As do I.  I've been talking about it to students for weeks.  I've had about four or so students go to various Occupy sites, and relate their stories of the vapidity of the protestors.  One student described them as "sad."  But, I think that when we allow for protests to occur, no matter what the reason (lack of reason/logic/ability to describe the ills they feel) we do a service to the country.  We are a nation that has had peaceful transitions of government for a couple centries (more or less).  Compare that to countries that consistently crackdown on speech/assembly/religion.  Coups, assissinations, revolutions, and other types of political instability.

The abortion analogy wasn't random.  Read this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1856.ZS.html, and note the Scalia dissent.  The best thing he has ever written, in my opinion.  But, note the struggle with the majority, too.  Unlike many of you, I don't scorn Stevens, and in this case he notes the struggle.  (I should also note that CJ Rehnquist assigned the opinion to Stevens here, and voted with him on it.)

But, you can look at other cases.  Texas v. Johnson (aka "The Flag Burning case"), Kennedy writes what I think is his best work available here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZC.html.  To underline the difficulty of these questions, note the odd way that the majorities fall out in these two cases.  In Hill, you have Rehnquist voting with the majority, while other conservatives are in dissent.  In Johnson, Rehnquist and Stevens both dissent.  In other words, the rights to protest, the exetent of protest, the place of protest, etc. etc. really, really are difficult questions. 

"I love the zealotry over a constitutional principle like freedom of speech and I'm intrigued by the attempts to expand 'speech' to include almost anything, like resting up for speech and enjoying a little sexual release, consensual or otherwise.  But the Bill of Rights is larger and longer than that. What I don't understand is the willingness of same people in so many cases to tromp all over other constitutional principles, for example, equal protection.  While the definition of speech gets expanded, the definition of equal protection gets narrowed.  I already gave several examples like the estate tax, we tax estates only over 5 million, in case law we determine that it applies to everyone evenly right while we are saying to the public and on the floor of the legislative bodies that we are targeting one specific group - the people with these large estates.  Same with progressive taxation.  Higher rates don't just happen to fall on certain people, they are targeted, just as much as a law against dominating the public square for any cause does, IMO."

Good stuff, Doug.  Good stuff.  Thank you for clarifying.  I can only tell you that there is almost always a tension between portions of the Constitution.  Here are some:

1.  Congress has the power to raise an army.  A religious pacifist has the right to exercise religion.  Can Congress raise an army using him?
2.  Congress "shall make no law" limiting press.  A person has the right to a fair trial.  Can the press report on issues that may taint the judge or jury?
3.  There is a right to free speech.  There is a right of privacy.  Where does your speech impede my right to privacy? 
4.  There is a right to an abortion (there is, even if you disagree with the right and the source).  There is a right to speech.  What are the legal limits that can be put on abortion protesters at an abortion clinic?

There are dozens of others, of course.  So, where does speech end and the right to stroll unabated through a park (as an example) begin and end?  I don't know.  But I can tell you that means of enforcement matter... and laws cannot be focused at one particular event/source/type of speech.  And that goes for the Tea Party, too, by the way.  I am NOT asking officials to have different standards for these disparate groups. 

Yes, really.  You say you know the case law, GM.  Then you should know that laws passed to prevent particular people from speaking in a particluar place in a particular manner aren't constitutional. 

R.A.V. comes to mind immediately.  And the law in TN, which is the beginning of this thread, was passed AFTER Occupy started and was aimed AT Occupy.  Not the Tea Party.  Not me.  Not Young Republicans or Democrats. 

"If you'll scroll back up to the youtube video I posted, you'll see rush hour traffic being blocked by OWS protesters and the LAPD doing nothing about it. Why do you suppose that is?"

Because it is one example, while there have been many examples of the opposite occuring nationwide.  Because you overlook arrested made in NYC, St. Louis, Nashville (the strating point of the discussion), Austin, and elsewhere. 

"Did the law prohibit a certain kind of speech? I doubt it."

