The definition of park is an area of
land set aside for public use. The definition of public is accessible
to or shared by all members of the community. The definition of
community is a social, religious, occupational, or other group
sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or
perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger
society. So through all this word jargon and definitions, Occupy Wall
Street can and has the right to take over a public parks for
protests. But, that by definition and law is where Occupy Wall
Street's rights end.
Occupy Wall Street took over Zuccotti
Park in New York City and many of the protestors brought tents and
other materials that they used to “move-in” to the park. I
believe that protestors have the right to protest and assemble in any
public place that they see fit, but that does not include moving in
and living there night after night. There were complaints about the
park becoming dirty from all the protestors living there and that
they should be evicted so the park could be cleaned. Mayor Bloomberg,
Mayor of New York City, ordered the park to be cleared out and at one
in the morning police in riot gear lined the park and cleared out the
protestors. Nearly 200 protestors were arrested for disorderly
conduct and resisting officers' orders. I believe this is where
Bloomberg takes the wrong action. If protesters can peacefully come
together and take over a public place, then they should be able to
peacefully remove them if necessary. Protestors should not have to be
removed in the middle of the night by police armed and ready for war.
I mean all the protestors are doing is sleeping, its not like they
are going to kamikaze the police and attack. To justify his own
actions Bloomberg later said, “the First Amendment protects speech.
It does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a
public place.” Though I disagree with how Bloomberg handled the
situation, I agree that protestors cannot “move-in.” Protestors
have the right to assemble and to take over a public place, since it
is open to the public, but they do not have the right to start living
there.
I completely agree with Travis. HAving the right to protest and the right of free speech is very important to everyone, however there is a line that needs to be drawns when it comes to them. There is also a line that needs drawn for the oposite side of the action. The protesters do not all need to move into a public park for multiple days and make it where the park can not be used for its inteded purpose nor where it can be cleaned up. On the reverse side I agree with Travis that Bloomberg took the wrong action to get rid of the protesters. Having the officers come in the middle of the night and armed could have led to a much more dangerous ending then just arrests. Obviously the protesters where protesting for a reason. Maybe a better way that Bloomberg could have gone about the situation is by addressing the issue at hand, resoulving it, so the protesters could have peacefully and hapily left.
ReplyDeleteWith our right to freedom of speech and assembly come restrictions. Occupy Wall Street is one such example of why we do need restrictions. Without parameters as to the methods of deliverance of these freedoms, public places can get “messy”. Occupy Wall Street, as Travis relayed, became overnight grounds for an extended period of time for protesters, in effect, dirtying a public place. I do believe that their demonstration was taking it a bit too far. While the Mayor of NYC did take an appropriate stance on the issue, I do think he could have handled the evacuation with a bit less intimidation. In the end, the protesters got their point across, the mayor vacated the park, and nobody got hurt.
ReplyDeleteI think Travis is exactly right as far as the protesters not needing to move into a public park and live there for a few days. But you have to think about it, if they didn't protest for longer periods of time and say, only had a protest that lasted one afternoon, I think people would be inclined to "forget" that their little protest ever happened. That still does not grant them the right to move into a public facility. Maybe they could have thought it out a little more and gone for several afternoons in a row. So, now we've covered the alternative actions that the protesters could have taken, what about the police? Was storming into the park, geared up to quell a full scale riot necessary? It sounds to me that the people in the park would have simply packed up and left if a few badges were flashed around. Not cool NYPD. This event probably won't start anything serious but if I may, I would caution police on using too much force to remove a peaceful protest from its location, or more importantly, the people who ordered it. A continuation of incidences like this could start something far more serious than either group was out for in the beginning.
ReplyDelete