Protesters on Wall Street. Capitalism quakes in fear?

whynot_31 said:

I continue to believe this city is respecting their rights to "protest social inequality" or whatever it is they believe they are doing.

Still not relevant to my observation that the police would rather shut down a city bridge to arrest people than shut down a city bridge to let those people peacefully march.

The owners of a private park have even (thus far) tolerated them being there at all hours. This park was basically an attractive amenity for the surrounding buildings, and their presence means it longer serves its intended purpose. But, I can't say I have ever used the park, so I don't miss it.

Doesn't matter if it's privately owned. They were allowed to build only if it stayed a public space.

I do feel for anyone who is sad for these poor property developers who have to abide by what they agreed to.

Not everyone gets to screw the public like Ratner does.

However, I sort of hope a steady flow of them continue to get arrested. While their numbers will continue to increase with people who seem to believe "everything should be free and rules are bad",

Another stupid either/or simplification when you are fully aware of more nuanced dynamics.

the fines may help the NYPD pay for all of the police coverage they are consuming.

God forbid the police serve the public who is protesting publicly.

Are they not due police "coverage" by virtue of protesting publicly?

How does that work exactly?

...By watching people break the law and then wonder aloud why this happened, we all get a break from the depressing economic news.

Yes, the life-threatening cause of people marching peacefully up Broadway, or across a bridge.

Glad the police are here to protect us from this terrible danger to public safety.

You do know "free speech" has caveats, right? For example, you can't interfere with other people's rights.

Yeah, who's rights were protected by the "Free Speech Zones"?

And who's inalienable rights were threatened by a march across the Brooklyn Bridge?

You act like these people wanted to set fire to public buildings or lynch someone.

I love it when people believe that others should be held accountable, but that they should not.

There seems to be a half-baked accusation of hypocrisy here, but it's hard to peel away all the condescension in your commentary.

I don't understand how you can willfully engage in civil disobedience and then cry when you get arrested. It's completely disingenuous. Even occupying the park is not something that is being done with permission.

There is the difference between wanting to exercise free speech and attempting to bait authorities into a confrontation. If you're going to do the latter with the goal of bringing more attention to your cause, at least be honest that you intentionally broke the law. That way you can stay on message.

Gandhi these guys aren't.

I don't understand how you can willfully engage in civil disobedience and then cry when you get arrested. It's completely disingenuous. Even occupying the park is not something that is being done with permission.

There is the difference between wanting to exercise free speech and attempting to bait authorities into a confrontation. If you're going to do the latter with the goal of bringing more attention to your cause, at least be honest that you intentionally broke the law. That way you can stay on message.

Gandhi these guys aren't.

whynot_31 said:

The public has many ways in which it can make its views known, and society has every right to impose limitations and regulations on how, when and where large groups of person can assemble.

Careful now friend.

Don't conflate "society" with "NYPD" or "The Mayor's Administration".

eastbloc said:

No, it's just crowd control.

Authoritarian states don't have free speech zones -- they have free-fire zones.

Ha. That's a generous interpretation.

It was not "crowd control".

It was "keep the protesters out of sight, out of anywhere useful, and most importantly, away from the event they are protesting".

It's a very effective way to marginalize dissent without resorting to outright gestapo tactics.

whynot_31 said:

eastbloc-

Although I am not sure, I am presently working under the following assumptions:

a. Many of the protesters have never been to a demonstration or trained before because they have no ideology.

b. Many are now sleep and shower deprived

c. Some are anarchists, some are hopeless idealists, some are campers, some people love to join a scene whether it has a thought out purpose or not

As a result of "a-c", I suspect the current group of protesters would dismiss any of the non-violence political activist training done by reputable US groups as being part of the US "system" they abhor.

Maybe they could learn from this well written "How To" manual for folks who are non-violently struggling to overcome oppression and injustice in Africa?

It has good, concrete advice that is applicable to anywhere and is worth a read.....

It's funny that you keep offering advice and criticism on the protesters, which aren't in any way reflected by their actions, and yet the protest lives on quite successfully.

It's almost as if your conventional wisdom isn't relevant to what's going on.

They haven't started a socialist revolution. They haven't gotten Obama to stop coddling bankers. But you're lying if you claim they aren't achieving anything positive for their myriad goals.

whynot_31 said:

This isn't about what the public wants, we could never function if we were to allow protesters to interfere with business.

The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Feel free to dispute my lazy wiki cite by citing the more authoritative ACLU and constitutional law cites.

I never said anything about "what the public wants"

YOU said, "society has every right to impose limitations and regulations on how, when and where large groups of person can assemble."

To which I respond:

By way of examples from our city and the discussion at hand:

The response of the NYPD and city gov in 2004 w/ the RNC, or the NYPD and the brooklyn bridge, do not reflect "society".