This shows your lack of understanding on the totality of related precedent, GM.  If you know your case law, you know that laws can't be passed that target not only one type of speech, but one type of speaker. 

"I pointed out the political alignment of this dem operative clad in a black robe who did as is commonly done by her ilk, legislated from the bench to further her political agenda."

A judge that follows precedent is now legislating from the bench?  Not quite. 

No, GM, I'm good on the case law, thanks.

And when the speech has turned into blocking roadways, for example, there have been arrests.

But, let us not forget that this train of discussion started with my post on the law in Nashville that was clearly not content neutral.  It was ruled as such by a judge, twho you in turn disparaged... nevermind the case law and historical precedent of that particular issue. 

Woof Doug, I am not exactly sure what you mean here.  You think that other voices aren't being heard?  That others aren't speaking out?  Occupying a park doesn't appear to me to be all that limiting to others' speech rights. 

"As long as it's speech that damages America, the ACLU is there. Funny how there seems to be a lack of them litigating against leftist speech codes."

On this, we agree.  The ACLU's lack of support in one area should not cloud you to the fact that it is currently working to keep speech free at the Occupy sites.  Speech is not bad for America, or un-American.  Speech is the basis of America.  In the same ways that I support the free speech of the Tea Party, Nazis and Westboro (and I am not trying equate them, so climb down off that horse), I support the free speech of the OWS and other places.  It is the market place of ideas.  And I love it.


 
 

http://www.military.com/news/article/vets-heed-occupy-rallying-cry.html (Support Our Troops!!!!)



NEW YORK -- U.S. military veterans are heeding the rallying cry of Occupy Wall Street, saying corporate contractors in Iraq made big money while the troops defending them came home - and can't make a living now.

"For too long, our voices have been silenced, suppressed and ignored in favor of the voices of Wall Street and the banks and the corporations," said Joseph Carter, a 27-year-old Iraq war veteran who marched Wednesday to Zuccotti Park, the epicenter of the movement that has spread worldwide.

The former Army sergeant from Seattle spoke to fellow Occupy protesters and passers-by on Broadway after joining about 100 veterans marching in uniform from the Vietnam Veterans Plaza through Manhattan's financial district.

Their unemployment rate outstrips the national average and is expected to worsen. They worry about preservation of First Amendment rights. And they're angry.

A week before Veterans Day, generations of former U.S. military men and women threw their considerable weight behind the Occupy movement born in mid-September when about 100 protesters also marched in the Wall Street area.

"For 10 years, we have been fighting wars that have enriched the wealthiest 1 percent, decimated our economy and left our nation with a generation of traumatized and wounded veterans that will require care for years to come," said Carter, who leads the national Iraq Veterans Against the War group.

Requiring care now in California is a former Marine whose skull was fractured last week when he was injured by a projectile at an Occupy Oakland rally. Police there are now the subject of a formal investigation by the city's Citizens' Police Review Board.

In New York on Wednesday, police circled the veterans as they stood in formation in front of the New York Stock Exchange, chanting, "We are veterans! We are the 99 percent!" and "Corporate profits on the rise, soldiers have to bleed and die!"

By the stock exchange, Josh Shepherd, a former Navy petty officer 2nd class who was next to Olsen when he was injured, read the oath members of the armed forces
take to defend the U.S. Constitution.

"We are here to support the Occupy Wall Street movement," he then declared.

Police officers on scooters separated the veterans from the entrance to the stock exchange. On the other side of the marchers was a lineup of NYPD horses carrying officers with nightsticks.

"We are marching to express support for our brother, Scott Olsen, who was injured in Oakland," former Army specialist Jerry Bordeleau told The Associated Press earlier.

At the intersection of Wall Street and Broadway, they paused for a moment of silence for the Marine who served two Iraq tours and remains hospitalized.

Olsen was honored Wednesday by veterans and other activists at Occupy protests around the nation, from Boston and Philadelphia to Los Angeles and Chicago.

