have as Americans have limits and boundaries attached to them?

Again, here is what you originally said



So we get the point that you are not exactly a fan of these protests.
We get the fact that you tell us that the right to assemble is not an unlimited right.
We get the fact that you tell us that the right to protest is not an unlimited right.

Now I want to know do we have any rights as Americans that in your opinion are unlimited rights?

Click to expand...

No right is unlimited if it infringes on the constitutional rights of another..

Satisfied ??

haymarket said:

Turtle - now that you are on record as loathing actions which hurt local businesses, do you also feel the same anger and disapproval of outfits such as WalMart who come into towns all across America and hurt local businesses taking away customers, dollars and often driving them right out of business? Its hard to get more harmful to local business that that.

So how about it?

Click to expand...

NO.....................

one is unlawful

one is lawful

The only groups that have unlimited rights are those groups that do not allow their rights to be limited. It's a very simple concept. It's always been that way in the US. We're a nation of laws. A few billion laws would be my guess. Sometimes you just have to ignore a small number of laws to be able to exercise your rights.

Please leave the Rainbow Hippies out of this. Your city will be burned to the ground by young men with military style haircuts.

Gill said:

No right is unlimited if it infringes on the constitutional rights of another..

Satisfied ??

Click to expand...

Fair enough... but in the context of this thread can you explain exactly which right(s) of non-protesters were being infringed upon?

Tigger said:

As we've seen across the country throughout the whole "Occupy" debacle. Deputize me and the guys I do medieval re-enactment combat with and we'll clear these parks out in 20 minutes, tops. We'll also improve the local economy by putting money in the local hospital's pockets.

Click to expand...

Always helpful, bull**** internet threats of violence.

*Sarcastic tone*

Ikari said:

That's certainly a lie on a few fronts. The main contention of OWS isn't completely "anti-capitalist" (there are likely those elements in there, but not completely composed there of), the whole of it certain is anti-corporate capitalism; the economic system we currently have (not free market capitalism). I don't sympathize with anti-rich sentiments either; I sympathize with freedom and liberty and the ability of people to exercise their rights to their maximum. Please don't lie.

Click to expand...

So, where's your sympathy for people who want to use these parks for Fall or Halloween plans? Where's your sympathy who enjoy using the parks for peace and quiet? Where's your sympathy for people like me, who treasure every plant in them?

I dunno what use you perceive in these OWS events, Ikari; I swear I just don't. Neither can I understand why you think the laws should be suspended for their benefit. What is so "holy" about gathering together to whine and bitch like a 2 year who needs a nap?

Ikari said:

That insult didn't address the question, did it now? Jesus H. Christ Pinkie, if you're going to quote my post and bitch about it; at least get the subject matter right.

Click to expand...

Why don't we fight this out elsewhere, where we're allowed to take the gloves off?

Ikari said:

I know that. You seem to have missed what I said. Try reading, come back when you figure out what was written.

BTW, a lie on your part is that you claim I think that the OWS protests are some holy war. I do not. I simply believe in freedom and liberty and thus upholding our rights, including protest and assembly, to their maximum. My contentions on protest are not limited to OWS. It's all protest, dissent, assembly, redress, etc.

What can I say, I love freedom.

Click to expand...

You seem to miss that by congesting in the park and creating noise, litter, etc. these protestors are infringing on the rights of others -- severely. Do you just not give a damn because taking a baby to see the fall color, reading a book in the peace and listening to birdsong, or walking a trail for exercise isn't "political"?

Why do you think only SOME people's rights are paramount? Why aren't all the citizens' rights of EQUAL importance?

Pinkie said:

You seem to miss that by congesting in the park and creating noise, litter, etc. these protestors are infringing on the rights of others -- severely. Do you just not give a damn because taking a baby to see the fall color, reading a book in the peace and listening to birdsong, or walking a trail for exercise isn't "political"?

Why do you think only SOME people's rights are paramount? Why aren't all the citizens' rights of EQUAL importance?

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong..... this comment isn't intended to be confrontational but.....

