Hey, there! Log in / Register
Menino sets midnight deadline for Unoccupy Boston
By adamg on Thu, 12/08/2011 - 11:15am
The Globe reports. If Menino's vow of "further action" means eviction, BPD might wait until after then before moving in, like it did last time.
UPDATE: Occupiers have begun moving some tents and equipment offsite. Robin, an Occupy Boston organizer, tweets: "We are moving valuables offsite, not decamping. Last time the BPD destroyed all of our belongings." Chris Faraone reports: "Food at OccupyBoston getting donated back to places. One load going to Pine Street Inn."
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
speaking about fire hazards
What ever happened to all those abandoned warehouses and private properties that are just waiting to go up and effect others? Wasn't Menino supposed to be focusing on getting them to comply with code or torn down?
After all, if we're worried about life and property due to fire hazard, how come Menino's brushed the problem under the rug?
Occupy Boston suggestion
They should move the encampment to the balcony of the Old State House at 10pm before the storm troopers come in.
The optics of the police forcefully arresting peaceful protestors in the same spot as the Boston massacre will be horrible for this pathetic administration.
Not 10:00
11:00.
So the news crews that will be there hoping to film the violent bloodbath at midnight will instead get nothing more than live footage of a peaceful crowd peacefully dispersing.
Then go up the street.
Menino, you're embarassing.
Nice that you have legal authorization to clear them out. Good for you.
That does not mean you NEED to.
And, your intent to clear them out indicates you really have the wrong priorities. OccupyBoston is far from Boston's biggest problem. In fact, it's debatable whether or not it's a problem at all. It's just the most visible thing at the moment.
In the mean time, there are abandoned properties all over the city that do, in fact, pose a clear and present hazard, not to mention a blight.
Speaking of blights, are you going to do anything about that big pit in Downtown Crossing?
1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But those are just some silly words on some old piece of paper somewhere in a museum.
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
does not mean the right to permanently assemble. And the Court agrees.
you're kidding right?
Of course you have the right to permanently and perpetually assemble.
The State and Fed has no right to break up an peaceful public assembly.
What you just implied was the continental congress could have been disbanded by the crown because "hey, your time limit is up buddy".
Really?
time, place, manner
It's a long-established legal point that free speech can be regulated as to time, place, and manner: the government cannot stop you from speaking, but it can say that you cannot announce your political philosophy at 3am using a megaphone. The government has to show that it has a compelling reason to restrict free speech, that the restrictions are narrowly constructed to serve specific ends, and that the restrictions are neutral as to content.
The court decision (which you can read if you like) held that while Occupy Boston is engaged in activities which amount to legally protected political speech, the act of sleeping in a public park is not such an activity, and that even if it were, the government meets its legal burdens in that it has a compelling reason (health and safety), that the restrictions are narrowly constructed to serve specific ends (the park regulations do not allow people to camp overnight because of those health and safety regulations) and that the restrictions are neutral as to content (*nobody* is allowed to camp overnight).
The state cannot break up a peaceful public assembly. The state can legally forbid people from setting up a tent city in a public park.
Define permanent.
Perhaps the Occupy Movement can set a deadline far in the future, say November 2050? Would that not define the assembly as nonpermanent?
Misunderstanding of the law.
You can't assemble anywhere you want whenever you want.
Time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutional.
Sigh
I am all for Occupy, but right to assemble does not equal right to set up permanent encampments. And more importantly, I'm just feeling as if the camping-stage of the movement has long since outlasted its usefulness. The struggle over keeping the actual encampments has distracted people from the more essential message of Occupy and as PR goes, the images of increasingly squalid campsites are turning people off to the movement rather than encouraging the spread of its message. I just can't see at this point, especially as winter sets in, what they're accomplishing that couldn't be better achieved with daily protests or broader community action.
"I am all for Occupy, but
"I am all for Occupy, but right to assemble does not equal right to set up permanent encampments"
Even if so, is busting this camp up really the best thing for Boston? I really don't think so.
I don't know
But again, I don't think the encampment is the best thing for Occupy. Frankly, a "busting" up of the camp might provoke people in more interesting ways, not that I'm wishing for violence or anything, but the pepper spray incidents did more to mobilize people and to generate sympathy for the movement than anything that had gone before. I'm just failing to see the real positives of a permanent encampment at this point.
I agree 100%. Great cause,
I agree 100%. Great cause, but the message has completely been lost.
I agree
But the State doesn't have the right to make that decision to kick them out and to silence them because they don't like the optics.
But this is what I mean
No one is being "silenced." I'm as outraged as anyone by footage of police going completely haywire on peaceful demonstrators but my patience is starting to wear thin with this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric. Removing a permanent encampment of people sleeping in a public park (or on private property when they are not wanted there) is not "silencing." Police acting reasonably to move or contain protesters is not by definition "police brutality." The US is not Syria and the Greenway is not Tahrir Square. Please, let's just keep a little perspective.
