First Amendment does not guarantee right to camp or squat in public places - US Supreme Court

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 9:28 AM GMT
    Posted this in another thread, but because it has come up repeatedly, posting it in its own thread for reference

    Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984)

    In 1982, the National Park Service issued a permit to respondent Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) to conduct a demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall, which are National Parks in the heart of Washington, D.C. The purpose of the demonstration was to call attention to the plight of the homeless, and the permit authorized the erection of two symbolic tent cities. However, the Park Service, relying on its regulations -- particularly one that permits "camping" (defined as including sleeping activities) only in designated campgrounds, no campgrounds having ever been designated in Lafayette Park or the Mall -- denied CCNV's request that demonstrators be permitted to sleep in the symbolic tents. CCNV and the individual respondents then filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging, inter alia, that application of the regulations to prevent sleeping in the tents violated the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Park Service, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Held: The challenged application of the Park Service regulations does not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 293-299 . (a) Assuming that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment, the regulation forbidding sleeping meets the requirements for a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of expression, whether oral, written, or symbolized by conduct. The regulation is neutral with regard to the message presented, and leaves open ample alternative methods of communicating the intended message concerning the plight of the homeless. Moreover, the regulation narrowly focuses on the Government's substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of the Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available to the millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their presence. To permit camping would be totally inimical to these purposes. The validity of the regulation need not be judged solely by reference to the demonstration at hand, and none of its provisions are unrelated to the ends that it was designed to serve. Pp. 293-298 . (b) Similarly, the challenged regulation is also sustainable as meeting the standards for a valid regulation of expressive conduct. Aside from [p*289] its impact on speech, a rule against camping or overnight sleeping in public parks is not beyond the constitutional power of the Government to enforce. And as noted above, there is a substantial Government interest, unrelated to suppression of expression, in conserving park property that is served by the proscription of sleeping. Pp. 298-299 . 227 U.S.App.D.C.19, 703 F.2d 586, reversed. Opinions WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 300 . MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post p. 301 .

    http://www.anarchytv.com/speech/clark.htm
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Oct 30, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    Yeah, that was a decision made 24 years ago by 9 people who are now all retired or dead. This was also the same court that upheld bigoted anti-sodomy laws, which (at the time) declared all gay people criminals.
    Thankfully our country has recognized that they were full of sh*t and corrected that mistake.

    The Supreme Court is entirely different today. Who can say how the present members would rule on the camping issue?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 9:02 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidYeah, that was a decision made 24 years ago by 9 people who are now all retired or dead. This was also the same court that upheld bigoted anti-sodomy laws, which (at the time) declared all gay people criminals.
    Thankfully our country has recognized that they were full of sh*t and corrected that mistake.

    The Supreme Court is entirely different today. Who can say how the present members would rule on the camping issue?


    Because precidents doesn't take place here (this is sarcastic). If the protesters feel their rights are being violated they can protest it the right way, by going through the courts. Not throwing bottles at police men with riot gear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidYeah, that was a decision made 24 years ago by 9 people who are now all retired or dead. This was also the same court that upheld bigoted anti-sodomy laws, which (at the time) declared all gay people criminals.
    Thankfully our country has recognized that they were full of sh*t and corrected that mistake.

    The Supreme Court is entirely different today. Who can say how the present members would rule on the camping issue?

    A current court would rule differently if they believed the earlier decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, or if circumstances changed materially to lead to a different interpretation. With that in mind, to show your comment is more than gratuitous, can you cite what point specifically in the OP you believe the current court would hold differently, and why?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 9:34 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidYeah, that was a decision made 24 years ago by 9 people who are now all retired or dead. This was also the same court that upheld bigoted anti-sodomy laws, which (at the time) declared all gay people criminals.
    Thankfully our country has recognized that they were full of sh*t and corrected that mistake.

    The Supreme Court is entirely different today. Who can say how the present members would rule on the camping issue?


    Today's court would rule in our favor that we can camp there. Its the first amendment and we should be able to protest wherever we want. The other problem is keeping the police from causing harm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 9:57 PM GMT
    As long as the protestors keep to non violence and 'keep it clean', I doubt the government in most cases will stop the protests in public parks. If the police start getting violent they will cause the protestor numbers to increase, take a look at what happened out at Oakland where the police injured an Iraq veteran. The numbers of protestors ballooned over night and the mayor backed down.

