Paul, a very Happy New Year to you and yours! I first saw notice of the Zuccotti Park situation on Huff Post earlier this morning and then I noticed the NYT's City Room had an update at 2:10 AM. Naturally, the MSM was busy with the feel good stories of people cheering and kissing in the New Year. Yesterday, Obama signed the NDAA in Hawaii which was a good day and location to keep this story about as hidden as was humanly possible. Thanks for making it a New Year's resolution to talk about about the First Amendment--2011 saw you doing a great job of bringing it to the forefront, so again I look forward to reading anything you are writing or speaking about it in 2012.

In between the usual New Year's Eve celebrations, I've been watching Timcastand his live UStream coverage of Occupy Wall Street, and the New York City Police (NYPD) once again violating the protesters' First Amendment rights.

The New York City Police Department were enforcing laws on the books, not violating the protesters’ First Amendment rights. First amendment rights are not absolute.

There was nothing about this on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. Nothing on the major broadcast networks.

That is false. I saw a story about it on one of the network channels this morning. What they didn’t do is to go batshit crazy and make legitimate law enforcement into this “violation of First Amendment rights” that you to want to portray it as.

Designanator…nothing about the signing was hidden…let alone “hidden as was humanly possible.” I’ve seen stories about it on all the network channels this morning.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. That happened because liberal America managed to alienate enough people to make two George W. Bush administrations possible. Now, the crap that those two administrations served up is starting to smell. But nobody can get the toothpaste back into the tube. What you have to do is to deal with it…try to contain it as best as possible…which is what Obama is trying to do.

Things would work out much better if Obama got some support from people who should know better than to constantly malign him…to the point where they are helping bring in an administration that will be even worse than the W administrations.

professional liberals, bla, bla, bla, toothpaste, bla, bla, bla, toothpaste, bla, bla, bla, profesional liberals, bla, bla, bla, the toothpastes out of the tube, wah wah, wah

" . . . they are helping bring in an administration that will be even worse than the W administrations."

And you know the next administration will be so bad, how, moron?


-R-

Frank, wake up -

1. You wrote: "That [no coverage on mainstream media] is false. I saw a story about it on one of the network channels this morning."

Maybe that's because I blog at 3:17am, which was before there was any live mainstream coverage. What you say was a report long after the action was over.

2. You wrote: "The New York City Police Department were enforcing laws on the books, not violating the protesters’ First Amendment rights. First amendment rights are not absolute."

So I guess you didn't hear about Kelly's order that the NYPD has to respect the First Amendment?

===

Happy New Year, Designator! Thanks!

=====

Mark: the next time you insult one of my commentators here, I'll remove your post, and maybe block you from commenting here altogether. As it is, I'll leave your post, as evidence of the low state of discourse people with your point like to engage in.

I am awake, Paul…but I do strongly disagree with the thrust of your contentions here…and in other threads you have posted on these issues.


1. You wrote: "That [no coverage on mainstream media] is false. I saw a story about it on one of the network channels this morning."

Maybe that's because I blog at 3:17am, which was before there was any live mainstream coverage. What you say was a report long after the action was over.

Okay…I’ll give you that. I was up at 5:30…and saw something on it at that time. But your post left the impression that the network people were ignoring it—seemingly purposefully. Frankly, two million people celebrating the New Year in Times Square WAS more important to the networks (who do broadcast with a desire for profit in mind) than a few people doing more of the nonsense that the Occupy Movement has become. Any network official who would interrupt the coverage advertisers paid for…and an audience expected…for this sideshow would have been fired…RIGHTLY SO!

At least that is my opinion.

Paul, I enjoy your opinions…and your posts. I am not breaking chops here, I am merely giving what you consider important…an alternate perspective of the issue for consideration.

2. You wrote: "The New York City Police Department were enforcing laws on the books, not violating the protesters’ First Amendment rights. First amendment rights are not absolute."

Yes I did…and I stand by it.

So I guess you didn't hear about Kelly's order that the NYPD has to respect the First Amendment?

So??? Are you saying that the police department cannot maintain order and public access because that perforce would be disrespecting the First Amendment? I think the NYPD IS respecting the First Amendment…which applies to everyone, not just the rabble that is the OWS Movement.

Paul, none of us are going to get anywhere if we just cement ourselves into positions. I understand your position…and I understand the position of the police charged with enforcing laws that maintain order and public access to public places. These people do not have a “right” that is absolute…and the police do have a right, indeed a responsibility, to take action to maintain order.

If Commissioner Kelly or the Mayor truly thought the police were irresponsibly out of order in what they were doing…I suspect they would stop it in an instant. I am a part of the 99%…and I think the OWS movement is a disaster…a movement with great potential that has devolved into a leaderless, agendaless rabble. They are more an annoyance than a driving force toward much needed change; they are more likely to turn people off than motivate them to support that needed change.

Thanks for allowing me to have my say. I hope 2012 is a fulfilling one for you and yours.

Frank wrote: "the police do have a right, indeed a responsibility, to take action to maintain order."

Right - except there was no disorder for the police to take action about. Instead, innocent people - like actress Ellen Barkin - were roughed up by criminal cops. The job of the NYPD is to protect the public from criminals, not attack innocent people who are peaceably expressing their First Amendment rights.

