Plaintiffs claim that their occupation of the site and the community they have established thereon are protected by the First Amendment. They seek a preliminary injunction against their removal by the defendants.I've been saying this for weeks. The First Amendment does not supersede the property rights of others. If it did you could walk up to the gate at the White House and demand to hold your protest in the Oval Office.
But the injunction is denied because, while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during the protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit…[T]his court seriously doubts that the First Amendment permits the plaintiffs to seize and hold a public forum to the exclusion of others. (1, 15)
Thursday, December 08, 2011
This quote comes from a judge who ruled against #OccupyBoston and their request to continue their hold on property that doesn't belong to them. The judge quite successfully blew up their First Amendment argument:
Posted by Rick Moore on 12/08/2011