    The American people are fed up with the results of the moneyed interests behind our bought an paid for government, few major changes took place which has increased anger since Obama took over. Americans are out of work, short of money and many are hungry and now getting cold with winter coming on. This winter things will get worse economically.

    Unless there's strong signs of the protestors having been heard by examples of changes coming about in limiting Bank/Wall Street/Corp influence and being favored, as apposed to helping Main street, you will see much larger and many more protests in the spring. Obama has only offered lip service and has caved time and again to the point that real 'change' has ended up so watered down that the result is even more anger from Main Street.

    If things continue going in the direction they are now, I'd be willing to bet that the police will not be forcing protestors off public property, there'll be too many for them to take on. Its looking to me like the F'n System has the American public in a similar mood as in the 60's and early 70's when the protests forced the end of the damn war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    realifedad said As long as the protestors keep to non violence and 'keep it clean', I doubt the government in most cases will stop the protests in public parks. If the police start getting violent they will cause the protestor numbers to increase, take a look at what happened out at Oakland where the police injured an Iraq veteran. The numbers of protestors ballooned over night and the mayor backed down.

    The American people are fed up with the results of the moneyed interests behind our bought an paid for government, few major changes took place which has increased anger since Obama took over. Americans are out of work, short of money and many are hungry and now getting cold with winter coming on. This winter things will get worse economically.

    Unless there's strong signs of the protestors having been heard by examples of changes coming about in limiting Bank/Wall Street/Corp influence and being favored, as apposed to helping Main street, you will see much larger and many more protests in the spring. Obama has only offered lip service and has caved time and again to the point that real 'change' has ended up so watered down that the result is even more anger from Main Street.

    If things continue going in the direction they are now, I'd be willing to bet that the police will not be forcing protestors off public property, there'll be too many for them to take on. Its looking to me like the F'n System has the American public in a similar mood as in the 60's and early 70's when the protests forced the end of the damn war.


    Im sorry but this is where you get things wrong. There are many cities in which their are no clashes with the OWS movement and the government. In these cities, the protesters have permits put in place and obey by the law/follow protocol. Cities that are having issues are having issues because these "protesters" are doing stuff like shitting in the streets. This is not only ruining the city (which the city pays for through tax payer dollars, ironically what the protesters are not paying taxes) but it violates many health standards for obvious reasons. Small businesses in the area are suffering as well as those who own property next to them. The people they are disrupting are not the top 1% but those who are just trying to live their lives.

    If you think this movement will amount to anything, you are severely delusional.

    If these protesters took their message to the government and not the private industry, and werent trying to be as disruptive to the law and order as they are, they might actually get some where.

    My brother put it best when someone asked him what the OWS movement is, "Its the hip place to be right now."

    Thats all it is, that is all it ever will be.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Oct 30, 2011 10:26 PM GMT
    Yes, homo sex was a felony in all 50 states prior to 1962, when a few progressive states started to decriminalize it. Punishments varied by state but it was not uncommon for a sentence to be 15 years in prison, just for having sex with someone of the same gender. In earlier years the punishment was death or castration.
    The Supreme Court in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law that it used to persecute gay people.
    They said gay Americans' rights are not being violated by being imprisoned for having gay sex. So no, I do not consider their opinions on Constitutional rights issues acceptable then or relevant today.

    Anti-gay sodomy laws were finally struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003, where the only three votes to retain the laws were all by conservatives (surprise), one of whom implied that masturbation should also be illegal.
    Uber-douche conservative Clarence Thomas (Bush I appointee, still on the court) also said in writing that Americans have no Constitutional right to privacy.

    Regarding the camping case, the case you site could be used as a precedent in legal actions against protesters, but if challenged in the Supreme Court there is no guarantee they would rule the same way -- the original case was a different set of circumstances (a small group on the National Mall -- not a national movement with the support of 100-million Americans). And it's an entirely new set of Justices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
    KissTheSky said... Regarding the camping case, the case you site could be used as a precedent in legal actions against protesters, but if challenged in the Supreme Court there is no guarantee they would rule the same way -- the original case was a different set of circumstances (a small group on the National Mall -- not a national movement with the support of 100-million Americans). And it's an entirely new set of Justices.