Right - except there was no disorder for the police to take action about. Instead, innocent people - like actress Ellen Barkin - were roughed up by criminal cops. The job of the NYPD is to protect the public from criminals, not attack innocent people who are peaceably expressing their First Amendment rights.

If in fact Barkin and Pool were “roughed up” or otherwise inappropriately handled by the police, then I agree that would be wrong and that would be an infringement on their First Amendment rights.

Were they?

I don’t think either of us knows for sure…and we could both witness what happened and come away with different opinions of whether they were or not.

If either of them were ordered by a police officer to vacate an area…no matter what, they should have immediately vacated the area. If either of them were asked to stop blocking a sidewalk…no matter what, they should have immediately stopped blocking the walk.

If they refused the rightful orders of the police…and were physically touched in order for the orders to be enforced…then the police were acting legitimately.—then they were not “innocent people peacefully expressing their First Amendment rights.”

When a policeman orders you to move or to vacate or to move back or moves away…you are required to do so. Refusing to do so is resisting legitimate instructions by law enforcement. If the instructions were wrong or inappropriate, there are other remedies than simply disobeying available.

In the case of Pool, you're calling me a liar? I specifically say that I saw him being manhandled by NYPD. He said on camera his wrist was painful after the incident. So I guess you're calling Pool a liar, too.

Which is not only insulting, but foolish. Do a little research. Go to the Timcast site - chances are you'll find last night's video, hours of recording, available.

As for Barkin - you're calling her a liar, too? You think she just made up the fact that a cop pushed her?

Your facts were plainly wrong to begin with - when you said my claim that the mass media were ignoring this was "false," because you happened to see a report on television - two hours after I posted my blog.

And you're wrong about this, too: "When a policeman orders you to move or to vacate or to move back or moves away…you are required to do so."

No, not if the order is illegal, and violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

In the case of Pool, you're calling me a liar? I specifically say that I saw him being manhandled by NYPD. He said on camera his wrist was painful after the incident. So I guess you're calling Pool a liar, too.

Which is not only insulting, but foolish. Do a little research. Go to the Timcast site - chances are you'll find last night's video, hours of recording, available.

As for Barkin - you're calling her a liar, too? You think she just made up the fact that a cop pushed her?

Your facts were plainly wrong to begin with - when you said my claim that the mass media were ignoring this was "false," because you happened to see a report on television - two hours after I posted my blog.

And you're wrong about this, too: "When a policeman orders you to move or to vacate or to move back or moves away…you are required to do so."

No, not if the order is illegal, and violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

In the case of Pool, you're calling me a liar? I specifically say that I saw him being manhandled by NYPD. He said on camera his wrist was painful after the incident. So I guess you're calling Pool a liar, too.

I see. You are saying that because you tell me someone was “manhandled”…I have to accept that the person WAS manhandled…or else I am calling you a liar!

You ought really to pass that bit of thought past a logician so that he/she could tell you how wrongheaded it is.

Is it not possible that you saw a confrontation between someone and a policeman…and that your mind-set refuses to see it in any other light except that “an innocent” was being “manhandled” and “being denied his/her First Amendment rights?

Let me give you the same advice you gave me earlier, Paul. WAKE UP! If the police gave instructions for either of the people you mentioned to clear a sidewalk…and they did not obey that instruction…the police could easily decide that MOVING them was an acceptable and appropriate action.

The fact that you want to characterize it as “manhandling” and “and invasion of First Amendment rights” can easily be an inappropriate, albeit honest from your point of view, assessment of the situation.

It is neither insulting for foolish, although suggesting it is so…IS.

These people…these occupiers…are a rabble in my opinion. They are doing more harm to the progressive agenda I think needs to be championed than some of the staunchest opponents of progressivism. If occasionally police have to move them along…the action easily can be justified and reasonable. The fact that you are unable to see it as such is of little consequence. If either of the people you mentioned wants to bring an action against the police department, they certainly can. I doubt it will go far.





Your facts were plainly wrong to begin with - when you said my claim that the mass media were ignoring this was "false," because you happened to see a report on television - two hours after I posted my blog.

I was not wrong. I did see it reported on television. And the fact that it was not reported instantly (if it truly was not reported instantly) is inconsequential. Yeah…the New Year’s event in Times Square WAS more important to the networks.

And you're wrong about this, too: "When a policeman orders you to move or to vacate or to move back or moves away…you are required to do so."

No, not if the order is illegal, and violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.,

And who is to determine if the order is illegal…and if it violates the First Amendment? YOU?

Are y0u actually suggesting that anytime a police officer asks someone to clear a sidewalk…the police officer must first bring in a constitutional scholar to assess the situation before anyone has to obey the order?

Of course you are not, Paul

If the police ordered those people to clear the sidewalk…the police HAD that right. They should have cleared it. If they didn’t, the police had the right to move them. The refusal is simply protest provocation…a reasonable move of all protests. But when used, it has consequences.

You should know that, and I suspect you do. Now you should acknowledge it.

I REPEAT: No, I am not calling you a liar, Paul. I am saying that your mindset is causing you to be illogical in your assessment of what is going on here.