Wall Street Protests

[Super Dude]

Hey, if it means more unemployed, p
disgruntled folks to join the protest...

(Jk, in case that wasn't clear)

[Scheavo]

Should they stick the SEIU with the bill for all the NYPD overtime and cleanup?

Is there a number on the amount of layoffs for next year due to all the overtime the NYPD had to pay? If their budget was strained to begin with I can't imagine what it looks like now.

Goes to show you how stupid the response to these protests are being. It's a battle you're not going to win.

By the way, everyone talks about free speech, but there is the constitutional right to peacefully assemble as well. If this continues, we could be looking at a Supreme Court decision.

They aren't going to be allowed to camp out anymore.

Assuming you can enforce that rule.

[orcus116]

You're correct in that people have a right to assemble peacefully but if you think leaving several hundred people in an uproar unattended in a massive city like New York is going to stay peaceful then I'd think you're a little crazy. Sure the majority of people will behave to an extent but these types of gatherings attract dregs from other reaches of the area with much different agendas and it only takes a few of those assholes to really get something nasty going. It'd be asinine for police not to be there at least making sure nothing gets too out of hand. So this is not a stupid response but more common sense, especially considering the area of the city they're in.

[Scheavo]

I'm fine with there being a police presence, but the extent to which most of them has gone is just not necessary. They were treated from the beginning as if they were all going to start rioting and destroying anything they could, not for being peaceful protestors. The response to there being trouble makers in the crowd, that are not associated with the crowd, than it is when you treat the entire crowd as trouble makers.

Given time, the protestors would address those safety concerns as well. The vast majority of them aren't there to be troublemakers, and it's human nature to eventually start forming security related issues. The camp had a kitchen, and a library for crying out loud, and I'm sure they did have some sort of 'police force.'

In the end, freedom isn't always the prettiest thing, and the thing about a democracy is we're supposed to be tolerant of other people protesting and assembling. The people who would be in danger are freely choosing to assemble in those area's, and if it was ever a big enough problem, people would stop showing up. We shouldn't be living in an authoritarian state where you get to tell other people what they can and cannot do because it is unsafe for them. Why the fuck does anyone need "attending"? Children need attending. Prisoner's need attending. Grown adults who are making a free decision, abiding by the law, and excerising their rights, do not need attending. I find that sentiment rather disturbing, in all honesty.

No one outside of the protest is in danger, in fact, you could argue since the "dregs" are concentrated, they're actually safer.

[Rathma]

You're correct in that people have a right to assemble peacefully but if you think leaving several hundred people in an uproar unattended in a massive city like New York is going to stay peaceful then I'd think you're a little crazy.

If your concern is the protest going violent then you wouldn't be supporting the eviction. People are now a lot more pissed at the cops and the city than before. They got their tents demolished, kitchen equipment thrown out, trash bins removed, library destroyed... it's almost like they're deliberately steering a protest towards an expression of pure social unrest.

[orcus116]

If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.

[Riceball]

If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.

Ding ding ding.

[Scheavo]

If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.

No, they're going to get pissy becuase their right to peacefully protest are getting ignored, and becuase they're there to begin with becuase they're upset with how the system is working. History has shown that if you try and quell a protest movement that is as big as this, you're just going to create a bigger protest movement. Our own American Revolution shows the same thing, the 60's show the same thing, the Hooverville's in the 1920's show the same thing, and so far, every time any of the Occupy movements have been kicked out, they've reorganized, and come back stronger. Who was that unsanitary park hurting? The people who choose to go there to protest. It wasn't a problem for other people, so it doesn't violate the conception of liberty that this country is founded upon.

So really, I guess, thank you for being undemocratic. You're actually helping the movement I believe in grow stronger by trying to trample their rights. If you wanted this movement to go away, you should have ignored them, not given them credence and the spotlight be supporting unconstitutional measures, and frankly, things which are unAmerican.

[antigoon]

I guess I just don't understand the vitriol directed towards the movement (both in this thread and in life). I mentioned to a classmate this evening, a really warm and kind person, that Zucotti Park was cleared by police, who, in the middle of the night, refused to let any journalists near the place. Her response? "Good. Those fucking hippies should just go home and get over it; I'm sick of them."

Like, what's the deal? What are they doing that is just so offensive to you, so disgusting that they deserve this kind of treatment? We have far more in common with the people in Zucotti Park than we do with the ruling class, who uses its power to screw all of us over.

[Rathma]

If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.