I am still really confused about what RIGHTS of others are being infringed upon by the protesters.

And in general I agree that public spaces are to be enjoyed by all but a constitutionally protected right... that of the right to peaceable assemble.... trumps your desire (i.e. NOT an enumerated right provided by the US Constitution or that of the Ohio Constitution) for taking a baby to see fall color, reading a book in peace or listening to birdsong.

As far as I can tell the ONLY right that may possibly apply is the 9th amendment which states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But I would advise not going down this road without some critical thought, I believe the pitfalls of trying to argue that the ninth amendment provides this protection is apparent.

Swit said:

Don't get me wrong..... this comment isn't intended to be confrontational but.....

I am still really confused about what RIGHTS of others are being infringed upon by the protesters.

And in general I agree that public spaces are to be enjoyed by all but a constitutionally protected right... that of the right to peaceable assemble.... trumps your desire (i.e. NOT an enumerated right provided by the US Constitution or that of the Ohio Constitution) for taking a baby to see fall color, reading a book in peace or listening to birdsong.

As far as I can tell the ONLY right that may possibly apply is the 9th amendment which states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But I would advise not going down this road without some critical thought, I believe the pitfalls of trying to argue that the ninth amendment provides this protection is apparent.

Click to expand...

In brief, I don't mind if these OWSers are in the park during its normal hours. Crowd control, littering laws, etc. will suffice. But camping there is in violation of the law...and tent cities will degrade the park.

I don't think anyone should be excluded from a public park or preventing from excersizing their constitutional rights...but those rights have limits, which are likewise constitutional.

Pinkie said:

In brief, I don't mind if these OWSers are in the park during its normal hours. Crowd control, littering laws, etc. will suffice. But camping there is in violation of the law...and tent cities will degrade the park.

I don't think anyone should be excluded from a public park or preventing from excersizing their constitutional rights...but those rights have limits, which are likewise constitutional.

Click to expand...

Two things pique my interest here....

1. Laws don't trump constitutional rights, as a point of order laws are to be gauged as to their constitutionality as such, and in this particular instance, a judge determined that limitation be put in place for the camping... i.e. fines and city ordinance violations occurred.

2. People on this thread have stated more than a couple times that non-protester right(s) have been infringed upon.... I would like to know which right or rights those are..... breaking the law IS NOT the same as infringing on another citizens rights.

this is a direct quote from you (not picking on you it was just the closest post):

You seem to miss that by congesting in the park and creating noise, litter, etc. these protestors are infringing on the rights of others -- severely.

Click to expand...

(bold added by me)
I only included the 1st sentence... I do not believe I took anything out of context.

Can we at least admit.... in the effort to have an honest discussion that there is no right of others, as enumerated by either the United States or Ohio Constitutions that the protesters infringed upon.... and if there was I would really like to know where I can research it.

EDIT: I want to add a third point that just occurred to me. If you dont care if they are there during normal business hours, and are generally upset about the disregard to local law then how does your previous post regarding babies, books, and birdsong relate? It would still be a nuisance to you (presumptively) during normal business hours and the only way to not have this nuisance would to be there illegally after normal business hours (in the event that the protesters respected local ordinances and vacated the park before it closed) in which case you would be violating the exact law you are upset about that they are breaking.

I have asked this question from Gill several times now

Now I want to know do we have any rights as Americans that in your opinion are unlimited rights?

Click to expand...

and the latest quasi response

No right is unlimited if it infringes on the constitutional rights of another..

Satisfied ??

Click to expand...

You are still avoiding my direct question.

As an American citizen, do you believe that you have any rights that are unlimited and have no limits or borders that government an legally impose upon them?

my question arising from a response from Turtle

Turtle - now that you are on record as loathing actions which hurt local businesses, do you also feel the same anger and disapproval of outfits such as WalMart who come into towns all across America and hurt local businesses taking away customers, dollars and often driving them right out of business? Its hard to get more harmful to local business that that.

So how about it?
NO.....................

Click to expand...

and his answer

one is unlawful

one is lawful

Click to expand...

