Occupy LA Defeated!

So the government is free to regulate the bejesus out of the First Amendment and you guys support that, but all regulations in the 2nd Amendment should be dropped?

 

Who said it was going to be endless?

 

Instead of just posting nonsense, how about you take time to learn the applicable statutes. None of this is hard to find out.

And your analogy was stupid.

 

No the first amendment should be protected, the government is free to regulate all of the other things OWS has done such as trespassing, squatting, crimes, and inciting and creating violence in our streets.

Those still clinging to the argument that OWS is protected by the first amendment are surely deluded and oblivious to what OWS is and has become. I'll even link you to the first amendment, you'll find nothing in there that justifies anything OWS has done.

Good. Now America needs to clean up the rest of OWS, this group still plagues many cities nationwide. America is sick of Occupy Wall Street.

 

We will see how "dead" the movement is after the march of the 99% that is occurring tomorrow. The people are far from done.

 

How is it stupid? Both are rights protected by the Consitution, but according to you guys regulating one (the 2nd) is horrible and unConstitutional and regulating the other (the 1st) is a great thing.

 

Well is there a cut off date?

 

Negative, the first amendment does not protect OWS. Read it before you post anymore as you apparantly do not know the contents of the first amendment. It does not protect violence, hate speech, or many of the antics of OWS.

As far as assembling and protesting verbally goes they are ok, but the 30 other things OWS is known for steps way over the boundaries of the first amendment.

 

The moment that reforms on Wall Street start and are carried through.

 

So freedom of assembly and the right to petition redress of greivances isn't in the 1st Amendment?

And hate speech isn't protected? So I guess you support laws that criminalize hate speech. After all, it's not protected so laws banning it should be completely legal.

The OWS members that have committed actual crimes against others and committed violence should be arrested. The rest are expressing their rights.

 

As we type, OWS is preparing to march in to protest Obama at a fundraiser dinner in New York.

 

---I am not for the OWS. I believe they are highly disorganized, too abstract and without any concrete platforms to stand on. That said, what I quoted and highlighted above in red is exactly why you cannot take half-measures with revolution. In other threads the OWS were mocked and jeered at for seeming to support violence, yet in this thread they have been mocked for being cowardly and are objects of other peoples violent fantasies. If the OWS wants a revolution, have a god (*)(*)(*)(*)ed revolution and stop (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) footing.

 

Your rights to use the 1st Amendment in protests end when they trample upon my rights to use the public park you are defiling.

 

Oh the 2% of them in the group are expressing their rights huh? Excuse me, couldn't see them through the angry mob and unsanitary tent cities......

Violence and hate. Read below as you still have not read the first amendment. It basically sums up OWS in the category of UNPROTECTED.

category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. For many years, the constitutional rule famously was that speech was unprotected if "words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919). However, the current rule is that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).

Again for your reading pleasure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

It is, and if you took the time to read my post you'll find I said it was. I told you the rest of the antics of OWS is not protected. They have every right to protest and grieve, but once they started to riot and incite it was done. Their movement is finished, even the liberals are losing support for OWS, and if their allies wont support them how do they ever plan to survive winter?????

 

How are you unable to use the park? Did you ask if the protestors would make some space for you?

 

They seem to every day. Do these occupiers have permits? I know we have to get them to hold TEA Party rallies.

Or do *******s get a special moron exemption?

 

The TEA Party shouldn't be charged to exercise their rights either.

 

Yes I did, were you there? They ate my picnic including the basket, stole my football and peed on one of my friend's Converse All-stars. We're still washing the smell off our clothes.

I'll send you the bill.

 

Unstoppable? HA!! What a load. This is nothing more than a bunch of lil commies (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and whining about how they think they are entitled to money they didn't earn. Too bad these guys couldn't occupy a shower once in a while, or a job and actually contribute to society.

 

But they are. So until something changes, I expect the Occupiers to abide by the same rules, regulations and permits the rest of us have to. I'm all too certain that if a TEA Party had camped out, Villaraigosa, Quan or Bloomberg would have cracked heads within 24 hours ending the protests.

 

The TEA Party should refuse to pay and hold their rallies anyway.

 

Not all the land they have "occupied" (invaded) is public land.

 

If they are not on public land, then they should be removed.

 

Which is exactly the process going on now, with OWS of course creating more violence over.

 

OWS LA was on public land, so that is not what is going on now.