START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Occupy Oakland Unmoved By New Eviction Order


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: occupy oakland, OWS, government, freedoms )

William
- 1038 days ago - sfgate.com
The city administrator's office issued a second order Saturday morning for the Occupy Oakland camp to vacate Frank Ogawa Plaza, on the grounds that city law forbids camping overnight in parks. The notice appeared to have little effect.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Mona Wolters (40)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 12:50 pm
The 1st amendment gives all the right to free speech, and we have the right to assemble peacefully, so why are the police acting more like the criminals...how peaceful is that?
 

Myron Scott (70)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 1:30 pm
The police are being entirely unreasonable and arbitrary, and apparently are trying to dictate policy decisions to the mayor. Of course, they've already illustrated a propensity for violent excessive force.

Strictly as a matter of firmly established Constitutional law, reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner do not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; and I think it's safe to assume that almost any court would apply a similar (or less protective) analysis to restrictions on rights under the Free Assembly Clause. Arbitrary or capricious restrictions, arbitrary and capricious actions to enforce such restrictions, or actions in excess of authority, however, can be struck down, as happened last week in Nashville. Particularly in the area of "adult" entertainment (bookstores, movie houses, strip clubs, etc.), the accepted principle long has been that civil authorities can limit where such activities are allowed in various ways; but the totality of the restrictions cannot be so all-encompassing as to effectively ban such activities everywhere in a given city, town or county without violating Free Speech. Determinations of whether restrictions are unconstitutional are made on a case by case basis. Thus, how well individual encampments regulate themselves and those who occupy them may affect the legal outcome. Ultimately, however, I think that civil authorities cannot disperse Occupation encampments without providing an alternative space for free assembly and stay within the First Amendment. I also would argue that such alternatives must be reasonably suited to purpose of protest, which means that officials couldn't pick a place that is so isolated that the protest is screened off from the general public. I can't guarantee that that last argument would work, but that's what I would argue.
 

Terry King (108)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 2:03 pm
We need to evict Jean Quan from the mayors office!
 

Joe R. (189)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 2:25 pm
Thanks for the update.
 

Shane C. (3)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 3:06 pm
Its good that they are not leaving, but they shouldn't have been ordered to in the first place. We need to start electing politicians that actually care about freedom and the constitution.
 

Barbara W. (342)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 3:49 pm
This crap that's been coming down form Mayors and certain peace officers where the Occupy movements is concerned is a farce to break up, with any excuse possible, this "CONSTITUTIONAL" movement that's sweeping the nation and indeed, the world. Press on Brave Hearts, this is your moment not the establishments!
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 4:47 pm
People willing to suffer for a cause cannot be stopped. If they die, others come into the ranks.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 5:52 pm
Myron Scott is correct on that. I hope they will use that to protect their right to assembly!
 

Charlotte P. (36)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 7:40 pm
all noted.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 13, 2011, 11:31 pm
Heros do have a stubborn streak.
 

Sue D. (156)
Monday November 14, 2011, 1:05 am
While the authorities fret over how to dismantle the protesters in Oakland, it seems that San Francisco has the right idea. A patrol car is nearby, but they are not harassing or provoking the peaceful protesters... and look how well it's going - what a positive light to shine on an important issue to the American people.
I feel a need to make a personal observation here: SF is one of the most liberal, tolerant and diverse major cities in the USA. It shows all that is "feared" by conservative Christians that believe "Gays are destroying families" and Right Wing fanatics that promote fear of "Terrorism" by attempting to control a thinking, intelligent majority that have seen the well planned hoax of "trickle down economics", power in the hands of the few, Capitalism unregulated, Greedy Corporations, Big Oil's disastrous scourge on our planet and Corrupt Wall Street Bankers stealing from the people - is all really about that infamous 1%. The truth is San Francisco is most like what America should aspire to be; people working together to get along, help each other and allow others to live their life as they should be allowed. SF has pretty much proven that there is no "fear" like those who would have you believe is there because of "Gays" or "Liberals" or "Progressives". The thing that should be 'feared' is the few controlling our country.
 

Angelika R. (143)
Monday November 14, 2011, 2:25 am
thanks William, valuable post, and thanks to excellent comments above. I fully agree with Myron's precise analysis and also with Zee's assessment. Too big to ignore and much too late to turn back or over.
The city may well have to issue a third order-or else come up with another solution, this déja vu stuff won't work any more.
However, the reports of disturbing developments in that article are troubling.
 

KS Goh (0)
Monday November 14, 2011, 4:27 am
Thanks for the article.
 

John Gregoire (255)
Monday November 14, 2011, 6:14 am
So, in NY watch for Bloomberg to claim health violations as an excuse and what's happening in Portland? I think the nabobs are getting uncomforatble -good!
 

Kristen H. (25)
Monday November 14, 2011, 7:19 am
I like how municipalities think their personal likes and dislikes can trump the Constitution of the United States. What's next, secession from the US?
 

Robert O. (12)
Monday November 14, 2011, 11:16 am
Thanks William.
 

Lilith Cohen (202)
Monday November 14, 2011, 12:02 pm
Perhaps some Constitutional scholar can point out where the Constitution provides for the right to protest. Not talking about First Amendment "free speech". Not the same.
 

. (0)
Monday November 14, 2011, 5:36 pm
noted
 

Past Member (0)
Monday November 14, 2011, 10:27 pm
The hero is an archetype.

Now raw courage is without armor.
 

Brian M. (145)
Wednesday November 16, 2011, 10:09 am
Resistance is never futile. That being said, the movement must stand by its commitment to nonviolence. Noted.

Brian's News

Brian's Sharebook
 

Mona Wolters (40)
Sunday November 20, 2011, 2:48 pm
This is from The Constitution's 1st amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations

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.

 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

William K.

William K.
William's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 0
Stories submitted: 31
Front Page stories: 27




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.