That is simply not the case. People are exercising their rights and you have stated that you disapprove strongly because it is causing local businesses to lose business - sales - revenues. There is not an element of lawlessness or criminality in that. If there was, the local law enforcement authorities would step in and make proper arrests. And in some cases that is what has happened but in a very limited scale involving only a minority of people who are exercising their rights on a daily basis.

So are you just against the specific loss of business that occurs when suspected acts of criminality happen like the Brooklyn Bridge incident where arrests were made - are are you indeed objecting to these protests in New York and many other cities on a daily basis even without any criminal action taking place simply because in your estimation is leads to local businesses losing sales and revenues?

Or to put in the affirmative - people are gathered in a park or public place and the authorities are watching to make sure no criminal action takes place. Local businesses complain that the protests are cutting into sales and revenues. According to your statements, should those protests now be stopped because they are hurting local businesses even though the local authorities have no arrested anyone for any criminal offense?

The City let this go too far there should have been tickets at the beginning and arrests where ever possible.

This will end in deaths if it's aloud to continue because the protesters are fools idiots and just plain dumb-asses.

Pinkie said:

Always helpful, bull**** internet threats of violence.

*Sarcastic tone*

Click to expand...

Pinkie, I'm not sure if you've heard the comments from one of Boston's former Mayors on the Occupy Boston group. Basically he's said that the current Mayor should have given the group 24 hours and then removed them by force if necessary. I totally agree (except for the giving them 24 hours part). These people are a waste of time, energy, flesh, and oxygen. They add NOTHING to the political of philosophical discourse. They've already cost the City of Boston well over $2 Million. At what point are they required to follow the rules, or get the spanking they so richly deserve before being sent to bed without dinner like the five year olds they portray themselves as?

Tigger said:

Pinkie, I'm not sure if you've heard the comments from one of Boston's former Mayors on the Occupy Boston group. Basically he's said that the current Mayor should have given the group 24 hours and then removed them by force if necessary. I totally agree (except for the giving them 24 hours part). These people are a waste of time, energy, flesh, and oxygen. They add NOTHING to the political of philosophical discourse. They've already cost the City of Boston well over $2 Million. At what point are they required to follow the rules, or get the spanking they so richly deserve before being sent to bed without dinner like the five year olds they portray themselves as?

Click to expand...

We can certainly debate the quality of city government/law enforcement's response to OWSers across the country. Here in Cleveland, our mayor threatened to clear them off and then reniged. I also think he looks weak. The OWSers here are occupying Public Square, a downtown thoroughfare used by vehicles. They are impeding traffic.

They have been offered a space on the sidewalk, even to the point of preventing other pedestrians from using it, as well as a park space. They've rejected both. The first is not going to inconvenience enough people, and the second is too cold, because it is near Lake Erie.

What crap...our mayor should have them arrested.

I think there's a national paralysis as to what to do, as every mayor seems to fear any sort of conflict between police and the OWSers....and I think the OWSers continue to escalate their law-breaking, hoping for just such a confrontation. I also think these are mostly young white people, with no clue, who are being used as cannon fodder...and when I read that some OWSers are taking their babies to these events, it infuriates me. WTH takes a baby to a cold, weeks-long camping trip in October that it is hoped will turn violent?

Story on the "Occupy Cleveland" foolishness:

Comments on City says Occupy Cleveland can protest on Public Square, but can't set up tents | Business - Page 3 -

Pinkie said:

We can certainly debate the quality of city government/law enforcement's response to OWSers across the country. Here in Cleveland, our mayor threatened to clear them off and then reniged. I also think he looks weak. The OWSers here are occupying Public Square, a downtown thoroughfare used by vehicles. They are impeding traffic.

Click to expand...

I'll speak for Boston, where it's been a total farce. The CITY is paying for their garbage collection, their electricity, the BPD overtime, etc... Mayor Menino looks like a farce because everyone knows he's on the side of the Occupiers. He isn't even TALKING a strong game.

