Our permit to occupy is the First Amendment.

[tblue]

Yes, We Have a Permit to Occupy

U.S. Hypocrisy about Occupations (Short but powerful film): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x625364

The authorities say we don’t have the proper permits to occupy public spaces. Our permit to occupy is the First Amendment.

Sign the following statement. If you’ve signed already, send this message and video far and wide.

To Mayors and Police Chiefs,

OUR PERMIT TO OCCUPY PUBLIC SQUARES AND PARKS IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT, which affirms “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When people across the Middle East occupied public squares, leaders in Washington mostly cheered those protesters and warned Middle Eastern governments not to use force to clear them. Those other societies don’t have a First Amendment. Yet Washington affirmed the universal right to assembly and protest.

We DO have a First Amendment. The force being used to clear nonviolent protesters from public squares in our country is unacceptable. It must stop.

http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4882&track=facebookad

[TBMASE]

1. Must be why I'm hearing the TeaParty is suing to get their permit money back

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Saw that as well...they may have a point

[Sherman A1]

11. I believe that they do

and should get their money returned.

[avaistheone1]

2. Indeed it is!

k&r

:kick:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. signed! Kick!

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. K&R!

[H2O Man]

7. Recommended.

It is very important, of course, to study the Constitutional law on this .... which is simply the previous rulings by the US Supreme Court. Without question, the SC has ruled in more restrictive ways about the right to gather in public to protest. Perhaps the most famous example would be their decision in the Birmingham case. Knowing the law allows people the best foundation for exercising this right.

[woo me with science]

8. Love this post. Thank you. nt

[Imajika]

9. Do you think there should be no rules in public parks?

I mean, for example, without proper permitting and such wouldn't you just have anarchy in the park at all times? Couldn't a bunch of 'baggers just show up and disrupt the protest? Couldn't all protests be disrupted the same way? What about health code violations? What about regulations dealing with safety? If it is everyone's right to pitch tents and occupy a park forever, why can't anyone who wants to just build a semi-permanent structure and call it a protest? Can I build a house in the park and declare it a protest? What about the time needed to do park maintenance, lawn mowing, etc?

Have you really thought this through? By this logic, parks would just be a mass of unregulated, unruly chaos that would pretty much spoil them for most people.

I think the occupy protests are a unique situation that should be met with flexibility by local/state/federal government, but under no circumstances do I think we should just allow people to just live in parks on a permanent basis - and I believe park rules and regulations are absolutely necessary. Somehow I think if right wingers were doing this same thing almost all of DU would be demanding them be thrown out as law breakers.

The protests are civil disobedience. That usually involves breaking the law in a very nonviolent way. That is what occupy protests are. They are breaking laws by breaking park rules, and by doing so they risk arrest. The 1st amendment does not give you or anyone else the right to build a camp in public parks and live there. It just doesn't.

[Indydem]

10. BUT BUT BUT

Stop pointing out logical failures. It makes you look bad and the OWS folks pissy.

[Imajika]

12. Yeah, I know people don't want to hear it...

...but it's why occupy really can't last much longer in most places. It is only a matter of time before every other group that followed the law, paid for permits, took out insurance, etc, starts demanding refunds. The baggers are already doing just that. And if they are not refunded, then they will start suing. Cities can not treat protest groups differently and allow one to stay for free and ignore all the rules, while another is forced to apply for everything and stick to the letter of the law.

There is simply no 1st amendment right to call something a protest and then ignore park rules, pitch tents, and build a settlement. The protests are civil disobedience, something we cherish in this country. The occupy protests should be met with flexibility by governments (recognizing it is a unique form of protest), but part of civil disobedience is breaking the law and eventually the protesters will have to be arrested and the parks cleared. And even the "flexibility" I mentioned is going to get difficult because the next time a right wing group rolls in and ignores the park laws, how long does a city have to give them to flout the permit process and rules. If they give occupy 3 weeks, does that mean everyone gets 3 weeks to ignore park rules. This is the sort of problems local/city governments are going to face and it is why more and more of the occupy protests will be broken up.

[tblue]

16. We are outside the box. That's the beauty of it.

We are in uncharted territory, and that is what is freaking out the establishment and all the conformists who are putting demands on the protesters.

