OWS: Little success in courts

[dkf]

But when they do, protesters have been seeking legal recourse -- so far with little success.

"Even when cities are changing their regulations, or tailoring their regulations (to address the Occupy protests), it seems like the courts are giving that a little more deference," said Ruthann Robson, a New York University law professor.

Judges elsewhere have reached similar conclusions as the protests occupy their court dockets. A judge in Dallas on Tuesday refused to block the city from closing a campsite there, a Tucson judge did the same on Monday and a judge in Sacramento last week turned away Occupy Sacramento's arguments that an 11 p.m. curfew in that city's Cesar Chavez Park effectively shuts down peaceful free speech.

The exception so far was an order Tuesday from a Florida federal judge, who found that the permit process for Occupy protesters to set up camp in Fort Myers was so flawed that provisions violated the First Amendment.

Legal experts are hardly surprised by the outcomes, which are spurred in large part by a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing the National Park Service to deny permits in Washington, D.C.'s National Mall to protesters seeking the right to erect tent cities to symbolize the plight of the homeless.


http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_19345380

[JDPriestly]

1. Such is the slow progress of the law.

The Constitution guaranteed the right to be silent to those accused of crimes, but The Supreme Court did not insure that right until its Miranda decision in 1966.

Similarly, the right to counsel in a criminal case was not guaranteed until the Supreme Court's decision in Gideon in 1963.

And most interestingly of all, the right to marriage was finally acknowledged in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

And then, after who knows how many women died after illegal, sometimes self-induced, abortions, a woman's right to choose was established in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

These decisions did not just suddenly happen. The law inches forward.

The idea that the right to assemble peaceably might include the right to actually take over a square and establish a presence is a new one. It will take time. But i think that the time, place and manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech are just too extreme.

[SoDesuKa]

2. Courts Are Conservative

Judges don't go out on a limb if they can help it. However, they do read the newspaper, even if they deny being influenced by it.

The Occupy movement will get its share of favorable decisions. This thing's been going only two months, IIRC.

[sabrina 1]

3. Wrong, they succeeded in Nashville, in Cleveland and in NYC

this morning. And in Florida. The mayor violated the judge's ruling as did the NYPD and went judge shopping rather than accept the legal ruling of the court. I hope this will become a huge issue now, as it should. That Mayor and his Police Commissioner showed a flagrant disregard for the law and both should step down.

Iow, they are beginning to rack up court victories and as more of them take their cases to court and the attorneys become more experienced with the complex issues, I think this will be a very good way to reestablish the rights of the American people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

Funny how the article left out all the victories.

[pinboy3niner]

4. Color me not surprised you'd post this

Do you have an opinion on this?

[dkf]

5. I was surprised to learn of the 1984 case.

I was wondering how you could toss the homeless out of parks but not OWS. It seems to me that a homeless person is naturally protesting their condition.