Quote :

""We came to the agreement that Mr. Fallon definitely was exercising his right to peaceably assemble. He wasn't breaking any other laws. He had a right to be on public grounds." - Aimee Mairs, Juror http://www.kcci.com/video/30648258/detail.html"

Des Moines comes up huge for the First Amendment! The October 15th Occupy cases are coming up. Remember that inspiring Saturday? The evening Occupy Raleigh's peaceful (and silent) assembly on public grounds was forecefully disrupted by law enforcement? (Hint: Google "Occupy Raleigh October 15th")

Since we were arrested under IDENTICAL circumstances to Mr. Fallon...

Should this case establish a precedent for Free Speech rights?

Do North Carolinians have the same civil rights as Iowans?

Share your opinion with our prosecutor.

Attorney C. Colon Willoughby, Jr.
Raleigh District Attorney
(919) 792-5000

8th Floor, Wake County Courthouse
Post Office Box 31
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-0031

Trevor Hook, Attorney, shares his thoughts on KCCI the next night...
http://www.kcci.com/video/30651032/detail.html

[Edited on March 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM. Reason : ...]

3/31/2012 11:41:23 PM

The constitution applies to all 50 states. No exceptions.

3/31/2012 11:50:17 PM

i can dig it

3/31/2012 11:52:14 PM

I loved the fact it went to jury trial in Iowa. I will be contacting our DA.

4/1/2012 4:34:33 PM

Get a haircut and take a shower, hippies.

4/1/2012 8:20:11 PM

was it an assembly that was disrupted, or was it a campsite that was disrupted? because there's a difference. You have the right to assemble. you don't have the right to pitch a tent wherever the fuck you want

4/1/2012 10:22:06 PM

No tents. No violence. No signs. We had removed them. It will be hard to even call it an assembly, really. No more planned speeches or activities were going on by then, just people lingering and making friends. Like after a concert.

See for yourself...

News 14
http://triangle.news14.com/content/top_stories/648210/19-arrested-following--occupy-raleigh--protest

NBC 17
http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/oct/15/14/nearly-two-dozen-occupy-raleigh-protesters-arreste-ar-1504660/

Independent Media [Video]
http://video.agaclip.com/w=SnOm5hvXON8

Creepy Line Up


The First Arrest


Another Arrest


My Arrest


After Me


[Edited on April 1, 2012 at 10:58 PM. Reason : ...]

4/1/2012 10:40:02 PM

^

Quote :

"The group had a permit to be on the property until 3 p.m. and were allowed to stay hours later. Police told the protestors that if they stayed they would be arrested."

So let me get this straight... you're sitting on capitol building property, linking arms and refusing to move after you were told your permitted time was well up. What did you expect to happen?

[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 8:40 AM. Reason : ...]

4/2/2012 8:39:44 AM

Quote :

"you're sitting on capitol building property"

He had a reasonable expectation that he'd be arrested, but their argument is that they also have a reasonable expectation that they can sit on capitol grounds as a form of political demonstration - which this movement unambiguously is.

I agree that state grounds, in many cases, should not have this reasonable expectation with it. If an occupation at a state or federal building (even if it's publicly accessible grounds) disrupts business, then they're costing the taxpayer money and have likely gone too far.

But the capitol?

What is a capitol for if you can't protest there? Taking pictures straddling that old canon? Is there a hidden transmitter to our alien overlords that requires the removal of fleshy bodies within a 50 foot radius after midnight?

4/2/2012 9:20:32 AM

You can protest, but you need a permit to do so. Apparently they did have one and they overstayed their welcome. The police told them as much and these guys refused to leave. What's so hard to understand?

[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM. Reason : ...]

4/2/2012 9:31:28 AM

Quote :

"So let me get this straight... you're sitting on capitol building property, linking arms and refusing to move after you were told your permitted time was well up. What did you expect to happen? "

Seems pretty unconstitutional to need a permit to protest. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson, Sam Addams, and John Hancock should have requested a permit from the Royal governor of Massachusetts before protesting their grievences of England's policy. I also wonder if MLK had a permit from the Atlanta city hall before protesting civil rights.

Counter-intuitive it seems to need a permit from the institution you are protesting against in order to have a protest.