    There is no guarantee about anything, but you suggest no legal reason to expect any different decision. The only thing I would grant you is if activist justices were to discount the precedent in favor of interpretations for social ends, which they are not supposed to do, then anything is possible. But even from a common sense perspective, would serious people really think the city governments do not have the right to enforce anti-squatting laws? So everyone could set up tents and decide to live on the nicest beaches of the country, and they would have the unconditional right to do so? Whatever you want to argue, the position on the table is that they don't have an unconditional right to squat where they want, and as was suggested above, if they want to test that again, we have a legal system and I'm sure sympathetic lawyers who will support them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
    Chainers said
    realifedad said As long as the protestors keep to non violence and 'keep it clean', I doubt the government in most cases will stop the protests in public parks. If the police start getting violent they will cause the protestor numbers to increase, take a look at what happened out at Oakland where the police injured an Iraq veteran. The numbers of protestors ballooned over night and the mayor backed down.

    The American people are fed up with the results of the moneyed interests behind our bought an paid for government, few major changes took place which has increased anger since Obama took over. Americans are out of work, short of money and many are hungry and now getting cold with winter coming on. This winter things will get worse economically.

    Unless there's strong signs of the protestors having been heard by examples of changes coming about in limiting Bank/Wall Street/Corp influence and being favored, as apposed to helping Main street, you will see much larger and many more protests in the spring. Obama has only offered lip service and has caved time and again to the point that real 'change' has ended up so watered down that the result is even more anger from Main Street.

    If things continue going in the direction they are now, I'd be willing to bet that the police will not be forcing protestors off public property, there'll be too many for them to take on. Its looking to me like the F'n System has the American public in a similar mood as in the 60's and early 70's when the protests forced the end of the damn war.


    Im sorry but this is where you get things wrong. There are many cities in which their are no clashes with the OWS movement and the government. In these cities, the protesters have permits put in place and obey by the law/follow protocol. Cities that are having issues are having issues because these "protesters" are doing stuff like shitting in the streets. This is not only ruining the city (which the city pays for through tax payer dollars, ironically what the protesters are not paying taxes) but it violates many health standards for obvious reasons. Small businesses in the area are suffering as well as those who own property next to them. The people they are disrupting are not the top 1% but those who are just trying to live their lives.

    If you think this movement will amount to anything, you are severely delusional.

    If these protesters took their message to the government and not the private industry, and werent trying to be as disruptive to the law and order as they are, they might actually get some where.

    My brother put it best when someone asked him what the OWS movement is, "Its the hip place to be right now."

    Thats all it is, that is all it ever will be.




    I totally agree with you about the need for protestors to be peaceful and follow the rules.

    The protests probably do choke the local businesses. Sorry for that, and your brother probably has a point to that applies to a lot of the attendee's in the protests.

    However Americans are hurting, and its directly as a result the vast money'ed interests of Corps, Banks, wall street etc. buying legislation over the last few decades that have squeezed out the middle and lower classes. The Middle and lower classes haven't been heard, if things get economically worse over the winter, I don't at all think its dilusional to expect larger and more numerous protests until Government actions answer their needs.

    In the 60's Americans were hurting over social inequality and a damn war that was killing their youth at the rate of hundreds a week, Americans weren't being listened to while the money'ed interests getting rich off the war were getting their way and the heads of state fought to save the social status quo against Americans rights. All that led to protests which did work to bring about change.

    The middle and lower classes don't have the money to win a fight with the Money'ed interests to gain fair policy and legislation to bring jobs back, they can only apply heavy pressure by protests, which usually only occur when the masses are cornered, without work and hungry. Believe it or not, many social experts, even many like New York Mayor Bloomberg are warning that we are now at the point of Americans hurting enough to get out in the streets to protest.

    That's all I'm saying, and while many are falling in the class of "its the hip place to be right now", there is a point behind those protests and their point is growing, because they haven't quite gotten the attention of the 'powers that be' yet, to bring about real change that helps main street with jobs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 11:00 PM GMT
    Uh, duh? You do know the leaders of the American Revolution advocated for a systematically updated Constitution? Every 10 years (I believe was their suggestion) we would hold a Constitutional Conference in which the Constitution would be revised to reflect the changes over the last decade.

    So yeah, I'd say that the decisions made by 9 people who didn't live in a our time-spot doesn't properly reflect our current place.

