Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

<our country is getting lost in the maze of people who run our governments, but fails to understand our constitution.

cicerone imposter wrote:

<our country is getting lost in the maze of people who run our governments, but fails to understand our constitution.

The protestors are still being allowed places to assemble. The freedom to assemble does not include the freedom to camp out.

That's not quite true--such assembly is limited by the requirement of doing so "peaceably."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, you're quite right that no times, places or durations are specified, nor does it seem that camping out is prohibited.

To the best of my knowledge, the OWS has been remarkably peaceful.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, the OWS has been remarkably peaceful.

Cycloptichorn

The mayors of several cities, including Portland and Qakland appear not to agree.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but if were the Mayor I would rely upon

"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

It shouldn't take months to petition the government. Either they have done so already or there is no reason to believe they intend to.

Freedom to assemble, not camp out indefinitely
(Ken Paulson, FirstAmendmentCenter.org, October 18, 2011)

The First Amendment’s guarantee of the right of assembly doesn’t necessarily include a right to camp out.

“The Constitution doesn’t protect tents,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said yesterday, as Occupy Wall Street protesters continued their month-long vigil at Zuccotti Park. “It protects speech and assembly.”

Bloomberg has it right, although the quasi-private nature of this particular park complicates things a bit.

Still, as the “Occupy” movement grows, there will be more conflicts over how long protesters can stay in public parks that usually close at nightfall.

Witness the current controversy in Cincinnati. A group called Occupy Cincinnati has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court contending that limits on the hours of use of city parks violates the First Amendment.

“This case is not about whether you agree with the political views of Occupy Cincinnati or Occupy Wall Street; it’s about the right of the people to assemble in a public park and to engage in protected speech,” said the group’s attorney J. Robert Linneman, according to the Associated Press.

It would be more accurate to describe the suit as testing the right of people to assemble on public property at whatever time they want to.

Courts have traditionally upheld the right of governments to manage and supervise public property. As long as there’s a rational basis for the rules and no point of view is being discriminated against, there’s no First Amendment violation. If the left and right alike are being told to go home at 9 so that the city can clean the park, our constitutional rights are intact.

Some city administrators are bending the rules and allowing protesters to stay beyond closing hours, but that’s a political decision with an eye toward keeping the peace.

In most cities, protesters could show up at a public park every morning and go home at dusk, and there would be no challenge to their presence. But of course, the very name “Occupy” suggests a constant presence, a commitment not to move from the premises in the face of perceived injustice.

Allowing that would require courts to say this kind of protest trumps cities’ basic administrative rights and their responsibilities to local taxpayers. That’s not very likely to happen.

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, the OWS has been remarkably peaceful.
Cycloptichorn

The mayors of several cities, including Portland and Qakland appear not to agree.

At least in the case of Oakland and Portland, it was not violence that prompted the resistance to OWS, but instead financial factors. Quan's statement revolved around the fact that Oakland 'can't afford to lose any other jobs.'

The mayor's opinions aside, the incidence rate of violence at these protests has been remarkably low.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying that the OWS "movement" is hurting jobs for the 99% in Oakland?