General Disassembly (GD)...better late than never
He's about two months too late for the General Disassembly (GD) but even Menino gets it right sometimes. Can't wait for midnight when I'll have my police radio tuned into BPD Area-A while watching the Occupy webcam until it's disconnected. Pass the popcorn. Should be great!
With who?
You are one lonely individual.
So you're looking forward to
So you're looking forward to people risking injury for your entertainment?
Can't you just order some MMA DVDs on Netflix or something?
Why is it great?
What does the occupation have to do with you in the slightest?
libruls
are the enemy, also socialist and islofacists (Brown people with Muslim names).
You didn't get the talking point koolaide?
We'd ask that they be gassed, but then we're called names. So we try to use kiddy punches not ruff up the "PC" crowd.
It would be interesting to see this discussion though.
If it were some other group protesting like this. What do you think the common reaction would be if it were:
-The American Nazi Party
-The Tea Party
-Westboro Baptist Church
What do you mean?
All these groups have been held demonstrations in MA. Do you think the reaction to them would be any different if they added overnight camping to their tactics?
If it's Westboro, it just would not happen. They do not like being mocked, and if they tried to camp, it would only get the parodists more opportunity to mock them creatively.
Tea party? Nazis? They can't go for more than a few hours without making a violent threat. So that would blow up quickly too.
I think the OWS people are the only ones who can drag out a protest this way.
I'm just asking the question.
And no, these groups never chose to camp out for weeks on end in one public spot. Demonstrations are different.
And the Westboro Baptist Church people love the attention and don't seem to care about getting mocked. And Nazi demonstrations usually try to get people to attack them in order to show that they are peaceful.
I also don't recall much violence during tea party protests, but you have to assume the violent anarchists would support the occupy movement in theory.
Westboro Baptist Church is a scam
Their whole business model is to create borderline dangerous and inciteful demonstrations, and then sue the local and state governments for violations of the 1st amendment.
They pray on overreaction and make some good money doing it. There's no doubt why the majority of those protesting are also licensed lawyers. Any religions message is really secondary to their cause of making a buck.
And to answer you, yes even WBC deserves their right to speak. And other have the right to counter protest, speak louder, and mock them.
Just as other have the right to do so to OWS Boston. Nothing is keeping the 101st keyboardists from flocking there and getting their message out. That's the whole point, the park can still be used to anyone that wants to go down there.
The state on the other hand has no right to shut down their peaceful voice because they deemed it unproperer or excessive.
Menino doesn't like the optics of a 24/7 assembly pointing out the injustices, the things being overlooked, and the backroom deals he is part of in HIS city. So, he's been working to round up and silence them. I'm actually surprised Teaparty activists and conservatives are lauding the mayor for this.
It's applauding shutting down one of the loudest voices in recent memory that not everything is peachy in King Menino's diamond city on a hill.
Okay, here's my answer.
I see nothing to indicate that an occupation tactic used by these three groups would prompt people to advocate against the legality of holding occupations.
Illinois Nazis?
I hate Illinois Nazis - Jake Blues
That head Illinois nazi
is exactly who I am thinking about too
Uh Oh - Swat Team!
HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT
Finally...
someone groups the Tea Party with the American Nazi Party and the Westboro Baptist Church.
No Legal Difference
But practically, it'd be night and day. You think the police OT bill is bad now, consider bill for intervening in all the death threats and arson attempts if any of those groups settled in for the winter.
Well thats the thing.
The police has the same duty to protect all of these groups. You wonder what would happen.
You are deliberately ignoring the main difference
All those other groups mentioned are either implicitly or explicitly violent. Whether it's angry calls of damnation and death for various groups (gays, blacks, elected officials, servicemen), or walking around openly displaying guns in a worked-up crowd, or calling for the slavery or forced expatriation of citizens. These are the sort of real threats to public and personal safety that police and elected officials would be correct to be concerned about.
Boston Occupiers, on the other hand, have very deliberately and successfully made their voices heard without any such threats or actions. In fact, they have arguably done a better job at protecting and providing for the neighborhood's homeless, destitute and at-risk than many of the area's inhabitants and officials, who largely ignore them.
No strong leaders, no lemming-like bumper-sticker 3rd-grade level histrionics. No threats of violence. 'Just a bunch of lazy hippies and hipsters' (inaccurate, but so comfortably dismissive). Yet still somehow, their messages that the current system is profoundly broken, that most of the people responsible for the horrible economic mess we are in are going unpunished and are in fact thriving as never before - these ideas are so threatening and anxiety-inducing that the powers-that-be and the over-entitled class have spent huge amounts of effort and (our) resources trying to find ways to shut them up/remove them from the public eye.
I'm only talking about the free speech part.
Since all of these groups would have the same right to camp out and express their opinions.
And none of those groups are really known for violence during their protests, and only the Nazis would have an overall goal of violence. The Westboro Church people have never been violent, and I haven't heard much violence during tea party rallys either.
One thing is certain
I think everyone would be in favor of a Westboro Baptist Church occupation. It would keep them in one place instead of wherever the media cameras would be.