People donated money for the protesters to have tents to sleep in. People donated books to the communal library. People set up kitchens to feed the people there. All these got thrown into the dump with a midnight raid. People are very much in the right for being pissed at the cops for tearing down their self-organized community the way they did. "Unsanitary" was not the reason for the eviction. And unsanitary isn't the reason for that grin on your face as you watch the protest suffer a blow.

[orcus116]

Well forgive me for not shedding any tears over a group of idealists that have basically had no forward progress after what looked like a strong start. Be real, it really has turned into "a bunch of people camped in one spot" after two months. You can cry rights and crap all you want but if you're willing to park your ass in the middle of a heavily traveled section of one of the world's biggest city for two months demanding change you better have some bite to back up that bark. Face it, no one is taking these people seriously any more.

[Chino]

I disagree with the no forward progress comment, Orcus. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans have woken up and now realize that our government as well our financial system are completely fucked up.


Side thought*

I don't understand why this raid was called in. As said before, all it is going to do is piss people off even more. Winter is like 3 weeks away, New York should have just waited until people couldn't stand the single degree temperatures and freezing winds that rip throuh NYC.

[Super Dude]

They should have let it be. Winter is coming.

[Bill Carson]

Reading this thread, the statement from Martin Niemöller came to mind.......

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Perpetual Change]

Oh puh-lease. It is NOT appropriate for one group to take over an entire park for 2 months, to the point where it is not usable at all for the general public. How would you like it if, instead of OWS, it was Herman Cain's campaign that decided they were gonna "raise some Cain" there and camp out for two months to the point where the park was trashed an no-one could even go there to use it?

Honestly, the city made a mistake by letting camping over there go on at all. There is absolutely no reason why you need to camp at a public park. I don't care if it's OWLs or something else, I don't see why it should be allowed.

[7StringedBeast]

Oh puh-lease. It is NOT appropriate for one group to take over an entire park for 2 months, to the point where it is not usable at all for the general public. How would you like it if, instead of OWS, it was Herman Cain's campaign that decided they were gonna "raise some Cain" there and camp out for two months to the point where the park was trashed an no-one could even go there to use it?

Honestly, the city made a mistake by letting camping there go-one at all. There is absolutely no reason why you need to camp at a public park. I don't care if it's OWLs or something else, I don't see why it should be allowed.

Exactly.  It's not like there is any symbolism to that park.  It's still a few blocks away from Wall St.  And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest.  They can be there during the day, just not camp out.  So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.

Also, these protests have caused businesses near the park to shut down because no regular people are going through that way anymore.  Not to mention, the people who were serving food for everyone stopped doing so and switched to only serving rice because the homeless started to show up for food, and they basically told them to go away.

This whole movement is getting media attention, but no political attention.  The whole movement is still misguided and splintered.  If they want something to happen, take it to Washington DC.  The people who work on Wall St. are not the one's causing the problems for our country.  They are part of the "99%" in most cases.  Do you think these super rich bank CEO's that they are all pissed off at even spend any time on Wall St?  Get real.

[antigoon]

Oh puh-lease. It is NOT appropriate for one group to take over an entire park for 2 months, to the point where it is not usable at all for the general public. How would you like it if, instead of OWS, it was Herman Cain's campaign that decided they were gonna "raise some Cain" there and camp out for two months to the point where the park was trashed an no-one could even go there to use it?

Honestly, the city made a mistake by letting camping over there go on at all. There is absolutely no reason why you need to camp at a public park. I don't care if it's OWLs or something else, I don't see why it should be allowed.

I wouldn't mind that at all. Who uses Zucotti Park, anyway? People on their lunch breaks. THOSE POOR PEOPLE.

[7StringedBeast]

It doesn't matter who used it or not and for what reason.  The fact is, the park is there for anyone to use.  That means it should be kept in a state of usefulness, not filled up with tarps and filth so no one outside of the movement can use it.  No one group should be able to come in and just take up the entire park.  Like I said before, the park has no significance to the movement.  It's a really really arbitrary spot.

[Rathma]

Well forgive me for not shedding any tears over a group of idealists that have basically had no forward progress after what looked like a strong start. Be real, it really has turned into "a bunch of people camped in one spot" after two months.

OWS started with the occupiers gathering in the park. This then attracted others who had concerns about America's economic situation and whatnot, people who didn't necessarily hand out in the park all the time. This is the part of OWS that's not being reported on the news (or that's what I'm guessing from the impression you have; I don't really watch much of American news). The "occupiers" are only part of the story. Also, do you mind explaining "idealists"? What's this common ideal that you see among the protesters. I thought the criticism was more that they didn't have a clear unified goal.

[orcus116]

I'll explain a little more when I get home. I mean idealist in that romanticized "change the world" manner more than anything specific. Their idea of getting something going is crucial but they're clearly not the right people to get it done. Sadly the MLK type leader is necessary in my mind.

[Scheavo]

Exactly.  It's not like there is any symbolism to that park.  It's still a few blocks away from Wall St.  And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest.  They can be there during the day, just not camp out.  So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging...right of the people peaceably to assemble."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't say, "unless other people want to use that space." The only times we accept any infringement upon these rights is when those rights directly harm and impede other people's liberties (not indirectly, as in taking up the same space); we can yell fire in a crowded theater because that's obvious dangerous. The occupy aspect of the movement is intentional, as it sends a much more powerful message. It's part of their message, part of how they are choosing to express themselves, and just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid. The thing about living in a democracy, is that other people are going to get in your way, because they're pursing their ideals.

[7StringedBeast]

Exactly.  It's not like there is any symbolism to that park.  It's still a few blocks away from Wall St.  And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest.  They can be there during the day, just not camp out.  So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging...right of the people peaceably to assemble."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't say, "unless other people want to use that space." The only times we accept any infringement upon these rights is when those rights directly harm and impede other people's liberties (not indirectly, as in taking up the same space); we can yell fire in a crowded theater because that's obvious dangerous. The occupy aspect of the movement is intentional, as it sends a much more powerful message. It's part of their message, part of how they are choosing to express themselves, and just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid. The thing about living in a democracy, is that other people are going to get in your way, because they're pursing their ideals.

So drum circles at 2 am keeping people who actually live in that area is perfectly protected freedom of speech.  Bullshit.   There has been no law made saying these people cannot assemble.  They can, they just can't sleep in the park.  Jesus this is like saying you can yell and scream in a movie theater because its protected by free speech.

[Scheavo]

Exactly.  It's not like there is any symbolism to that park.  It's still a few blocks away from Wall St.  And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest.  They can be there during the day, just not camp out.  So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging...right of the people peaceably to assemble."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't say, "unless other people want to use that space." The only times we accept any infringement upon these rights is when those rights directly harm and impede other people's liberties (not indirectly, as in taking up the same space); we can yell fire in a crowded theater because that's obvious dangerous. The occupy aspect of the movement is intentional, as it sends a much more powerful message. It's part of their message, part of how they are choosing to express themselves, and just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid. The thing about living in a democracy, is that other people are going to get in your way, because they're pursing their ideals.

So drum circles at 2 am keeping people who actually live in that area is perfectly protected freedom of speech.  Bullshit.   There has been no law made saying these people cannot assemble.  They can, they just can't sleep in the park.  Jesus this is like saying you can yell and scream in a movie theater because its protected by free speech.

Woops, I just noticed I missed the "t" in can't. I meant we can't yell in a crowded theater.

Those drums circles should be shut down like any noise complaint. Yelling fire in a move theater harms other people (someone's gonna get trampled), protestors sleeping in a park harm no one but themselves. I've addressed this problem numerous times. You have to explain to me how people camping out directly harms other people's well-being, and not be able to go to the park isn't a strong enough reason.

[7StringedBeast]

The park is privately owned.  It is for the public use.  The park has rules stating no tents/sleeping bags are allowed in the park.  No camping is permitted.  They can stay there and protest all they want.  They just can't set up a shanty town and just making the place completely filthy.

Not to mention the problems they have brought to the downtown businesses and people who live down there.  The point is, sleeping there has nothing to do with free speech.  Sleeping there does not further their cause.  They can gather there all day and night as long as they aren't camping out or causing any kind of trouble to the downtown area.

When you have 100s of people living out in the open without running water, problems are going to start occurring.  In a city with a high population density, disease could start to spread pretty quickly from there. 

The fact is, sleeping there has nothing to do with free speech at all.

[Scheavo]

The park is privately owned.  It is for the public use.  The park has rules stating no tents/sleeping bags are allowed in the park.  No camping is permitted.  They can stay there and protest all they want.  They just can't set up a shanty town and just making the place completely filthy.

The park is public access however, and the rules regarding no tents/sleeping bags was put in place after OWS started. Also, this is a red herring becuase other protest movements around the country are getting broken up which are not on privately owned public parks. If the park was publicly owned, you'd be making the same argument.

Not to mention the problems they have brought to the downtown businesses and people who live down there.  The point is, sleeping there has nothing to do with free speech.  Sleeping there does not further their cause.  They can gather there all day and night as long as they aren't camping out or causing any kind of trouble to the downtown area.

That is an indirect consequence, and those consequences can be achieved in a variety of ways which are not inclusive to the OWS movement. My life is constantly influenced and directed due to the movement of other people, and this is no different.

When you have 100s of people living out in the open without running water, problems are going to start occurring.  In a city with a high population density, disease could start to spread pretty quickly from there. 

Every time there's a large concert, that helps the spread of diseases, attracts crime, and brings about social problems. Should we ban concerts? The premises of your argument allow for a whole bunch of authoritarian bullshit, and means we have to start doing something about the issues. Hell, you could argue, using the same logic, that having a city with such a large population is inherently a health hazard, and that government should step in and dismantle large cities.

Please stop with the Red Herring about free speech; this isn't about free speech, you keep making it an issue of free speech, but it's an issue of the constitutionally protected right to peacefully assemble. Sleeping there furthers their case, as it demonstrates the seriousness of the concerns of the people protesting.

[7StringedBeast]

They have the right to assemble.  they don't have the right to sleep there.  AND NO the rules for the park were not put in place after the OWS movement.  I don't know where you got that idea from.

A concert doesn't last 2 months and have public bathrooms.

Do you just take everything to the extreme?  Your arguments don't even make sense.  There is a huge difference between a 3 day concert and a 2 month camp out in the middle of a city.

Also, a city is a health hazard, but thanks to modern technology the health risks are being mitigated all the time.  However, when you just get a group camping out in the middle of a park like homeless people, problems tend to arise.  They do NOT have the right to cause health problems in the city via their assembly.  Like I said, they can assemble as much as they want without sleeping there.

[Scheavo]

Like I said, they can assemble as much as they want without sleeping there.

And allowing that will cause many of the problems you're having a problem with. So your solution doesn't solve arguably the best argument against this: public health concerns. When those thousands of people show up, they'd still need someplace to go to the bathroom, they'd still be in contact with thousands of other people, etc. Clearly, if millions of people can live in new york city in a healthy way, it's possible for thousands of people to occupy a park in a healthy way.

AND NO the rules for the park were not put in place after the OWS movement.  I don't know where you got that idea from.

The rules have been changing, I've read about it in numerous news articles on the issue.

https://www.observer.com/2011/10/can-brookfield-change-the-rules-at-zuccotti-park/

[Chino]

"They have the right to assemble.  they don't have the right to sleep there."


I don't see the difference. Isn't overnighting part of the assembly? If the protestors left every night, their message would be nowhere near as powerful. They go from a group of people who are 100% dedicated to a cause, to a group that just has nothing better to do during the day.

[orcus116]

I disagree with the no forward progress comment, Orcus. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans have woken up and now realize that our government as well our financial system are completely fucked up.

I'm pretty sure three years of recovery from a recession brought that to light, not OWS. OWS doesn't seem to be about the realization that things are fucked up but rather that the people most affected can actually try and do something about it.

"They have the right to assemble.  they don't have the right to sleep there."


I don't see the difference. Isn't overnighting part of the assembly? I

Depends on the location. If there is a curfew I'm fairly certain that law supersedes the right to assemble.

[7StringedBeast]

Like I said, they can assemble as much as they want without sleeping there.

And allowing that will cause many of the problems you're having a problem with. So your solution doesn't solve arguably the best argument against this: public health concerns. When those thousands of people show up, they'd still need someplace to go to the bathroom, they'd still be in contact with thousands of other people, etc. Clearly, if millions of people can live in new york city in a healthy way, it's possible for thousands of people to occupy a park in a healthy way.

AND NO the rules for the park were not put in place after the OWS movement.  I don't know where you got that idea from.

The rules have been changing, I've read about it in numerous news articles on the issue.

https://www.observer.com/2011/10/can-brookfield-change-the-rules-at-zuccotti-park/

Big difference between going there during the day, and then going home compared to living there non-stop for 2 months?  Surely you can even tell that there is a difference.

[Scheavo]

Ya, there is a difference and one that doesn't send as powerful of a message, and one that infringes upon your right to assemble.

Let's put it this way, the city could have done things a lot differently to do away with the major problems. The police response was their response, and as time moved on, the OWS movement set up it's own security team, cooperating with police. The city could have also helped out in acquiring portapoties to deal with the waste issue, again in cooperation with the protestors. The protesters had doctors, doctor tents, food tents, libraries, etc; it was a developing society, and the problems you poin to are problems societies are going to address in this day and age. I'd be willing to bet that cooperating with the movement would be less costly for New York, so it would be good for the city in a whole variety of ways. Instead, it was from the moment it started treated like an opposition, and that's largely why we see the problems that do exist.

Depends on the location. If there is a curfew I'm fairly certain that law supersedes the right to assemble.

Actually, the right to assemble is a constitutional right, backed by the Supremacy Clause. If curfews supersede the right to assemble, then something is seriously wrong.

[7StringedBeast]

Something tells me you don't really know how to interpret the constitution.  No one's right to assembly has been impaired.  They are free to assemble still.  What part of that don't you understand?  They just can't sleep in the park.  No law has been passed barring them from assembling.  No injustice has been served.

It's like saying that being rejected for a gun license is against the second amendment if you don't qualify for owning a gun license under federal or state laws.

[Super Dude]

It doesn't matter who used it or not and for what reason.  The fact is, the park is there for anyone to use.  That means it should be kept in a state of usefulness, not filled up with tarps and filth so no one outside of the movement can use it.  No one group should be able to come in and just take up the entire park.  Like I said before, the park has no significance to the movement.  It's a really really arbitrary spot.

Y'know I hate to sound patronizing here, but I think that's why they call it the "Occupy" movement.

I'll explain a little more when I get home. I mean idealist in that romanticized "change the world" manner more than anything specific. Their idea of getting something going is crucial but they're clearly not the right people to get it done. Sadly the MLK type leader is necessary in my mind.

And I hate to say it, but I think you're picking and choosing there. Unless you just mean the movement should have a leader or a poster boy, so to speak. But how was MLK's platform and movement not itself idealistic in that "change the world" kinda way? And on top of that, isn't that proof that sometimes idealism like that pays off?

[7StringedBeast]

It doesn't matter who used it or not and for what reason.  The fact is, the park is there for anyone to use.  That means it should be kept in a state of usefulness, not filled up with tarps and filth so no one outside of the movement can use it.  No one group should be able to come in and just take up the entire park.  Like I said before, the park has no significance to the movement.  It's a really really arbitrary spot.

Y'know I hate to sound patronizing here, but I think that's why they call it the "Occupy" movement.

I'll explain a little more when I get home. I mean idealist in that romanticized "change the world" manner more than anything specific. Their idea of getting something going is crucial but they're clearly not the right people to get it done. Sadly the MLK type leader is necessary in my mind.

And I hate to say it, but I think you're picking and choosing there. Unless you just mean the movement should have a leader or a poster boy, so to speak. But how was MLK's platform and movement not itself idealistic in that "change the world" kinda way? And on top of that, isn't that proof that sometimes idealism like that pays off?

Last time I checked it wasn't called "Occupy a park a few blocks away from where Wall St. Actually is" movement.  Sorry not trying to be patronizing.  The fact is, they weren't occupying wall street at all.  So yeah my point still makes a lot of sense.

[Scheavo]

Something tells me you don't really know how to interpret the constitution.  No one's right to assembly has been impaired.  They are free to assemble still.  What part of that don't you understand?  They just can't sleep in the park.  No law has been passed barring them from assembling.  No injustice has been served.

Then it's not really a right to assemble peacefully, now is it? It's like, the alien and sedition laws during Adam's administration; the law tried to outlaw certain forms of free speech, it didn't outlaw all forms, but it was unconstitutional because it tried to outlaw opposition to the President. Your argument would basically be that the alien and sedition laws were fully constitutional becuase it only prevented certain kinds of free speech, and that is a horrible argument to make.

Their right to assemble has most certainly been impaired, as they're not being allowed to assemble and protest in the manner they see appropriate to get their message across.

It's like saying that being rejected for a gun license is against the second amendment if you don't qualify for owning a gun license under federal or state laws.

You're completely overlooking the fact that, say, a mentally insane poses a direct threat to other people if he has a gun, which too easily violates the definition of liberty this country is founded upon. As I've said time and time again, our rights stop at the direct harm of other people. If protestors tried to occupy a hospital, surgery rooms, etc, I'd say that is no longer in their right. When some protestors basically penned people in a building in DC, I'd say that also crosses the line. I have never once said that you have an unmitigated, full out right to assemble wherever, and however you want; I've said that OWS does not violate those principles, as it does not, and therefor it is unconstitutional to abridge their right to assemble.

And just fyi, I think in terms of pure constitutional law, gun licenses and the like border on unconstitutionality. The problem is that since the second amendment was written, gun and warfare technology have drastically changed. This isn't really applicable to the first amendment; free speech is still the same, so are religions, so are protests and assemblies to protest the government. The second amendment has become outdated due to technology, the first amendment has not. I think the second amendment needs to be drastically updated and modified to fit the reality we currently live in. If you ask me my opinion, I more or less think there should be more gun control; if you ask me what is currently legal to do, under the constitution, I'd say it's unconstitutional and it needs to change. Those are different questions with different answers.