This is a nonconformist, peaceful protest movement. Its unpredictability is what has captured the world's imagination and made people take notice.

If this was just another 'march on Washington,' with permits and a start & end time that people adhere to and official barriers they stay behind, you'd never have heard anything about it other than on the internet and from Keith and Rachel. And NO ONE would care.

OWS can't afford lobbyists and politicians. All we have are our voices and our presence. I have no need to define and rein in this movement. If I did, that would be my personal trip. It seems to have a life of its own and I am enjoying the momentum continues to build.

[Imajika]

20. Yeah, I get that...

..but the Tea Party considered themselves outside the box too. Every movement can claim it is outside the box. Where do you draw the line exactly? If OWS can occupy parks with no permits and ignore the rules, can the next right wing batch of protesters do the same? Can the college Republicans start camping out in parks and ignore all the rules and regulations? Do local/city/state governments have an obligation to now refund all the protesters that were required to pay for their permits and insurance? You realize pretty much no court is going to hold it is okay for a government to pick and chose which protesters get to violate all the rules and which don't right? What is stopping me from going to another park with my friends and building a house and declaring it a protest? Do you now believe that all park rules should be null and void? There are giant national parks all over the place, can I now use those lands as I see fit and ignore the laws and regulations that protect those lands and keep them safe? You just can't have it both ways. It can't be okay for some protesters, but not for others.

I do think governments should see this is a new form of protest and be flexible, but you'll never have the right to break park rules indefinitely. The 1st amendment does not give people the right to occupy parks. Period. One way or the other this is a form of peaceful disobedience that is unlawful and will result in arrests. Arguing that it is anything but that is simply incorrect.

[former9thward]

13. Every court in the country has said reasonable restrictions may be placed on the First Amendment

Those restrictions may include limits on the time, place and manner of protests. If you want to go against 220 years of legal history, good luck.

[tblue]

17. Don't you get it? We tried protests following all those 'reasonable restrictions.'

What did they get us? In the last 10 years, what have any of these big anti-war or whatever marches — with their permits and their pre-planned cordoned-off zones and bus services and porta-potties delivered ahead of time, and their sanctions signed off by the PTB — achieved?

Until Wisconsin, we have been compliant and it has freaking failed to achieve anything.

[Imajika]

21. As long as you agree that every protester and protest group can do the same...

...then that is fine. If you think that there should be no park rules when it comes to protests, then local/city/state governments can simply eliminate all the rules and restrictions regarding use of parks and everyone can just show up and stay as long as they want.

What the government can't do is pick and chose which protests are allowed to break the rules and which aren't. There is just no way around that. Everyone can pitch tents in parks and stay indefinitely or no one can. Everyone can open soup kitchens and libraries and what not on public park grounds or no one can. Everyone has to pay for permits and insurance or no one does.

The point really is, there is no 1st amendment right to live in public parks and stay as long as you want. Occupy is a non violent civil disobedience movement, and the civil disobedience piece is the act of breaking the laws regarding park use. That's fine, and the movement has done pretty well - but don't try to pretend there is a 1st amendment right to do it.

[former9thward]

23. Where in my post did I say to follow restrictions?

I have broken the law many times in my life when I did not want to follow restrictions. Does that mean those restrictions changed? No, of course they didn't. If you don't want to follow the law then don't follow it but the law itself will not change. Whatever the consequences are, they are.

[fascisthunter]

19. I assume you are not in favor of this movement... thanks for the luck

[former9thward]

22. You can assume whatever you want.

I doubt anyone cares. I live in the real world. OWS is not going to change legal precedent in this country. If you think it is then you are not living in this world. But that's ok. Many choose not to.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. So you will be fine when the Black Blocks or Open Carry advocates arrive in groups

and claim equal standing with the rest of the OWS participants?

[louslobbs]

14. K&R n/t

Lou

[Mimosa]

15. AMEN! Freedom to assemble... n/t

[fascisthunter]

18. recommended.... (nt)

[Zyzfyx]

24. Bingo!

This ain't fucking Russia!

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. The Constitution is our permit. The Constitution does not recognize curfews.