• 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!

Police clear out Oakland protest camp

I don't get it? what does someone paying to camp at a park have to do with people assembling, did OWS forget to pay the poor tax on the use of the constitution?

It isn't necessary to be paying for all those spots. Some places allow you to camp for free, but you still have a limit on how long you can be camping in those areas so that those places are free for others to use at least for a small amount of time and so that they can be properly cleaned up, if necessary.
 
On the contrary, there is the right to limit how long a person/group of people are allowed to use public land. It is a fairness issue.

It isn't anthing about this thing called the right to assemble? There is no constitutional limit on this, unless your referring to the work around and call it a safety issue and kick everyone out. We could use the voucher system and handout a 1 lifetime voucher to everyone for 2 weeks of protesting then you will have to use your money to speak, because I was told money talks.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Amendment I

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.


This brings us to these mayors that are going to their goon squads to clear them out, instead of their state and federal government to change shtuff so they will just go away...

I will say that its a good thing that OWS is a peaceful movement because I seen the videos of the cops in Oakland PD trying to incite a riots.
 
Last edited:
It isn't is all about this thing called the right to assemble? There is no constitutional limit on this, unless your referring to the work around and call it a safety issue and kick everyone out. We could use the voucher system and handout a 1 lifetime voucher to everyone for 2 weeks of protesting then you will have to use your money to speak, because I was told money talks.

I have no problem with people protesting whatever, for however long they want, but people do not have a right to usurp public property in order to make their protests more convenient for them. That is not a part of the right to protest. And that is what the camping is about. The camping is not an actual part of the protests. The camping is merely a means of making the protest convenient for those protesters. If they wish to protest whatever, fine. But they must understand that other people should have access to those places as well and they should also understand that people living in any place without proper plumbing are going to cause sanitation issues. And large groups of people are bound to cause trash and security issues after a certain amount of time (usually a couple of weeks is all it takes, if not sooner).

It is completely reasonable to have limits on people for safety and/or sanitation reasons. And they are not being told to stop protesting or even limited on how long they can actually protest, but on how long they can camp in public areas within a city as a convenient way to protest.
 
Where does it say that protests rights trump fairness? I'm pretty sure that is not a part of the Constitution. The right to protest is not the end all, be all right.

Show me where in the Constitution that it talks about fairness when it comes to occupying public land. If you can't find it then the right to protest definetely trumps "fairness".

It can certainly clash with other people's rights, and if there is a viable alternative that still allows the protesters to protest, do so legally, and allow others a little fairness, then that is what should happen. And I have already suggested viable alternatives in other posts that the protesters could partake of besides usurping public land that is really not in connection to their purported protests.

Show me where peacebly protesting can interfere with other peoples rights.

It is up to the courts, ultimately, to decide, but they have upheld protests limitations in the past, at least to a point, so I really don't see them overturning time and other limitations on public access to parks just for protesters. It is possible, just not likely since many of those limitations are in place for good reasons.

I would imagine that any limitations that SCOTUS has upheld were those involving violence and private property. I've never heard of them upholding a limit that restricts the amount of time a protest may last at a specific spot.
 
I have no problem with people protesting whatever, for however long they want, but people do not have a right to usurp public property in order to make their protests more convenient for them. That is not a part of the right to protest. And that is what the camping is about. The camping is not an actual part of the protests.

Maybe the acronym is starting to loose what the protesters are doing, they are "occupying" wall street. which if they leave the protest would be essentially over, being that they would not no longer be an occupier and it will return to what it was before they occupied " Wall Street" and would continue to be just what they are protesting.
 
Show me where in the Constitution that it talks about fairness when it comes to occupying public land. If you can't find it then the right to protest definetely trumps "fairness".

Show me where peacebly protesting can interfere with other peoples rights.

I would imagine that any limitations that SCOTUS has upheld were those involving violence and private property. I've never heard of them upholding a limit that restricts the amount of time a protest may last at a specific spot.

The camping is not a part of the protests. It is simply a convenience thing for them. It is to make their protests against the corporations/government/both more convenient.

Hell, in at least some cases, they were not being asked to move their stuff permanently, but rather temporarily so that people could come and clean up after them (here in San Diego), and they still acted like assholes and came back to yell at the cops for enforcing that cleanup time. And they are not having their actual protests disrupted except when they start breaking laws like entering government buildings (or trying to) after hours or attacking other people (whether cops or citizens) or trespassing/damaging public property. Many places are giving these protesters a lot of freedom, but at least some of those protesters are trying to take more.

And many of the protesters are not simply doing as MLK or other civil rights protesters of the past and accepting that they are breaking laws and they should be working through the courts to change those laws, not harassing the police for enforcing them.
 