James McBride, 20, an Army Reserve veteran, said his military oath was the reason he traveled from Vermont to join the Occupy Boston encampment the day after 141 people were arrested on Oct. 11 trying to expand to an adjacent plot of land.

"I swore to defend their freedoms, and they were being taken away. It's very unconstitutional," said McBride, who said he was less than honorably discharged for medical reasons.

McBride said the Occupy Wall Street protest is exactly the kind of civil disobedience protected under U.S. law.

"They wanted to kick us out. This is a peaceful assembly," he said Thursday. "In the Constitution, the people have the right to peacefully assemble. It's plain and simple. That's why I'm here, to defend the Constitution of the United States."

Back in New York, Bordeleau blamed some financial institutions for U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Wall Street corporations have played a big role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bordeleau, 24, who served several years in Iraq over two tours ending in 2009 and now attends college in New York.

He said private contractors have reaped big profits in those countries "in pursuit of corporate interests that have had a devastating effect on our economy and our country, benefiting only a small number of people."

"The 99 percent have to take a stand," Bordeleau said, to rectify the biggest income gap between rich and poor since the Great Depression, fueled by what protesters say is Wall Street's overblown clout in Washington politics.

From the stock exchange, the veterans walked down Broadway to the bronze bull that symbolizes the stock market.

"Halliburton and Bechtel think these wars are swell," they chanted, invoking the names of American companies that received federal contracts for work rebuilding Iraq.

They say those who risked their lives fighting for their country have the right to protest economic policies and business practices that give them a slimmer chance of finding jobs than most Americans.

From 2008 to 2011, veterans' unemployment rose 5.1 percentage points, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And a Department of Labor report shows that unemployment tops 20 percent among 18-to-24-year-old veterans, compared with a national rate of about 9 percent.

Veteran unemployment is projected to worsen after 10,000 servicemen and servicewomen return from Afghanistan and 46,000 come home from Iraq by year's end - many wounded or suffering from mental trauma.

Bordeleau, who served in the military police, said his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder has made it impossible to pursue a career in civilian law enforcement, and that he's had a hard time finding jobs that pay more than $10 an hour. He has worked as a groundskeeper at a New York public park while living on disability benefits.

"I can't really survive on that,"
he said.

Wednesday's protest comes two weeks after another veteran faced off with police in New York.

Shamar Thomas, a decorated
former Marine sergeant from Roosevelt, N.Y., went nose-to-nose with officers policing activists in Times Square.

"This is not a war zone! These are not armed people!" he told police in a passionate, videotaped plea that has gone viral on YouTube.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he believes the protest, now in its seventh week, is "really hurting small businesses and families."

He said the city has worked hard to preserve the protesters' First Amendment rights, but is very concerned about the rights of others in the area. Bloomberg said the city will take action if and when it's appropriate.

To ease access to small businesses on Wall Street, hundreds of police barricades were removed Wednesday, said Marc LaVorgna, a mayoral spokesman.

I don't see the rule of law being waived by sympathetic politicians.  Sorry.  There have been several crackdowns.  I have read of the rape in the Philly Occupy on CNN.  And the ACLU continues to protect free speech, GM.  Like they did with well known Stalinists in Skokie.  Speech you don't like it the fing point of the 1st Amendment. 

Yeah, I am totally sure that this is true. 

DougMacG: The issue in TN was that the law was not content neutral.  The law was passed with Occupy in mind, not as a general preventative manner. 

So, you misquoted me to make a point.  Cool.  Let's get this straight, again.  I did not vote for Obama.  I won't be voting for Obama.  What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog.  They are in this case.

Sex sells, GM.  It is not as if the media turned a blind eye to the Weiner wiener scandal.  It isn't Dem. v. Rep on this front.  It isn't.  And after all the conservative talk about Clinton and Weiner and etc., I am rather frustrated that this issue is seen as a media slant.  Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of.  I would think that his supporters, or those who want the best possible conservative in office, would want the truth to come out.  And, if he emerges from this then he is really battle tested, and likely a stronger candidate for it. 

