(Idaho) Governor Otter signs anti-occupy legislation

[IDemo]

Source: KTVB.COM


BOISE, Idaho -- Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter has signed legislation aimed at closing the loophole that allowed Occupy Boise to establish its camp on state property last November.

Foiled last month when a federal judge ruled the Legislature can't oust Occupy Boise's protests tents, Otter and Republican lawmakers endorsed a plan to give power to the Department of Administration to regulate Capitol Mall properties.

That includes the old Ada County Courthouse, where the tents are located.

State officials argue the measure, which would let the agency issue use permits for the grounds, fixes a loophole that has allowed protesters to set up camp indefinitely.

Read more: http://www.ktvb.com/news/politics/Governor-Otter-signs-anti-occupy-legislation-145482745.html

[Swede Atlanta]

1. I'm not opposed to REASONABLE regulation of public gatherings......

As long a permitting procedures are fair, reasonable and prompt, I don't see any reason to oppose requiring any group or gathering from obtaining a permit. That said, the procedures and policies must not be intended or have the effect of chilling the right of free speech or the right to peaceably assemble.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Can you say ALEC?

I knew you could.

Watch as this legislation gets cloned and disseminated throughout the red states.

[quakerboy]

3. Betcha not just red states

Seems like most of the worst abuses of protestors were in blue states.

[RufusTFirefly]

4. Mebbe so, but...

...since ALEC's legislators are overwhelmingly Republican, the bills should be easier to ram through in red states.

[quakerboy]

8. Corporatists are everywhere.

And red or blue, they do not love occupy.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Once again, I can't disagree

You are spot on.
But I am playing the odds.

[anti-alec]

5. Can you say constitutional challenge?

Boys and girls - this is an obvious and blatant violation of the freedom of assembly.

It'll be thrown out in Denver, call Otter "an idiot that'll sign anything that's in front of his face" - Butch Otter will be thrown out if these Idaho folks will learn how to educate themselves on how dangerous Republicans are.

[reACTIONary]

6. Not true. Freedom of assembly does not imply a right to establish a permament residence....

...on state property. Here in DC the Occupiers are allowed to hold "overnight vigils" as part of their right to freedom of speech, assembly and petition. That basically allows them to maintain a 24-7 presence. But, other than a "symbolic tent" they are not allowed to set up tents or take up residence.

[IDemo]

7. There were no permanent residences on the court house grounds

The tents were 'occupied' only during daylight hours, not slept in overnight, per an earlier ruling:

U.S. Judge Rules Occupy Protest Is Legal, Tents Are Symbolic Statement
February 27, 2012

U.S. District Judge U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill ruled Monday the Occupy Boise tent city is a “political protest of income inequality.” Since it is a preliminary injunction, the decision is not final. The final hearing for decision will be made on March 2nd.

The decision appears to block the state from removing tents on the site on 1st Amendment grounds, but upholds the state’s new ban on camping there. “Once a state law, or the state’s enforcement of that law, targets certain speech for restriction because of its content – especially when the target is political speech in a public forum – the law is presumptively unconstitutional,” Winmill said in his ruling.

Winmill found the new state law “only prohibits ‘sleeping’ and ‘camping’ on state grounds and does not purport to ban the maintenance of a symbolic tent city which could be staffed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Yet Gov. Otter’s letter announcing his signing of the legislation appears to require the removal of all tents, and that appears to be how the State Police are interpreting the law. Such action is simply not authorized by the statute.”

http://boiseguardian.com/2012/02/27/u-s-judge-rules-occupy-protest-is-legal-tents-are-symbolic-statement/

[reACTIONary]

11. If the tents are there only for symbolic purposes....

...and the law bans them, it does sound like they are open to a first amendment challenge. In DC the Occupy tents are allowed specifically on this ground. So they might have a good case.

[jmowreader]

9. God, that will never happen

Up here, they worry about a Republican being not quite Republican enough. I think they like the damage Repukes cause.