    Aren't Republican's supposed to be anti-activist judges? Where exactly in the Constitution is the power to define or have final say on Consitutional amendments given to the Supreme Court? We are supposed to have a system of checks-and-balances...no one is suppose to ever have the final say...that was the whole point.

    Wow...for how much some of y'all argue politics, I'm honestly astounded at how ignorant y'all are to American history and the Constitution.

    southbeach1500 said
    KissTheSky saidYeah, that was a decision made 24 years ago by 9 people who are now all retired or dead.


    Uh, so? Does that mean that any decisions made by the Supreme Court become null and void once all the people who decided a case and weighed in with a decision on a case retire or die?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 11:26 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidWow...for how much some of y'all argue politics, I'm honestly astounded at how ignorant y'all are to American history and the Constitution.


    Was this statement deliberately ironic?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2011 11:58 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidUh, duh? You do know the leaders of the American Revolution advocated for a systematically updated Constitution? Every 10 years (I believe was their suggestion) we would hold a Constitutional Conference in which the Constitution would be revised to reflect the changes over the last decade.

    So yeah, I'd say that the decisions made by 9 people who didn't live in a our time-spot doesn't properly reflect our current place.

    Aren't Republican's supposed to be anti-activist judges? Where exactly in the Constitution is the power to define or have final say on Consitutional amendments given to the Supreme Court? We are supposed to have a system of checks-and-balances...no one is suppose to ever have the final say...that was the whole point.

    Wow...for how much some of y'all argue politics, I'm honestly astounded at how ignorant y'all are to American history and the Constitution.

    southbeach1500 said
    KissTheSky saidYeah, that was a decision made 24 years ago by 9 people who are now all retired or dead.


    Uh, so? Does that mean that any decisions made by the Supreme Court become null and void once all the people who decided a case and weighed in with a decision on a case retire or die?


    Apparently someone hasnt heard of Judicial Review (the power of the court to interpret the constitution and how it applies in certain cases.) Court rulings have been overturned in the past. One that comes to particular mind is Brown v. Board of Education, in which they overturned a law that was previously held that seperate but equal was not constitutional. That was not overturned because a bunch of people decided so.

    If they wish to challenge the previous rulings, they should do so the right way, through the courts and not by being a bunch of rambling idiots.

    If we were to follow your logic, ghost, we would also have to rule out Roe v Wade which was done 10 years prior to this court case. Or how about Brown v Board of Education? Lets get rid of that because we are in a new time here too.

    In case some of you are too stupid to catch on I am being sarcastic. This court case is not set in stone, a new one can appear and the courts can rule that their first amendment rights were violated. Until then, this one stands.

    @reallifedad,

    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 12:06 AM GMT
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 1:18 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.



    Thats a rather caloused way to look at the dire straights that many a young family with small children are in.

    Don't forget that Societies do bring about change by mas protests, it worked for black folks getting civil rights, it brought an end to the Viet Nam war, such actions ending the desperate lives of minors, demonstrations gave women their vote and the list goes on and on.

    You should maybe give more credit to the plight of the unemployed through no fault of their own and not put the whole protest in the class with shiftless unemployed young people.

    Go visit South Bend Indiana, Elkhart, Indiana, go just across the state line into Niles, Dowagiac, or Benton Harbor (of whirlpool fame) and take a look at all the closed factories, with grass and trees growing up through the cracks, go downtown and see all the stores closed and boarded up, check out all the homes for sale and boarded up.

    Most of this happened because of our bought and paid for govenment leaders both Dems and Repubs, selling favorable policies and legislation to powerful corps, banks and Wall street, for the donations to their re-elections. The accumilated effects of corps purchasing favorable legislation to them but not the American worker over about 3 decades has brought us here and it is exactly why the OWS got started, it wasn't just because some hippies had nothing better to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 1:23 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.



    Thats a rather caloused way to look at the dire straights that many a young family with small children are in.

    Don't forget that Societies do bring about change by mas protests, it worked for black folks getting civil rights, it brought an end to the Viet Nam war, such actions ending the desperate lives of minors, demonstrations gave women their vote and the list goes on and on.

    You should maybe give more credit to the plight of the unemployed through no fault of their own and not put the whole protest in the class with shiftless unemployed young people.

    Go visit South Bend Indiana, Elkhart, Indiana, go just across the state line into Niles, Dowagiac, or Benton Harbor (of whirlpool fame) and take a look at all the closed factories, with grass and trees growing up through the cracks, go downtown and see all the stores closed and boarded up, check out all the homes for sale and boarded up.