Kaz- you ask what do they
Kaz- you ask what do they have to do with him? What do they have to do with you? You and all the supporters love to butt in with your comments on a website. If it has to do with you , why arent you there right next to the Occupiers???? I am apart of the 99% and want them gone...
Aside from agreeing with their message?
Nothing. Which is why I'm content to keep letting them stay where they are. He is one of the people, like you, who "want them gone". I'd like to know why.
b/c they're breaking the law, it's an eyesore and crime magnet
Kaz, I want them gone mainly because they're breaking the law, it's an eyesore and crime magnet. It has to do with me because they're squatting on public or quasi-public land and I am a member of the public. Their message is so incoherent that it has little or no significant impact on my opinion and my guess is that it has little impact on the opinions of most others, too. We pay big money to the BRA, BPD, Licensing Board etc. Such a shantytown would never be permitted anywhere in the city or its outskirts, never mind downtown. When any group decides to "Occupy" a parcel and use it for a purpose not permitted, the city needs to act or there would be chaos. In fact, Menino should have acted much sooner. After midnight, the Occupy encampment will be relgated to the scrap heap of trivia and Menino will never allow anything like this to reestablish in the future.
"Kaz, I want them gone mainly
"Kaz, I want them gone mainly because they're breaking the law, it's an eyesore and crime magnet."
Homeless people break the law sleeping outdoors every night in Boston. One of them does it on a streetgrate I pass by on my home every evening. Nobody cares.
But put 200 of them together in one, and this bothers you so much that you come here and bay for blood over a spot of turf you never cared about before?
Is that right, Gov. Wallace?
There should be a nice place reserved for you, the Guvnah and Anthony Imperiale on the wrong side of history. Just consider me the member of the public cancelling out your opinion, fishy.
Public
They're all members of the public as well. Why should your opinions as a member of the public outweigh theirs?
o.b.
Ok, time to go get a job! OT for officeers has been how much???? Who's paying for this? I'm not! And if my taxes go up because of this crap we should file a class action lawsuit against these "protesters" (i mean campers) who are sucking up money and ruining public land while doing it. 53%'ers say get off your as$ and stump for a job like the rest of us!
Not Don't Think You're Just Trolling, But...
We're in the middle of the worst economic period since the Great Depression. National unemployment just dipped below 9% for the first time in years.
Telling protesters to go get a job is like telling someone suffering through a drought to just go find some water.
This
Even if every unemployed American took to flipping burgers and picking lettuce, there'd still be people out of work. There are simply not enough jobs to bring down unemployment AND keep up with population growth.
And even if that did happen you'd have major economic problems as skilled labor is taking positions way below their utility.
Sorry Mr. UHub troll, but the real world isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be.
The Evolution of Revolution
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/occupy-f...
Menino's an amazingly shameless liar, and
it's awesome that nobody cares how full of shit he is.
What did the Mayor lie about????
Please enlighten me? what did he lie about
"No plans to evict"
As lately as three days ago he was urging Occupy to "Pick an issue to focus on" and saying that he had "ni plans" to evict the protesters. When in actuality, it's obvious that he planned to do it as soon as McIntire issued her pedestrian little decision. The plans were already made. I call that lying, and I think he does it all the time. Being deceitful is second nature to him and Dot Joyce. Telling the truth would not have been hard- all he would have had to say is "If the court comes down in our favor, we have a plan in place to evict them." But instead he lied about it, because that's just his nature, and the nature of most politicians. It's not their fault- they don't know any other way. It's the way they're raised or something.
You realize...
that Menino had no plans to evict them anytime soon if ever until Occu-idiots took him and the city to court. Menino didnt take Occu-morons to court they sued him and the city so shame on them not him. They are the ones that got the court involved and got the permission of the court to tell them to beat it. I am the 99% too and they do NOT represent me. When they get their sh^t together and have a platform I will listen. They need to stop sleeping outside , chanting, dancing etc and focus on the issues of the 99% ..
and yes I had been to the camp as I live close. Yes I have hung out there for more than 1 hour..so dont even suggest that I dont know what I am talking about
According to Brian McGrory
in today's Globe, Menino and Evans had been working on their eviction strategy for weeks. Making plans and strategizing. Menino planned to evict them from the beginning, but was concerned with the PR aspects. But PR is Menino's strong suit- always has been, and in the end the lies and scheming paid off.
The good news is Menino wont
The good news is Menino wont be getting another term.
Anecdatal Observation
Has anybody else noticed that, since Boston declared its intent to wipe out Occupy Boston's encampment, that there were suddenly a substantial number of homeless people sleeping on gratings and in ATM lobbies again?
Starting Friday night, the "occupy any warm space" commenced anew - and not just in Downtown Boston. Most of the ATM lobbies in Davis Square had Occupiers in them by Saturday night, too.
I haven't noticed that but I'm sure there are some.
ATM homeless are also those who don't want to use shelters and don't want to associate with other homeless from my experience. The ATM/Lobby homeless tend to be loners that don't want to sleep in camps with other people.
Some homeless will gravitate towards these camps (especially the younger homeless w/o mental illnesses), but you will find the younger homeless use shelters more often than not in the wintertime.