Comments on: Eviction notices served on Occupy Oakland campers, who then destroy every last one of them

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:04:00 +0000

Seems to me we need another Constitutional amendment.

one that mandates a civics education so nobody ever says anything as misinformed as you just did there, ever again?

By: Slurpy

Slurpy — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:52:00 +0000

Doggo, the Bill of Rights says nothing about a right to protest. What it guarantees is the right to say what you want, and the right to gather in groups. It says nothing about the right to gather in large numbers on public property and make a lot of noise. Basically, you are entitled to have a protest in your house, but as soon as you move it off your property, you aren’t guaranteed anything.

Seems to me we need another Constitutional amendment.

By: doggo

doggo — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:51:00 +0000

Can one of the resident lawyers explain how any of the municipalities being occupied have the right to chase people away if they’re predominantly non-violent?

When does local ordinance trump federal and state constitutions? How deep does the First Amendment apply? Does the U.S. constitution cascade, legally, down to the local government?

By: Cowicide

Cowicide — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 21:58:00 +0000

Weird, I pictured him more as a drunk, belligerent bum stumbling out of a football game.

By: Niel de Beaudrap

Niel de Beaudrap — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 21:54:00 +0000

Something which has been discussed remarkably little throughout the whole Occupy movement is the whole “resistance” half of “passive resitance”; or if your prefer, the “disobedience” half of “civil disobedience”. The whole point of the Occupy movement is peaceful protest by visibly occupying a central public place; lawfulness is at best a secondary concern, a choice made when tactically possible to reduce the inconvenience to the *protestors* and attempt to demonstrate good faith towards the community at large.

Protest is not a matter of convenience, and certainly not a matter in which one goes out of the way to make things convenient for authorities. And they certainly don’t have much incentive to do so if the authorities are not acting in good faith towards the protestors. So, if you hope to shame protestors into obeying the laws, when what they want is to force authorities to *change* the laws, then I would say that you’ve misunderstood something about the aims of the movement.

By: birdmechanical

birdmechanical — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:06:00 +0000

Oh right, their constitutional right for peaceful assembly is really intruding on your sitting in the park for 10 minutes every month or so.

That must be really rough for you.

By: travtastic

travtastic — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:47:00 +0000

You know what the worst part of the Occupy movement is? When I try to get into public areas, and a big wall of protesters blocks me out, and shoots me with rubber bullets and tear gas grenades.

By: andygates

andygates — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:16:00 +0000

Maybe Joseph is worried that in his monocle, top hat and thylacine stole he’ll be mistaken for one of the 1%?

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:52:00 +0000

I don’t think the protestors would mind you showing up, don’t feel blocked out. Not at all.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:55:00 +0000

You lost me, tofagerl. Granted, they didn’t need to hand out eviction notices to people who are illegally blocking a public space (that was a courtesy) but I hardly see it as a PR problem.

By: tofagerl

tofagerl — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:52:00 +0000

At this point, wouldn’t it be a lot easier for the police simply to hire a PR consultant? Or even just start quitting their jobs en masse. This is getting tedious.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:10:00 +0000

So….they’ve decided to live outside the rule of law. Oh wait, they did that when they started living in a public space and blocking everyone else’s access.