What reasonable limitations can be placed on that right?
Have they been reasonable with the Occupiers?
I think this is a great question.
The 1st amendment clearly states that the people have the right to peacably assemble and petition the government. There is no qualification of only being allowed in certain spots or only when it is convenient or only if the proper local permits have been filed in advance and approved.
For the most part the OWS and its offshoots have been peacable and there have been minimal issues of public disorder; it seems to me they are being shut down because they are a public nuisance or inconvenience.
That’s true.
But by the same token, the right to privacy isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Yet you are (presumably) comfortable with letting courts craft one, interpreting the actual words of the text to mean something different than a strict reading and construction would allow.
By the same token, courts have interpreted the text of the First Amendment’s clause to allow certain restrictions on the right of people to peaceably assemble. I bet you’re even on board with some of them.
If the Neo-Nazis and the KKK wish to peaceably assemble and march down Main Street, are you sanguine about also allowing the Jewish Defense League and the Nation of Islam to peaceably assemble at the same time and wait for the marchers at the corner of Main and Walnut? Or does the government have some interest in regulating which peaceable assembly gets dibs on the street?
Slight hijack, but what exactly does “petition the government” include that “freedom of speech” doesn’t already cover?
There’s some overlap of course between the two concepts.
Free Speech prevents the government from stopping you from telling your neighbor that something is wrong in Washington. Here, the government doesn’t need to act on your complaint.
Petition for Redress of Greivance means when you direct your free speech formally at the government, it should listen and take your claim seriously.
Good point, for those circumstances, some government regulation of the demonstrators is called for lest some serious violence break out.
But does OWS have the same circumstances? Is some anti-AWS group out to do them violence? Is the OWS likely to break out into riots?
Seems to me the only “anti-OWS” group is the government itself.
I could also see breaking up OWS over the long-term IF they aren’t appropriate with sanitation, etc. If they’re cleaning up appropriately and there are no disease outbreaks or other serious health issues, no problem there.
Now we come to the question, can the OWS permanently take a park from the general use of the Public? There I say NO, they can’t. They can demonstrate 24/7, but I kinda think they need to keep moving. Their right to the use of a park is not exclusive of others’ right to also use the park. So How Long They Can Use the Park is a serious question. Maybe some pro-cannabis people wanna use the park for their demonstration too. If you want a permanent demonstration, I say put it on private property or keep it moving.
“minimal issue of public disorder” is relative I guess.
Does cost have anything to do with it? It’s cost $454k to Philly so far. Why should I pay any fees to assemble wherever I want to on public property again?
The #Occupy movement are self-identified “culture-jammers”; in other words, their mission in life is to disrupt cultural and industrial institutions. They may be “peaceable” in terms of not performing acts of vandalism and destruction, but if they are obstructing other members of the public from using public parks, creating an excessive burden on public services, or obstructing the normal flow of traffic and commerce, , they are interfering with public order. It is one thing for the Burning Man festival to conduct a quasi-anarchistic demonstration/festival in the middle of the desert; it is quite another for a bunch of anti-cultural demonstrators to occupy public property (which is maintained by the very institutions they are protesting against), create widespread disruptions, and levy an exceptional burden on public services such as police, sanitation, and medical services.
Stranger
You probably have easy access to the SCOTUS rulings that answer the question in the OP. Can you help us out here, and let’s start with that and see if it makes sense.
But you can’t think it’s a right if a group of people wants to peaceably assemble on your lawn against your wishes?
Surely the right to assemble is telling us that the government can’t break up your otherwise legal group meeting, and that it doesn’t include the right to squat on someone else’s property. If you want to have a get-together on your own property, the government can’t interfere. But stay off my lawn!
In Little Rock, they were asked and did move from the Clinton Library to a vacant lot on Ferry street. You can see their tents from the freeway overpass.
Damned civilized for a protest. 
So is this the point of the OWS movement now? The right to assemble? According to those in Oakland it is:
This seems to be the main message of the movement now. I thought it was about income and wealth dispersion.
