Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Winter woes threaten Wall Street occupiers

World Oct. 23, 2011 - 06:00AM JST ( 9 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrators keep up their protest at Zuccotti Park in New York yesterday

An 'Occupy Wall Street' protester keeps up the vigil in New York's Zuccotti Park yesterday

An 'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrator helps maintain the vigil in New York's Zuccotti Park yesterday

Order by Time Order by Popularity

9 Comments

0

yaneeOct. 23, 2011 - 08:31AM JST

If they REALLY believe i what they are doing they will not leave! And always remember, their president supports them!
-1

Papa_will_preachOct. 23, 2011 - 09:17AM JST

They need to make a pledge to be back in spring. Winter will kill their resolve.

“The Constitution doesn’t protect tents, it protects speech and assembly,”

Sounds like a think tank member favored by the Bush Administration. Sometimes tents are necessary for assembly. What's next? A police blockade that does not allow food and water and pass? And the mayor declares: The Constitution does not protect food and water! Or spray them with fire hoses and declare: The Constitution does not specifically ban the use of fire hoses! Yes, very much like the Bush Admin declaring that torture is wrong, but water boarding is just a parlor game!)
1

unreconstructedOct. 23, 2011 - 09:22AM JST

Winter. It's part of the capitalist plot against the proletariat.
0

SerranoOct. 23, 2011 - 09:26AM JST

unreconstructed - Har!
2

anglootakuOct. 23, 2011 - 10:44AM JST

Wimps
2

TheQuestionOct. 23, 2011 - 10:55AM JST

Sometimes tents are necessary for assembly.

I cracked open the legal dictionary for this one "In general, freedom of assembly is a First Amendment right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. First Amendment right provides that congress shall make no law abridging the right of people peaceably to assemble. However, freedom of assembly can be limited by a local legislative authority through the legitimate use of its police powers. Examples of laws which limit freedom of assembly are found in various riot acts, unlawful assembly laws, and ordinances prohibiting the blocking of sidewalks. Hence, the constitutional rights of freedom of assembly, speech and worship does not include the privilege of exercising such rights on private, undedicated, property, against the will of the owners."

Basically assembly is interchangable with the term 'free association'. People can group together, that doesn't mean they can start building temporary housing in a park.
-1

Papa_will_preachOct. 23, 2011 - 11:51AM JST

Good on you for doing the research TheQuestion. Also, you clued me in to something I did not realize. I thought they were going to ask Bloomberg about setting up tents in another park, a public one. I did not realize it was still about Zuccotti, which is of course private land, and not Bloomberg's domain.

However, I still have to question this. If they set up tents, the police will no doubt take action against the protestors on behalf of the land owners. But what is this land to the owners? Nothing but luxury. Compare that to protest and assembly, and note what they are protesting: greed, of which luxury is a part.

While I am happy the owners let them gather at the park, not going full bore and allowing them to erect tents smacks of biding their time till winter comes. I say to heck with them. They will get their luxury back when the protest is over. Protest is more important than luxury ownership.

What the protestors should do is ask Bloomberg to keep the police out of the park if its just about tents, and therefore value the right of peaceful assembly over the right of rich men to land they don't need. Much like the principle of squatter's rights, only this is temporary.

As for tents on the sidewalk, this too should be allowed. But it depends on your definition of "block". If people can still pass, I would say that sidewalk is not blocked. But for some people, one man standing still, looking at the sky is blocking the sidewalk. I guess it depends on how much of a rigid disciplnarian one is.
-3

Taka313Oct. 23, 2011 - 10:04PM JST

I don't think Bloomberg walks away from this thing unscathed. This is going to hurt him mightily politically. He hasn't done anything to "win hearts and minds."

Taka
1

WolfpackOct. 24, 2011 - 12:39AM JST

“The Constitution doesn’t protect tents, it protects speech and assembly,”

If this is a public park, then of course the group has a right to assemble and speak their minds. However, they are also preventing the general public from accessing the park as well. Do not the 99%+ people of the city have the right to access this common resource at some time also? The idea of "occupying" property that doesn't belong to them is the problem. Why don't they rent some property somewhere and protest there? The government has to balance the rights of all citizens and not just those that are the most vocal or militant.

I also think there is a serious issue of public safety. At some point, the weather is going to get really cold. If the government allows for tents it is basically allowing the protestors / hippies to risk their health and safety in what will become an obviously dangerous situation. There are already several reports of problems with sexual assaults in Zuccotti Park. If America actually allowed for people to be responsible for themselves then I wouldn't care on this point about the tents. However, given the litigious nature of American society I can easily see the city being sued.