But the law does agree. The city can close that sidewalk. They can rip it up, fence it in, and arrest people for trespassing. They can impose a curfew. That the city has instead decided to let you protest there is nice, just like I can decide to let you protest in my front yard, but it does not constitute an irrevocable right on your part.

4/15/2012 9:49:33 AM

Then get more creative. Take four cars and drive in formation 55mph around the beltline. Protest in front of television studios instead of downtown. No one cares about hippies on the sidewalk. Civil disobedience makes the news.

4/15/2012 11:21:43 AM

Or....

just do the same thing until they beat you.
http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/10983988/

4/15/2012 12:14:40 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: But the law does agree. The city can close that sidewalk. They can rip it up, fence it in, and arrest people for trespassing. They can impose a curfew. That the city has instead decided to let you protest there is nice, just like I can decide to let you protest in my front yard, but it does not constitute an irrevocable right on your part."

The city can close ONE sidewalk, but not every sidewalk. What stops me from demonstrating on another sidewalk? Our rights apply there, too.

Quote :

"smc: No one cares about hippies on the sidewalk. Civil disobedience makes the news."

Roll film...

http://triangle.news14.com/content/top_stories/656325/occupy-raleigh-holds-demonstration-sunday

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 12:32 AM. Reason : ...]

4/16/2012 12:31:41 AM

Yarr...not a looker in the bunch.

A suggestion:
When someone is interviewed, have the other 7 people gather behind them to hide your true sparse numbers. But for the love of all that holy don't do that mic check bullshit. And state your purpose in EVERY interview. You aren't protesting the city, after all. Or are you?

The wide shot of a policeman leading you down the sidewalk like Frosty the Snowman made me laugh a bit too, but I'll let it slide.

4/16/2012 1:01:42 AM

Quote :

"The city can close ONE sidewalk, but not every sidewalk. What stops me from demonstrating on another sidewalk? Our rights apply there, too."

Sure they can. What makes you think they can't? There are small towns in this country without a single sidewalk because the local government never built any. I agree your town never will close all the sidewalks, but it is because the voters would be outraged, not because the supreme court would slap them down for it.

4/16/2012 8:12:54 AM

::puts down popcorn::

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Sure they can. What makes you think they can't? There are small towns in this country without a single sidewalk because the local government never built any. I agree your town never will close all the sidewalks, but it is because the voters would be outraged, not because the supreme court would slap them down for it."

Actually the Supreme Court would slap them down over it, if it became apparent the sidewalk closures were for the purpose of restricting speech

::grabs popcorn::

Carry on

4/16/2012 8:27:55 AM

Perhaps you know case-law I do not. But even you accept the city could close them for other reasons, be it a curfew when confronted with civil unrest, natural disaster, or to tear them up to make parking spaces. My point still stands. You cannot proclaim to have a right to something when that something is entirely subservient to the whims of some legislature.

4/16/2012 8:41:30 AM

I think the gist of your point stands -- that municipalities can close down sidewalks for certain limited government purposes -- but the absolutist approach you're taking with it is simply wrong.

There is no constitutional right for a municipality to exist as there are with the states and the federal government; they can be dissolved at any time by the snap of a state legislature's fingers. So the government powers of a municipality are more limited than that of a state (and the state's inherent police powers) -- the First Amendment would trump both anyway, but is a higher barrier in the case of municipal-maintained property versus state property.

Using curfews as an example, they've only been upheld by the Supreme Court once (when applied to Japanese-Americans in WWII). They're constitutionally suspect, which is why nearly all curfew laws include exceptions for First Amendment-protected expression. And the courts have consistently held for the better part of a century now that mere "civil unrest" isn't a big enough threat to the government to justify infringement on protected expression.

Could a municipality tear up sidewalks to build parking lots? Normally, yes. But if they decided to tear up some particular sidewalk because they were tired of Occupy people protesting on it, they'd be sued and then get enjoined by a court from doing so because it would be apparent they were attempting to limit speech instead of simply carrying out government objectives.

Nothing is "entirely subservient to the whims of some legislature" when it involves someone's rights, regardless if those rights are guaranteed by a federal or state constitution or created by a statute.

4/16/2012 3:44:20 PM

Quote :

"When someone is interviewed, have the other 7 people gather behind them to hide your true sparse numbers."

...or keep everyone on the sidewalks, signs facing the street, engaging the public, IMHO, where they belong.

Quote :

"And state your purpose in EVERY interview. You aren't protesting the city, after all. Or are you?"

Not explicitly, but we certainly aren't editing the news footage either. It didn't air, but I did state our purpose in both our interview and in our press release:

Quote :

"CAPITOL SIDEWALKRE-OCCUPIED Demonstration for Economic Justice Resumes On Sunday,April 15 at 11:30 am, members of Occupy Raleigh will march from their encampmentat Edenton and West St. to the Old State Capitol Sidewalk at Fayetteville andMorgan St to resume their continuous, peaceful demonstration for economicjustice begun last Fall. Frustrated by stagnant wages, unemployment andunderemployment, and an economic system that favors corporations and the rich,many will gather to hold signs, stage marches, and chant to passersby to raiseawareness about economic injustice. The eventmarks six months since a large rally on October 15th attractednearly a thousand supporters to the Capitol, including Representative BradMiller, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, and North Carolina Candidate forGovernor Bill Faison. Occupy Raleigh intends to re-open the sidewalk, wheresupporters demonstrated for forty-five consecutive days last Fall, as apermanent space for public engagement. The New YorkTimes reported Thursday that similar sidewalk demonstrations, begun earlier in April, are underway outside bank branches in New York City and the New YorkStock Exchange."

Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the News14's treatment, and that our press release went so far. Google "Occupy Raleigh sidewalk" and look at news from the last 24 hours.

Quote :

"The wide shot of a policeman leading you down the sidewalk like Frosty the Snowman made me laugh a bit too, but I'll let it slide."

Very friendly officer you're talking about there. The Raleigh PD have been exceptionally respectful and friendly (even when arresting some of us, oddly), even blocking traffic during our marches so that we can continue through green lights.

Criticize away.

4/16/2012 5:54:54 PM

I hope you fuck heads don't plan on camping on the sidewalk and leaving your trash all about.

4/18/2012 3:17:13 AM

^
I am guessing you are one of those people who drives by and heckles but has no courage to actually get out of the car and engage in conversation.

4/18/2012 11:03:06 AM

1) I rarely if ever drive
2) when they decided to camp on Morgan street they made a sidewalk that I use daily impassible and also proceeded to litter the area with their signs whenever they felt the need to no longer hold them.
3) they've yet to either articulate a position or on the positions they have articulated, they are myopically thought out juvenile stances.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM. Reason : N]

4/18/2012 11:07:39 AM