We all have easy access to Supreme Court rulings.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx
there are dozens of other websites offering supreme court opinions.
Clark v Community for Creative Non-Violence 468 U.S. 288 (1984) seems to be the controlling case for this issue.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=30121711727218786&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Under Clark, it appears the cities could shut down camping, if camping is prohibited in the parks they occupy.
Nah. It’s easier to take potshots about the “right to privacy” and anyone who disagrees with strict textualism than actually respond to the issue.
Clark v. Community for Creative Non Violence deals with the sleeping issue:
*"Assuming that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment, the regulation forbidding sleeping meets the requirements for a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of expression, whether oral, written, or symbolized by conduct. The regulation is neutral with regard to the message presented, and leaves open ample alternative methods of communicating the intended message concerning the plight of the homeless. Moreover, the regulation narrowly focuses on the Government’s substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of the Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available to the millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their presence. To permit camping would be totally inimical to these purposes. The validity of the regulation need not be judged solely by reference to the demonstration at hand, and none of its provisions are unrelated to the ends that it was designed to serve.
Similarly, the challenged regulation is also sustainable as meeting the standards for a valid regulation of expressive conduct. Aside from [p289] its impact on speech, a rule against camping or overnight sleeping in public pars is not beyond the constitutional power of the Government to enforce. And as noted above, there is a substantial Government interest, unrelated to suppression of expression, in conserving park property that is served by the proscription of sleeping"* (From the syllabus)
Marshall and Brennan’s dissent is interesting also. It discusses sleeping as expressive conduct that is entitled to protection, as well as deciding that the time place and manner restrictions shouldn’t survive a stricter scrutiny. It can be found here
There are also issues on where the protests are held (traditional public forum or not), other regulations (noise, intereference with traffic or commerce), and permit applications if necessary. There’s a whole lot of different issues wrapped up in the OP.
ETA: :fists shaking: Curse you David42!
The points made on having some limitations to the freedom to assemble are valid - I understand that some reasonable restrictions should apply i.e. people should not be able to assemble in such a way to provoke confrontation with another group nor should people should be able to assemble on my lawn with my permission.
I do not find the fact that there are costs associated with people assembling to petition the government to be very compelling and for the most part the costs have not been, in my opinion, not excessive especially when excluding the cost of arresting and/or otherwise removing the petitioners.
I believe that allowing protests like OWS are protected under the 1st amendment and local governments should be allowed to make reasonable but limited restrictions not unlike most community’s approaches to gun ownership as protected by the 2nd amendment. I find the creation of “free speech” zones and the practice of breaking up peaceful assemblies of citizens to be against the prinicples upon which the United States was founded.
If I read that dissent correctly, it appears the dissent is focused on the particular issue at the center of the protest (ie, homelessness) and that the act of camping is an important aspect of protesting that specific issue. Would that dissent apply to the Occupiers?
[tongue in cheek]
Well, it sounds like we need to start looking at 2nd amendment solutions if the government is going to start restricting the 1st amendment solutions.
[ ongue in cheek]
Ha ha, I have sycceeded in my wicked plot to make you look slow. To your credit, you addressed the case more thoroughly than I did, so yours was the better post.
I guess I’m not seeing the point you’re making here. The right to assemble is an enumerated right. So what does the question over whether the right to privacy exists as an unenumerated right have to do with the right to assemble? What is the precedent you’re suggesting the court is creating by crafting a right to privacy? That the court will say “we gave you one right so we can take away another one”?
If so, I’m not seeing it. The Ninth Amendment gives the court a legal basis for creating an unenumerated right. But there is no equivalent legal basis for repealing an enumerated right.
Interesting question. Of course a dissent has no force of law or precedent, but does its reasoning apply? If it’s true that the issue as stated above is “squatter’s rights” that seems awfully close to homeless camping. I had the impression that that the protestors were protesting over economic issues. Since no job can also mean homelessness, well, I suppose it is related. If I wanted to urge the current Supreme Court to overrule Clark I might suggest they adopt the dissent here, unless I came across something better.