You guys talk about immorality in the Oval Office all the damn time.  Do you REALLY want to know the truth, or does your fondness for Cain cloud your willingness to learn that he might be less moral than he appears?? 

A)  The point of the article I posted was first was that the woman was willing to and trying to put her name to it.
B) An abuse of power is an abuse of power.  Some have more power, Guro, like the use of a state's police force, but coercion, blackmail, abuse of position, or whatever, is still an abuse.
C) So, dropping trou is the only way to be sexual explotive, abusive, or ....?
D) There are now three women making an accusation.  My point about Clinton and Jones is that some point there MAY be a pattern emerging.  You'll forgive me, I hope, if I want the GOP frontrunner to be vetted.  Maybe we can prevent Clinton 2.0 from taking the Oval Office.
E) I don't understand this point. 

I am not saying that the media aren't biased.  I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three.  I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there.  And, when you run for the POTUS, you should expect that stories like these will break.  Why?  Because they do.  It is 24/7 media driven cycle.  And, I would like to note that Cain blames Perry (http://news.yahoo.com/struggling-cain-accuses-perry-harassment-case-022511386.html).  It is also true that presidential candidates work to discredit, miscredit, or downright blame/attack their opponents.

I wonder if we should have listened to Paula Jones?  Of course not, she was just trying to ruin the career of a presidential hopeful...

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-cain-harassed-her-205655781.html

I know what you were doing.  The thanks was sincere. 

I hope you realize that I do not make this distinction. 

Your article on the cost to the Tea Party is very interesting.  Thanks. 

This is a completely different version than I have always heard, including from a professor of mine who is a former CIA historian.

In particular, the missles out of Turkey is an odd piece of contention because I have always heard that the US was planning to remove them anyway.

Also, the "MAP" doesn't explain the CIA's continued, although often odd and questionable, efforts to remove Castro. 

And, yet, it is political speech and therefore due higher protection than it has been given:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/us/tennessee-occupy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Kelly McCann on zombie attack defense:

http://www.blackbeltmag.com/daily/self-defense-training/combatives/survival-guide-when-multiple-zombies-attack/ 

Zombie repulsion is officially an industry! 

Woof, Guro.  I think the dates are 19-20, yes?  Alas, I can't break away for the seminar as I thought I would be able to earlier in the year.  Enjoy! 

Thank you, Guro. 

Despite this:
"Again, I am not necessarily unopposed to the snark."  The role of the UN in the attempted prevention of small arms and the related limits to the 2nd Amendment spring to mind here.  I just want to understand HOW, or perhaps WHY, the UN now how this reputation.  Is it because of a failed, or flawed, design or it the "derailment" more of a normative sense from those of you how feel this way.

And this:

"...has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively?"

And this:
"I don't understand the institutional design that leads to the conclusion that having those countries on these commissions will allow they to dictate the outcome."

And this:
"I really am just seeking clarification about an institution I know comparatively little about.  And, thank you to all of you addressing this line of questioning, by the way.)"

And this:

"Could you you do me a favor and tell me what the UN's ambitions are, without the US or the EU?  (This is a serious question.  Since the US, UK and France are all permanent SC members with veto power, I am not sure what you mean.)"

Next time I will try harder to admit my ignorance about a subject. 

I agree with Guro.  That was a very good post, and useful.  Thank you.

I do not understand, however, how you jumped to this conclusion: "I don't see how Bigdog you take lightly the fact that those horribly repressive regimes were sitting on committees judging other people's human rights violations."

I recall saying nothing of the sort. 

Thank you. 

Again, I am not necessarily unopposed to the snark.  The role of the UN in the attempted prevention of small arms and the related limits to the 2nd Amendment spring to mind here.  I just want to understand HOW, or perhaps WHY, the UN now how this reputation.  Is it because of a failed, or flawed, design or it the "derailment" more of a normative sense from those of you how feel this way.

OK.  So again... has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively?  If it is the design, what portion? 

