If you are reading this in the United States, chances are good there is an Occupy site where you live — even if you live in a town of 433 people.
The chances are also good the Occupy protestors have set up tents. That's the way it's been for months in Washington, D.C., where I live.
The largest Occupy site in D.C. is at McPherson Square, a federally-run park in the middle of downtown just a couple blocks from the White House. There's a statute of a horse-mounted Union Army General James B. McPherson in the middle.
Usually, McPherson Square is occupied largely by pigeons, homeless people, and workers on their lunch breaks. That changed last October, when the Occupy D.C. protestors began to set up tents.
I walked through McPherson Square one night a couple weeks after the protest began. It was a remarkable sight, a whole block in the middle of downtown Washington, D.C. filled with tents. Some tents were new and sturdy, others had seen better days. Most were filled with gear, clothes, sleeping bags, people making out, stoves, and signs in the works. One sign propped in front of a tent said "F*ck the Banks. And the Corporations Too."
Other than its location in the nation's capital, the McPherson Square Occupy site is probably not that different from any other in the country. But that might change very soon.
The National Park Service has warned protesters that starting today, it's going to enforce a no-camping policy at the square. The protestors must remove tents and other "evidence of camping." They can stay in the square 24 hours a day. They just can't sleep or camp there.
That enforcement was urged by members of U.S. Congress, including the chairman of the House Committe on Oversight and Reform, who complained that the Park Service wasn't sticking to federal rules prohibiting camping in federal parks except in designated areas.
The Park Service seems to be caught in the middle, especially having allowed the Occupiers to camp out all these months. That has made many of the protesters determined to stick it to the man and keep their tents up. One said: "Many of us will be likely to defend the park with the passion anyone would show defending their home. We are fighting for the betterment of D.C., America, and the world, and we intend to continue using our First Amendment rights to do so."
Is that right? Whether you agree with them or not, do the Occupy protesters have a First Amendment right to camp out indefinitely on a public space like McPherson Square?
The answer is probably not. As one federal court in Maine recently noted, for starters it's a close call whether the act of sleeping or camping is constitutionally protected "speech" in the first place. But even if it is, it's beyond doubt that communication is always "subject to time, place, or manner restrictions," as long as those restrictions aren't based on the content of the communication and serve a "significant" government interest.
So the U.S. Department of Interior can likely impose regulations against camping on spaces within their jurisdiction, as long as it prohibits all camping, not just camping associated with a certain protest movement like Occupy or, say, the Tea Party movement. And it seems that "protesting" 24 hours a day is okay, as long as the protestor isn't "camping."
That seems pretty clear and neat on paper. But it creates about a thousand questions. What are the D.C. and federal police going to do tonight when protestors start sleeping in their tents? Do they arrest them? Tase them? Can the protestors leave their tents up all night? Can they sit in their tents as long as they don't sleep? The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but it's also very messy.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
KC Redding-Gonzalez
greenheron
kenneth houck
Andrea Higbie
Jennifer Prestholdt
Pensive Person
Salon.com
Comments
That being said, civil disobedience is a great American tradition and doing it has forced this nation to move ahead or at least away from the most destructive directions.
In the absence of any thing else getting the point across, I support the civil disobedience in the face of outright criminal activity that is overlooked and even condoned by those who have the connections and power.
The biggest problem, however, is that these are fairly to very well off White people who come into communities where the homeless and the street folk also have to survive.
The protesters are disrupting the life cycles and the habitats for a lot of people! Also, when the protesters get arrested, they are out by the next day. Anyone else is going to be locked up for a while. Hence, there is a lot of resentment from the permanent residents. The movement has to work to tone down the economic and social divisions that exist within the movement.
Finally, they HAVE to start photographing, identifying, and eliminating the so called "anarchist" movement, who I have long suspected is infested with government operatives. All that the authorities need is for one or two people to go beyond "civil disobedience" and they are then justified to crack heads and go buck wild.
One police supervisor told me that their biggest concern is that the occupiers "keep the peace" by not egging people on or starting disputes and trouble. His message is that, once the peace is broken, the authorities call the shots.
So yes, in the tradition of civil disobedience, the movement has the right to break the rules by camping. But they must have the sense to move when they can't keep the peace among themselves.
City governments should be supporting these occupations because they too have been victimized by our dysfunctional economic system. Are there social problems connected with the Occupations? Of course, but they are only the same social problems that cities face everyday and at least the Occupations are trying to solve them.
It's "Which side are you on?" time, and most city governments are siding with their Wall Street enemies.
This is class war and it's time for city governments to realize that.
a) they don't know what is best for them (the white people from the wealthier towns know that, I guess) or
b) they are too busy working to provide for their families to occupy anything. But here see a) because they should know that Occupy is more important than any other business they have, and they should know that Occupy will stick it to the rich people so that in the future people won't have to work hard to support a family. Stick it to Mayor Quan.
Whether or not you can camp in a public place as part of a larger protest, possibly the first protest movement in world history where people are joined by an idea, is beside the point, it's a foolish piffle to even discuss it -- WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS OF THE "TOO BIG TO FAIL" BANKERS?
Our politicians are again proving themselves to be utterly useless. They are OWNED by the banks.
OWS is the best thing to happen in decades.
Here in Australia we have an Occupy-like site that has been going since the 70's. It is the "tent embassy" that has been run by the Aborigines protesting their lack of opportunity.
I say good on them, it makes our democracy stronger not weaker. We MUST be reminded about the shortcomings of our system. How else can we be forced to compromise and improve .
The first song about the aboriginal situation gives an idea of the forces involved. Imagine if they are allowed to fester:
Lyrics | Goanna lyrics - Solid Rock lyrics
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/mh-occupy-miami-removed-20120201,0,1309689.story
Personally, I support the Occupy folks. After all of the skulduggery and B.S. we have seen from the banks and Wall Street, I say let em camp...that is the least of the rules that have been broken in this country the past few years.
And yet Citizens United has basically given the wealthiest people and corporations in America the constitutional right to do the exact same thing. They are "cutting in line" because writing a check is now defined as free speech.
No...Since the country was founded, Courts have allowed government entities ( Stats, Counties, Cities.) to regulate things that are in the constitution. If not, there would be no gun laws.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
You can't camp in public spaces where cities have passed anti loitering and trespassing ordinances.
The fact is, the occupy movement and ACLU could be sued for denying public space to the rest of the people.
To extend the concept of free speech to trespass is obvious lunacy and every court and functioning intelligence that has considered the matter has come to that conclusion.
Civil disobedience? Sure. Just cart their asses off to jail and let them occupy that as long as they please.