polifrog
Me on Occupy UC Davis over at Ed's place:
...Those students were not protesting non encampment regulation. They were there to "occupy".
And despite attempts to create a new right of occupation via the abuse of both the right to free speech and the right to freely assemble there is no right to occupy.
It appears that Judge Francis A. McIntyre agrees:
BostonHarold:
The judge ruled today: “... while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during their protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit.”
The judge goes on to say: “ ‘Occupation’ speaks of boldness, outrage, and a willingness to take personal risk but it does not carry the plaintiffs’ professed message. Essentially, it is viewed as a hostile act, an assertion of possession against the rights of another. The act of occupation, this court has determined as a matter of law, is not speech. Nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes.”
out
No comments:
Post a Comment