• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Wall Street protesters refuse to leave for park cleaning

A mall is commercial and is subject to different rules than a park space.
Nope, the mall is a marketplace and holds lease properties. It may not pre-emptively bar entrance and must have a reason, the same as a park or public(semi-public) property. The fact is that people can be asked to leave private property for any reason and public property once they become a nuisance or engage in criminal activities. These people are basically engaging in squatting which is a nuisance activity.
 
It's "private property" which through contract became public (if I've understood what people have said about the park thus far). I think in this case, you have to treat it as any other public space.

I think that's the legal classification.

The owners are responsible for upkeep, evidently.

So its definitely some kind of public/private hybrid.

And I think the public part makes it public as pertains to "assembly".
 
How is Wall Street not responsible for their own actions?

I never said that Wall Street doesn't share a little bit of the blame, However, because they didn't act on their own free will and were being forced by the government to make these bad loans, under the threat of prosecution by the DOJ, they can't be held totally responsible and the politicians that forced them to make the loans are the ones that need to be prosecuted, first. After that, we can look at the banks and see exactly what role they played in the scam.
 
Where did you get that from? But yes I do support restrictions on speech such as treason, incitement to riot, and other dangerous speech. I don't see why you brought that argument here though since I said people can be asked to leave for abusive behavior and not speech. If the crew cannot clean the park up then obviously the crowd is engaging in abusive behavior.

The protesters delivered a fait accompli though.

The cleanup was an attempt to end the occupation. They did the same thing at a number of other occupations, including here in San Diego. Haven't seen how our local effort played out yet.

As long as the protesters actually are maintaining the spaces they are occupying, there's no reason to make them leave and not be able to return. Which from the material provided by the owners was their stated intent.

The level of "filth" reported varied in direct relation to the ideological bent of the reporter. So its really not possible to know for sure if it was legitimately "filthy" or just disorganized and messy.
 
So you DO NOT have any evidence to support the boast you made



Your statement was not only one of your own extremist beliefs, it is unsupported by fact and is misleading in the extreme.

You should either support it with verifiable evidence or withdraw it and apologize for slurring people.

It's a well knwn fact. Anyone that ignores that is in denial of reality, because of their own extremist views and loyal to their government masters.
 
It's "private property" which through contract became public (if I've understood what people have said about the park thus far). I think in this case, you have to treat it as any other public space.

Between the number of individuals taking up space and the filth they have created, they are preventing the public from using the space, which makes them a nuisance, giving the property owner planty of authority to remove them.
 
Nope, the mall is a marketplace and holds lease properties. It may not pre-emptively bar entrance and must have a reason, the same as a park or public(semi-public) property. The fact is that people can be asked to leave private property for any reason and public property once they become a nuisance or engage in criminal activities. These people are basically engaging in squatting which is a nuisance activity.

So you agree that being a nuisance trumps free speech. And that the laws they are breaking are laws that place reasonable limits on free speech.
 
Between the number of individuals taking up space and the filth they have created, they are preventing the public from using the space, which makes them a nuisance, giving the property owner planty of authority to remove them.

Rights override nuisance. If we're going to say that in public spaces people can freely assemble and protest, as we should be saying. Then that's that. This park isn't "private property" in the conventional sense. It was contractually lent to the government as public space in order for them to be able to build somewhere else. When they struck that contract, the land then became public use.

I'm not liking the use of "nuisance" and other petty arguments to trump the rights of the individual.
 
Last edited:
The protesters delivered a fait accompli though.

The cleanup was an attempt to end the occupation. They did the same thing at a number of other occupations, including here in San Diego. Haven't seen how our local effort played out yet.

As long as the protesters actually are maintaining the spaces they are occupying, there's no reason to make them leave and not be able to return. Which from the material provided by the owners was their stated intent.

The level of "filth" reported varied in direct relation to the ideological bent of the reporter. So its really not possible to know for sure if it was legitimately "filthy" or just disorganized and messy.
The number of sources on both ideological sides seems to say in larger numbers that the protesters are not keeping up the area, which is at the heart of this, if the park cannot be cleaned up the facilities will degrade quickly.
 
So you agree that being a nuisance trumps free speech. And that the laws they are breaking are laws that place reasonable limits on free speech.
That's what ordinances say. For example if I start rebuilding a project car and let the process fall behind in my own city my car can be towed because the nuisance is said to endanger my neighbor's property value, if these people are devaluing the neighborhood by presenting a nuisance presence on property they DON'T own you bet their nuisance trumps free speech as they are violating the rights of those around them. Rights are not absolute, they end at the point that they interfere with the rights of others.
 
Last edited:
Rights override nuisance. If we're going to say that in public spaces people can freely assemble and protest, as we should be saying. Then that's that. This park isn't "private property" in the conventional sense. It was contractually lent to the government as public space in order for them to be able to build somewhere else. When they struck that contract, the land then became public use.

I'm not liking the use of "nuisance" and other petty arguments to trump the rights of the individual.

Unless it is a nuisance to the rights of others to use the space.
 
Rights override nuisance. If we're going to say that in public spaces people can freely assemble and protest, as we should be saying. Then that's that. This park isn't "private property" in the conventional sense. It was contractually lent to the government as public space in order for them to be able to build somewhere else. When they struck that contract, the land then became public use.

