No...
So that means people cannot peacefully assemble there?
It should mean that people cannot peacefully assemble there, in that one spot (especially when that spot has zero to do with what they are protesting) for extended periods of time.
And, honestly, camping out in a place is not protesting. Camping out is living in a place. If the group wants to have a 24/7 presence, then they should find some place to live that does not cause a problem (their own homes, people who volunteer to allow others to live with them for the cause, camping outside the city or someplace where it is allowed) and be protesting in shifts. Heck, even just leaving the area peacefully and working through the courts to make arrangements with the city to allow them to stay for so long, only being forced to leave for sanitation and/or security reasons (including allowing access to crime scenes) is better than just assuming that they have a right to camp on that land indefinitely without ever having to move, for any reason.
Sounds like that the local officials are afraid....
But why? Maybe cuz thats their job...
Or maybe the local officials understand that they are responsible for the maintenance/cleanup of all public areas. And that they have to be at least somewhat responsible for the safety of people in those places.
There is a limited amount of money in most public coffers. So what services/things should go unfunded/underfunded to pay for the reallocation of funds to pay for security/cleanup/maintenance of those parks due to protesters living there? If you can't think of what the city governments would likely reallocate money from, then how are they going to pay for those extra services due to those relatively few people? And be realistic please.
Because all citizens have a right to the use of public land, not just those who are protesting. The protesters don't seem to understand this at all. With them usurping those parks, other citizens cannot use those parks for picnics, walks, playing with their kids, jogging, those normal activities that citizens use parks for. There are always going to be times when parks may temporarily not be available for those activities, but those times should not be days, let alone months in length.
I never stated yelling at the police.
I means by saying that chanting like a poular chant of "power to the people" or "this is what democracy looks like"
The protesters were not simply speaking loud or chanting. They were squatting on public property (which in itself, is still peaceful protesting). When asked to leave, so that officials could clean up after them and/or to allow others access to those spaces, the protesters yelled at the police and some even started throwing things at the police.
We are discussing the OWS protesters here, not just some generic protests.
They are camping their for a reason. A way to assemble and to protest...
Being specific, explain to me how any of the other things I suggested on ways to protest that would be honest compromises are not better overall for everyone, protesters and everyone else, than them trying to take over those parks and not allow anyone else their use or public officials access to actually do the jobs that they are responsible for?
Remember all the people in Egypt camping?
No because I really don't pay that much attention to the politics in other countries. I live in the US. I care about our politics mainly. Every now and then, I might take an interest. But Egyptians camping out in Egypt for whatever reason does not really affect me. Americans camping out in American cities does.
And, yes, one of the OWS occupations is in the city I live in.
So let me get this straight: "You have the right to protest as long as id doesnt mean we have to bring in extra services"? Is that correct?
You have a right to protest at your own expense. The other citizens within the area should not be expected to pay for the cleanup after you.
If it were up to me alone, I would charge the OWS occupiers with at the very least, whatever it costs the city to cleanup the areas they are living in. I would also charge them at least a nominal "security" fee for extra shifts the police have to man to either provide security for those camps and/or for removing them from the areas when they are asked to move to clean up those areas or allow for others to have fair access to those public areas and refuse.