    Most of this happened because of our bought and paid for govenment leaders both Dems and Repubs, selling favorable policies and legislation to powerful corps, banks and Wall street, for the donations to their re-elections. The accumilated effects of corps purchasing favorable legislation to them but not the American worker over about 3 decades has brought us here and it is exactly why the OWS got started, it wasn't just because some hippies had nothing better to do.


    Im sorry that stupid spoiled individuals in the united states of america think they have it hard, but in contrast to most of the worlds population they do not.

    I do not think it is their fault for being unemployed, but it is a recession, as the recession improves the OWS movement will fall out. If people think times are hard here, they should go live in a 3rd world country, where they can see how hard times really are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 1:29 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.

    Thats a rather caloused way to look at the dire straights that many a young family with small children are in.

    So you really think the protestors squatting are the young families with young children, versus left wing activists?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 1:33 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.

    Thats a rather caloused way to look at the dire straights that many a young family with small children are in.

    So you really think the protestors squatting are the young families with young children, versus left wing activists?


    I dont even think this is left wing activists, they are anarchists and communists who want to bring down capitalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 1:34 AM GMT
    Chainers said
    socalfitness said
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.

    Thats a rather caloused way to look at the dire straights that many a young family with small children are in.

    So you really think the protestors squatting are the young families with young children, versus left wing activists?

    I dont even think this is left wing activists, they are anarchists and communists who want to bring down capitalism.

    I think you're right. Was just being polite. If they were as some maintain, they would also be demonstrating in Washington. As it is, they are just following the pattern seen outside G20 summits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 2:19 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    socalfitness said
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.

    Thats a rather caloused way to look at the dire straights that many a young family with small children are in.

    So you really think the protestors squatting are the young families with young children, versus left wing activists?

    I dont even think this is left wing activists, they are anarchists and communists who want to bring down capitalism.

    I think you're right. Was just being polite. If they were as some maintain, they would also be demonstrating in Washington. As it is, they are just following the pattern seen outside G20 summits.



    Anarchists and Communists wanting to bring down capitalism ? and this >>> So you really thin the protestors squatting are the young families with your children versus left wing......

    Its as if you guys credit all who have legitimate reason to beef in this class with a few you see as radicals. are you telling us you give no credence to unemployed peoples plights ? Your being far too general in your disregard for whats happening to Americans in this economic downturn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 2:20 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    socalfitness said
    realifedad said
    socalfitness said
    Chainers said
    Im sorry, this protest is never going to bring about change. Its never going to help the middle class. All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do until the economy improves.

    Agree with all your points completely. If I might just offer an alternate prediction:
    All it will do is give a bunch of unemployed people something to do as long as they continue to get free food.

    Thats a rather caloused way to look at the dire straights that many a young family with small children are in.

    So you really think the protestors squatting are the young families with young children, versus left wing activists?

    I dont even think this is left wing activists, they are anarchists and communists who want to bring down capitalism.

    I think you're right. Was just being polite. If they were as some maintain, they would also be demonstrating in Washington. As it is, they are just following the pattern seen outside G20 summits.



    Anarchists and Communists wanting to bring down capitalism ? and this >>> So you really thin the protestors squatting are the young families with your children versus left wing......

    Its as if you guys credit all who have legitimate reason to beef in this class with a few you see as radicals. are you telling us you give no credence to unemployed peoples plights ? Your being far too general in your disregard for whats happening to Americans in this economic downturn.


    The job market sucks, I have many friends who are unemployed or underemployed so I understand what they are going through. OWS, however, is not going to get them a job.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 2:22 AM GMT
    realifedad said Anarchists and Communists wanting to bring down capitalism ? and this >>> So you really thin the protestors squatting are the young families with your children versus left wing......

    Its as if you guys credit all who have legitimate reason to beef in this class with a few you see as radicals. are you telling us you give no credence to unemployed peoples plights ? Your being far too general in your disregard for whats happening to Americans in this economic downturn.

    Nice try equating the protestors with everyone who is facing problems with the economy being strangled by the administration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2011 4:08 AM GMT
    The thing is, while they have their illegal tent city ghetto their, is is not open to the public; they are preventing the public from access to it, to use it and enjoy it. They must be moved on, bring in the National Gard.