This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
According to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, "The Constitution doesn't protect tents. It protects speech and assembly." True or false?
It depends on whether legitimate concerns are justified, as well as other issues discussed above. Moreover, interpretations differ. Restrictions deemed proper by some may not be by others.
Pace University Law Professor Bennett Gershman calls New York's tent city protected speech, saying:
Various Supreme Court cases affirmed that First Amendment protections aren't limited to speech and assembly. They also include "certain conduct that is intended to convey a message."
New York's tent city resonated globally. As a result, Bloomberg wants it removed, despite being "orderly and harmless."
It doesn't "threaten public safety or traffic congestion." At most, sanitation concerns might be raised. However, "protesters apparently are keeping things relatively clean and safe."Weighing "the right of individual expression...against the public interest in peace and quiet, the balance typically tilts toward free speech unless the government can demonstrate a substantial interest in curtailing the conduct, and also (shows that it's) not because of any disagreement with the content of the conduct-speech, but for some other legitimate government interest."
Saying so isn't enough. Proving it conclusively is essential. Bloomberg didn't try. Yet New York Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman overruled Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lucy Billings' restraining order in his favor. She said protesters must be allowed back with "tents and other property." So far, they can come without tents and other belongings.
OWS lawyer Allan Levine argued that banning tents infringed First Amendment rights, saying:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