GM, I am not sure.  And I am not sure that it should matter. 

Guro, isn't the purpose of the UN to serve as a moral arbitrator?

"The principles of the UN as explained in the Charter are to save future generations from war, reaffirm human rights, and establish equal rights for all persons. In addition it also aims to promote justice, freedom, and social progress for the peoples of all of its member states."  http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/unitednations.htm

OK, so this is not really an instituional question, but rather a normative one of what constitutes the "good" of the country? 

(Incidentally, I am not trying to argue with any of you, Guro, GM, DougMacG, PC.  I literally study institutions, so this is my mindset here.  I really am just seeking clarification about an institution I know comparatively little about.  And, thank you to all of you addressing this line of questioning, by the way.)

Moving here due to Guro's request. 

I may not have been clear with my request.  I understand that China, Cuba, etc. are in the UN.  I even understand that they are commissions that seem to run counter to their history.  I don't understand the institutional design that leads to the conclusion that having those countries on these commissions will allow they to dictate the outcome.  First, they aren't a majority, even when taken together, on the commission.  Second, there are at least three nations, all with veto power, who are permanent members of the Security Council.  These three are the US, the UK, and France, the later two of which are also members of the EU. 

I don't see, then, given the institutional design of the UN (or at least my understanding of the design) allows the opportunity for the UN to act in a manner against the US and the EU.


"I have this feeling someone may come to regret encouraging GM to provide links and articles that show the UN to be a group running in a direction counter to US interests. 

It was not just Cuba, but Libya and Syria were on the human rights commission.  And the Obama administration was 'self-reporting' Arizona for checking IDs with cause.

What was the agenda of the UN Oil for Food scandal?

Our pathological science thread chronicles quite a duplicitous agenda coming out of the UN IPCC on manipulated climate data and studies.  It wasn't 1 or 2 scientists.  It was a movement with an agenda and money, within the UN bureaucracy.  Yes the UN would like to have more power and bigger budgets.  Yes, they want global taxes and global regulations.  I know that sounds like I have a conspiracy problem, but I would only count what they say in their own words.  I will put few links down but these are easy to find.  I would be far more interested in seeing links that indicate otherwise.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17102
 July [2004], Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he "strongly supports finding new sources of funding" for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. "The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.
-----

Snopes took on the veracity of a pass around email that says a list of countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia vote against us 70% of the time and found out the truth was they were voting against us closer to 90% of the time: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp

Yet we host and we pay..."
 

I guess I don't understand, still, how this can be the case.  I fail to see the opportunities that would allow the UN to act outside the will of the US and two key EU nations.  Any chance there is a reference?  A how to manual?

I see that you are trying to distinguish.  Could you you do me a favor and tell me what the UN's ambitions are, without the US or the EU?  (This is a serious question.  Since the US, UK and France are all permanent SC members with veto power, I am not sure what you mean.)

That'll get you another OBL. 

Nevermind.  I stand corrected.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-20/obama-foreign-policy-gadhafi/50845858/1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-10-20/presidential-candidates-donors-give-to-superpacs/50847148/1

On Iran: Perhaps, but Stuxnet was a US decision.  I say that because it is possible (and I mean only possible), that Obama's use of intel, spec ops, and the like are being put to task in less obvious ways in Iran.  I will confess to not enjoying the "wait and see" on this particular possibility.

On McCain:  indeed! 

Ditching the 2 term presidency?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/first_times_a_charm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/america_really_was_that_great?page=full

versus

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/the_myth_of_american_exceptionalism?page=full

versus

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/napoleons_curse

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/20/world/asia/china-toddler-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

http://news.yahoo.com/qadhafi-death-blunts-gops-critique-133500278.html

Thoughts?

I am glad I did my part for thread coherence.  Sorry about that, GD!  I hope your event goes well!

And that book looks, well, "useful."

Reports that Gadhafi is dead: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/20/libyan-fighters-say-they-have-captured-gadhafi/?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1