I've got an idea for you folks in Cincy..... RUN THEM DOWN if they get in the way of your car. I know that's what I'd do.

The closest "City" to me is Worcester, MA; home of TEN Colleges & Univer sities. Their "Occupy" movement has less than 100 people despite Worcester being the second largest population city in New England. I've been told the groups in Providence and Hartford have more people, as does the one in Manchester, NH.

Pinkie said:

They have been offered a space on the sidewalk, even to the point of preventing other pedestrians from using it, as well as a park space. They've rejected both. The first is not going to inconvenience enough people, and the second is too cold, because it is near Lake Erie.

What crap...our mayor should have them arrested.

Click to expand...

Arrested or forcibly removed. I bet 25 National Guardsmen ordered to "Fix Bayonets" would be enough to run these punks off.

Pinkie said:

I think there's a national paralysis as to what to do, as every mayor seems to fear any sort of conflict between police and the OWSers....and I think the OWSers continue to escalate their law-breaking, hoping for just such a confrontation. I also think these are mostly young white people, with no clue, who are being used as cannon fodder...and when I read that some OWSers are taking their babies to these events, it infuriates me. WTH takes a baby to a cold, weeks-long camping trip in October that it is hoped will turn violent?

Click to expand...

You're right that they're mostly young people with no clue being egged on by a bunch of professional protestors/anarchists. The baby thing shouldn't surprise you, these are the same people for whom it's just a bunch of cells until it's born, they don't understand what kids are to begin with. As for the violence... the organizers want that but the masses don't have the heart for blood any more than the Tea Partiers do. Both movements are unwilling to shed blood or to have their own spilled, and that's why both movements have/will fail.

Tigger you make a valid point.... And while we are at it lets apply the same logic to all aspects of society...

1. Confiscate all privately held firearms, I mean hell there is no denying that there is a significant cost to society due to gun violence
2. Ban religion, I mean there are sexual abuse scandals and and numerous cases of fraud on behalf of tele-vangelists
3. Ya know what cost a metric ****-ton, our judicial system. Who needs due process anyways... I mean if the government thinks you are guilty you must be right?
4. We can eliminate all housing costs for our troops by simply garrisoning them in our citizens homes.
5. And come to think of it, this whole thing started by a bunch of lefties complaining as this could be considered the root cause.... we should just not allow speech that government doesn't like as well
okay absurdity and sarcasm over.....

I mean as a conservative you can't honestly be in favor of government subverting, and by threat of violence mind you, individual protections provided by the first amendment to the United States Constitution, are you? <--- hoping for an answer to this

You're right that they're mostly young people with no clue being egged on by a bunch of professional protestors/anarchists. The baby thing shouldn't surprise you, these are the same people for whom it's just a bunch of cells until it's born, they don't understand what kids are to begin with. As for the violence... the organizers want that but the masses don't have the heart for blood any more than the Tea Partiers do. Both movements are unwilling to shed blood or to have their own spilled, and that's why both movements have/will fail.

Click to expand...

There's been some video of OBVIOUSLY bad police conduct out of NYC; I think it was hoped there'd be more in other cities. Nothing along the lines of cracking heads, but tazing, clearly unwarranted arrests, etc. Though of late, that seems to have leveled off.

I know nothing about Boston's political climate, but both Cleveland and Cincinnati have Democratic mayors (the one on Cleveland is owned and operated by the Democratic party machine here in Cuyahoga County like a ventriloquist's puppet, and I am exaggerating that not ONE BIT).

There seems to be some bizarre-o belief among these "professional Democrats" that the OWSers and their bad bahevior will help get Obama re-elected. (I can't follow that reasoning AT ALL.)

So, many people are "using" the nitwits at these protests for their own political gain...and the young people apparently haven't got the wits to see that they're being used. It's very sad, and my own fear is, we'll have a tragedy before this is over -- an elderly person dead of pnemonia, or a baby lost in the crowd, etc. It's all just such senseless aggravation IMO, to almost all concerned -- except to the "professional" Democrats and their pet Billionaire, Soros.