I'm not liking the use of "nuisance" and other petty arguments to trump the rights of the individual.
Rights do not override nuisance, you may not abuse your own rights to the point that you violate the rights of others, that has been held at the local, state, and federal level. For instance if I were to tell you to be silent you are under no compulsion to comply thus I have not violated your rights but rather have been a litte curt. If I pull a gun on you and insist on the same result then you probably will feel compelled to comply and at that point I have in fact overridden my right to bear arms and violated your right to free speech. Here's the point in that, if they have created a nuisance then they have overextended on their right to assembly and if they have overextended their welcome at the park then they likewise no longer have the right to free speech in that area.
 
So I see that you respect reasonable limitations on free speech.

I will expect your support in future for efforts to place reasonable limits on campaign contribution "speech".

It is not a limit on free speech and you know it. It is a limit on access to a parcel of PRIVATE property and that is it. If the flea baggers do not understand this maybe they are the ones with the problem.
 
the corporate owners of the park have EVERY right to limit the speech & habitation in the park.

its their park. its called property rights.
 
That's what ordinances say. For example if I start rebuilding a project car and let the process fall behind in my own city my car can be towed because the nuisance is said to endanger my neighbor's property value, if these people are devaluing the neighborhood by presenting a nuisance presence on property they DON'T own you bet their nuisance trumps free speech as they are violating the rights of those around them. Rights are not absolute, they end at the point that they interfere with the rights of others.

So you would agree with reasonable limits being placed on campaign contributions as they have a negative impact on our politics.

Because rights are not absolute.
 
I never said that Wall Street doesn't share a little bit of the blame, However, because they didn't act on their own free will and were being forced by the government to make these bad loans, under the threat of prosecution by the DOJ, they can't be held totally responsible and the politicians that forced them to make the loans are the ones that need to be prosecuted, first. After that, we can look at the banks and see exactly what role they played in the scam.

Maybe you could share some resources to help me better understand how the government forced the banks to make these bad loans and subsequently bet against them? As I understand it, deregulation of the financial industry is what led these institutions to consolidate into a few monoliths who made risky decisions by investing in sub-prime loans. Every attempt to regulate the derivatives market was shot down, so I'll agree that the government had it's hand in allowing these institutions to make such risky investments, but I don't see how they were forced into doing so. It seems to me that the problem was too little regulation in the market, not an authoritarian government forcing banks to make bad decisions.
 
So you would agree with reasonable limits being placed on campaign contributions as they have a negative impact on our politics.

Because rights are not absolute.
You are comparing apples to Cadillacs. That point has no bearing on the conversation whatsoever, please address the point.
 
Maybe you could share some resources to help me better understand how the government forced the banks to make these bad loans and subsequently bet against them? As I understand it, deregulation of the financial industry is what led these institutions to consolidate into a few monoliths who made risky decisions by investing in sub-prime loans. Every attempt to regulate the derivatives market was shot down, so I'll agree that the government had it's hand in allowing these institutions to make such risky investments, but I don't see how they were forced into doing so. It seems to me that the problem was too little regulation in the market, not an authoritarian government forcing banks to make bad decisions.
The Clinton Justice department and the Community Reinvestment act enforced by Janet Reno backed by Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, had much to do with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the CBC.
 
The Clinton Justice department and the Community Reinvestment act enforced by Janet Reno backed by Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, had much to do with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the CBC.

Come on; the CRA did not force banks to lend to anyone.
 
Unless it is a nuisance to the rights of others to use the space.

There are infringements of rights, which can bring about intervention. But in terms of general "nuisance", I don't agree with the line of argument. Particularly where assembly, protest, and dissent are concerned. These are some of the biggest rights (along with to keep and bear arms) that MUST be upheld to their maximum. It is necessary for the preservation of the Republic.
 
the corporate owners of the park have EVERY right to limit the speech & habitation in the park.

its their park. its called property rights.

It's not theirs. They lent it to the government as public space, it's thus public space. They are in charge of upkeep on the property. That was apparently the deal in order for them to expand another building. They yielded use of it to the public through contract.
 
Rights do not override nuisance, you may not abuse your own rights to the point that you violate the rights of others, that has been held at the local, state, and federal level. For instance if I were to tell you to be silent you are under no compulsion to comply thus I have not violated your rights but rather have been a litte curt. If I pull a gun on you and insist on the same result then you probably will feel compelled to comply and at that point I have in fact overridden my right to bear arms and violated your right to free speech. Here's the point in that, if they have created a nuisance then they have overextended on their right to assembly and if they have overextended their welcome at the park then they likewise no longer have the right to free speech in that area.

I find extreme danger in your logic towards our ability to keep this Republic.
 
There are infringements of rights, which can bring about intervention. But in terms of general "nuisance", I don't agree with the line of argument. Particularly where assembly, protest, and dissent are concerned. These are some of the biggest rights (along with to keep and bear arms) that MUST be upheld to their maximum. It is necessary for the preservation of the Republic.
We aren't speaking of general nuisance however, these protesters are keeping the cleanup crews from performing their duty of maintaining the space, as well there is apparantly littering which is a crime and remaining after forbidden, these are minor criminal acts but they are far past being just a general nuisance.
 
Back
Top Bottom