Just a note here but I have read that the park that the OWS protestors are using in Oakland is actually privately owned by BNY Mellon and his spokesmen has stated that they (BNY Mellon) is not blocking any access.

So....what right did the police have of forcing those that are camping there out?
 
The camping is not a part of the protests. It is simply a convenience thing for them. It is to make their protests against the corporations/government/both more convenient.

This is your opinion. OWS'ers that are there have stated that it is a part of thier protest.
 
Maybe the acronym is starting to loose what the protesters are doing, they are "occupying" wall street. which if they leave the protest would be essentially over, being that they would not no longer be an occupier and it will return to what it was before they occupied " Wall Street" and would continue to be just what they are protesting.

There are plenty of ways to occupy a place without setting up camp. They could always use shifts and/or scheduling to ensure they always have a significant presence in those areas.

Rights are not without limits. Unfortunately, our rights can easily clash with other people's rights and that is where a compromise must be made.

I asked this question before in a poll and got very little answer. Do you think it is okay for the police to arrest protesters who break any laws/ordinances as part of their protests? Where would you draw the line? How long do you allow people who are protesting nudity laws to walk naked in the streets as a protest? How long do you allow people protesting fire ordinances (no fires in parks) to have controlled, reasonable fires in a park as a protest? When should the police be called in to arrest someone who is protesting drug laws by smoking/using/shooting up on the steps of city hall? What if they are simply protesting no smoking in public places laws by having a smoke-in in a specific public area? How long do you allow it to go on before you stop it? Or maybe it is a protest against drinking alcohol on public property? Generally, most of these things can be done without harming others but are laws within many cities/areas that at least some people disagree with but many others support.
 
This is your opinion. OWS'ers that are there have stated that it is a part of thier protest.

Even it is, they are still violating reasonable city ordinances/laws by doing so. If they wish to fight those ordinances/laws, they should expect to do so in court, not on the streets with the police.
 
I can shoot someone only to "send a message," the First Amendment does not protect me. I may have been expressing myself, but my actions broke the law and violated people's rights in a manner that has nothing to do with speech. Now, OWS is perfectly free to protest in the park and get their message out there. They do not have the right to squat on public land at taxpayer expense.
 
I can shoot someone only to "send a message," the First Amendment does not protect me. I may have been expressing myself, but my actions broke the law and violated people's rights in a manner that has nothing to do with speech. Now, OWS is perfectly free to protest in the park and get their message out there. They do not have the right to squat on public land at taxpayer expense.

No it does not due to this is a republic which means that they create laws within the constitution, very old worn out statement of shooting someone and spinning it around like you don't understand what is being said. Hell, I can't even crap on your door step if I don't like you without breaking a law.

This example doesn't fit the discussion at hand. They were on private property open to the public in Oakland and the owners gave them permission to be there.
 
Last edited:
I can shoot someone only to "send a message," the First Amendment does not protect me. I may have been expressing myself, but my actions broke the law and violated people's rights in a manner that has nothing to do with speech. Now, OWS is perfectly free to protest in the park and get their message out there. They do not have the right to squat on public land at taxpayer expense.

Hence why "peaceable" is included with the right to protest. Murdering someone to express yourself is not peaceable.
 
Even it is, they are still violating reasonable city ordinances/laws by doing so. If they wish to fight those ordinances/laws, they should expect to do so in court, not on the streets with the police.

Is it reasonable to deny a protest by telling the people to go away? Is it reasonable to tell people to get off of private land that is open to the public and which the owners of that private land said that they could be there?
 
Is it reasonable to deny a protest by telling the people to go away? Is it reasonable to tell people to get off of private land that is open to the public and which the owners of that private land said that they could be there?

Who is responsible for the upkeep of that private land open to the public? What the city ordinances concerning waste/sanitation/land use of that private land?

People are restricted in how they can use private land as well. In fact, most cities have ordinances concerning how many people can occupy a given amount of space due to sanitation and safety concerns. I don't know if those were being violated or not, but obviously someone felt some ordinance was being violated in some way. If they were wrong, the protesters should have brought it up in court, not challenged the cops in the street.
 
Just a note here but I have read that the park that the OWS protestors are using in Oakland is actually privately owned by BNY Mellon and his spokesmen has stated that they (BNY Mellon) is not blocking any access.

So....what right did the police have of forcing those that are camping there out?

Any proof of this? From what I can find, it appears BNY Mellon owns parks in Pittsburg and possibly Zuccotti Park. I can't find anything about them owning the park in Oakland.
 
Is it reasonable to deny a protest by telling the people to go away? Is it reasonable to tell people to get off of private land that is open to the public and which the owners of that private land said that they could be there?


The protesters themselves say that they cannot be silenced, and no matter what anyone does they will still protest. Which tells me that closing public spaces really does not matter to them, except for the publicity that it brings. Which is why they get themselves arrested in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom