Occupy Boston

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Occupy Boston

    So..a local judge issued an order protecting the Occupy Boston movement's right to camp out on the greenway until a hearing is held in a couple of weeks. I am not sure how I feel about the logic of this decision. On the one hand..I understand the judge's desire to keep things status quo until the hearing..but on the other..I don't believe first amendment rights give people the right to pitch tents and live. I mean..think about it..we don't allow the homeless population to pitch tents and live on public property..do we..?
    I don't know..just a thought. I do know one thing...they've been camped out a long time...I can't imagine it's a healty environment..
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Occupy Boston

    In Response to Re: Occupy Boston:
    [QUOTE]I mean..think about it..we don't allow the homeless population to pitch tents and live on public property..do we..? --------------------------------------- Now THERE's an idea.  Pitch a tent on Causeway St and make a sign.  You can stay forever
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    lol Greg...that was pretty much my thought as well...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Occupy Boston

    In Response to Re: Occupy Boston:
    [QUOTE]When it was announced the ACLU was stepping up to the plate for OB, it was written in the sand the judge would rule in favor of OB. I get the argument of the 99%,  it is the presentation that leaves me with a sour taste. Protest, go home, come back the next day.
    Posted by msobstinate99[/QUOTE]

    I think that was how it was generally done...
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Occupy Boston

    In Response to Re: Occupy Boston:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Occupy Boston : cricket, my response to someone else on that point: Now, I haven't read the Boston documents, but if they're like the NYC documents, all they are is a TRO. A TRO asks the judge to prohibit the subject from doing something for a set period of time. During that set period of time, the judge determines whether to actually grant relief. A TRO can be easy or hard to get depending on what the case is about. All it is is a balancing test. The judge balances the harm to the plaintiff of not granting the order against the harm to the defendant of granting it, and also must consider the likelihood the plaintiff will win. Here, the judge probably said it can't hurt to let them stay another day or two while I sort things out, particularly since Boston hasn't tried to kick them out yet anyway. In contrast, they are much harder to get in business lawsuits. For example, because the plaintiff might be a company requesting the judge order another company not to sell a given product for the duration of a copyright lawsuit. Getting a TRO does not mean the protesters win. As you can see, it did not mean that in NYC. Of course, what exactly the TRO means depends on what exactly it says. If indeed the Boston putzes got a TRO, all it means is likely that they'll get to stay until the judge decides whether or not they are in fact entitled to set up tents on a public space and defecate on the sidewalk. Knowing something of 1st Amd., jurisprudence, I can tell you it would be a very large expansion of precedent for a judge to order that the 1st Amd. allows someone to occupy a public space, particularly with structures, for as long as the person wants....so long as the action of staying there is expressive to the point of being the equivalent of speech. The 1st very strictly protects us against content-based restrictions, that is, the government barring speech based on what is being said. However, the 1st is forgiving of content-neutral time, place, manner restrictions: Exactly how and where the speech can happen. Hence, they can stop you from blocking traffic unless you get a permit. Etc etc etc. I stand by my ever-increasing disdain for the occupiers and my legal opinion about whether they'll win.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]
    Okay...thanks....I was hoping for your insight...lol
    Actually, when you put it that way..the judge's ruling makes sense..sort of a status quo until the actual hearing. Somehow..I can't imagine that Occupy Boston is going to be allowed to continue its current strategy of encampment...
    Even though my comment about the homeless setting up tents was sort of tongue in cheek..it would seem to me that if the courts actually ruled in favor of Occupy Boston..it would be setting a somewhat dangerous precedent and really anyone would be able to pitch a tent..hang a sign and live of the city indefinitely.
    I agree with the right to protest..but this is becoming something much different and is getting old fast.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Occupy Boston

    Oh..and by the way...Slate is a really good site!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Occupy Boston

    I don't know why the status quo needs to be protected if the status quo is illegal.  The right to assemble peaceably is protected, but it's illegal to squat on public property. 
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Occupy Boston

    In Response to Re: Occupy Boston:
    [QUOTE]I don't know why the status quo needs to be protected if the status quo is illegal.  The right to assemble peaceably is protected, but it's  illegal  to squat on public property. 
    Posted by kargiver[/QUOTE]
    Hi Kar..that's a good point..but I think once the hearing happens..Occupy Boston will have to take down the tents. I heard this morning that now the conservators of the Rose Kennedy Greenway want them gone..so it is only a matter of time. I don't like that their concerns are falling on deaf ears at the Mayor's office. I don't have a problem with people assembling and protesting...but they are placing a burden on city services by camping out there..their logic is flawed..they would get more people participating if they were not camping.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rfunke12. Show rfunke12's posts

    Re: Occupy Boston

    Why some people think they are "above others" is beyond me. Most people are a step away from being homeless and watchjing their children go hungry. The greed of some is spectacular, and if you think you are in a "protected" class, thisnk again, your job is hanning by a thread. YOua re a step awat from being in a tent yourself...you've maxed out credit cards to companies that will squeeze every nickel they can from you. To the "naysayers", hey, save up your cash. then  buy the goods you need. If you spend youor hard earned money to feed some billionaire, you are a fool.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     

Share