"Occupation" is not "Speech"
Darn, and here I thought I could squat in my elderly neighbor's apartment in the name of free speech. But apparently, seizing property does not constitute "speech." So says the Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Frances MacIntyre. As in other cities, Boston never tried to stop Occupy protests, but it finally got up the nerve to say that the protestors could not take up residence in a public park, Dewey Square. The lawyer for the Boston group argued that "occupation is the message" -- meaning that the protestors had a First Amendment right to live in Dewey Square.
The judge held that the seizure of a park just doesn't count as "speech." In fact, in a nice turn of phrase, she observed that the occupation of Dewey Square "to the effective exclusion of others is the very antithesis of their message that a more just and egalitarian society is possible."
But even assuming that occupying a park is "expressive conduct" worthy of First Amendment protections, the judge pointed out that the law allows reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions, provided such restrictions are "content neutral." The Left is hard-pressed to claim oppression, when the restrictions they face are far less onerous than those facing abortion protestors in many states and cities, e.g., bans on any protest -- even silent protest -- within 1,000 feet of abortion clinics.
This is a battle that the "Occupy" crowd keeps losing; first New York and Fresno, and now Boston. Appeals may be taken, but I think they are doomed.
- Comment (2)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: "Occupation" is not "Speech"
It's not about winning the cases for the Occupy movement. It's about painting themselves as taking a stand against the Man's Oppression™. I think they'd have been a little disappointed if they'd won.
Apr '11
Re: "Occupation" is not "Speech"
I think the "movement" is named "Occupy" in order to accustom people to the idea that occupying, squatting, taking by adverse possession, public or private "unused" property is somehow noble. It may take a while but I'm not sanguine that they won't make headway. They won't need to argue first amendment when they convince enough people that it's about natural rights. After all, "they acknowledge such rights in many countries in Europe". Attacking the strength of the principles of private property is a necessary step in dismantling capitalism.