[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM. Reason : t]

4/2/2012 10:26:08 AM

Who's making up these rules about what we "can" and "can't" do? We live in a democracy and the core of that system is civic participation. You don't agree with how they're participating, so oh well. The question is how our judicial system should deal with that. Why were the taxpayers spending money to remove these people in the first place? The point of the demonstration was largely to demonstrate that they can't demonstrate there.

What is the argument for removing them? I don't understand that position. To the extent that you arrested them and are asking the question "what should we do with those arrested" it may be a non-trivial question, but why did "we" order that police action in the first place? What good did it do? Who did it protect? Who was being violated?

In the first place, if you wanted to make this movement irrelevant, the best way to do that would be to ignore them. As someone not in the movement, my concern is that I'm living in a police state. How is the government serving me? In terms of making the political statement, it is working. I don't feel free with these arrests.

I mean, answer that, who are these arrests protecting? No, it's not an irrelevant question. The fact that the stayed there was an invitation to arrest them - and the police did in an action that can be defined as nothing more than a power struggle. It was the intentionality of staying there that got them arrested.

4/2/2012 10:29:45 AM

The 1st amendment is your permit.

4/2/2012 12:34:44 PM

^ The first amendment doesn't give you the right to be a nuisance. Not saying these guys specifically were, but there are limits to free speech. For instance, if there were thousands of people protesting in front of the capitol, arms linked, refusing to let people in.

"But we're just standing here peacefully, we're not doing anything wrong!!! Durrrrr"

Come on, don't be so naive.

Obviously there were too few people here to be a nuisance, but the point behind permits is more about being aware that something's going on at a certain place for a certain amount of time. These dumbasses exceeded the amount of time they were allotted, told to leave, and didn't. At that point it becomes trespassing.

4/2/2012 12:55:41 PM

Accepting that argument, why don't I need to obtain a permit to go downtown?

In fact, last week I got together with some people in a park, and didn't ask for any permission. Wait, I do this every week. Sometimes, being the terrorist that we are, we assemble after dark.

So... I guess the real difference between my assemblies and their assembly is that I wasn't expressing open opposition toward the government.

Do I have this correct?

4/2/2012 1:06:42 PM

^ Go stand in front of the capitol and chant a bunch of slogans. See how long it takes before a cop asks you to leave for being a nuisance. But if you had a permit issued by the city, stating the the city recognizes your right to protest in this spot at a certain time, you can tell the cop to take a hike.

People forget that the permit process cuts both ways. Is it limiting? Perhaps. But it also forces authorities to recognize that you're allowed to protest at a certain time and place. Plus it's helpful when there might be security concerns for controversial protests.

It's not nearly as draconian a requirement as you guys make it out to be.

4/2/2012 1:21:44 PM

Actually, there is no permit to request to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Capitol grounds. Doesn't exist. You could chant and hold signs on any sidewalk in Raleigh all day if you wanted to. Any harassment, tell them to chat with Major Deans.

Further, as the jury in Des Moines concluded, Constitutional Rights supercede state curfews.

Quote :

"He had a reasonable expectation that he'd be arrested, but their argument is that they also have a reasonable expectation that they can sit on capitol grounds as a form of political demonstration - which this movement unambiguously is."

Exactly. My first expectation was that Constitutional Rights would be protected. Unreasonable, clearly.

[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ...]

4/2/2012 1:32:53 PM

^ I guarantee you after enough time someone will tell you to leave if you're standing around shouting at the top of your lungs. It's called being a public nuisance. And if you and your 30 friends stand around linking arms it's going to get someone's attention and the cops will ask you what's going on, and then to leave, because you're assembling on government property with a permit. The flipside is that with a permit, your shouting and/or assembly is now recognized as a valid protest, protected by the first amendment.

You can agree with it or not, but that's how it is. You guys followed the proper procedure for at least a little while and wouldn't leave when your time was up.

^ Also wondering how you reconcile the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing with your viewpoint that "DAMMIT NOTHING TRUMPS THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!"

[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ...]

4/2/2012 1:40:31 PM

I dare you to equate anything we did with shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Silent people, shouting? Stop putting words in my mouth. Constitutional Rights supercede City and State laws (unposted curfews, for example). A jury in Des Moines, Iowa agrees. Free speech taking priority over these things doesn't mean it takes priority over safety...

That's actually how it is.

[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM. Reason : weak troll]

4/2/2012 1:46:48 PM

^ I'm just making the point that there is plenty of precedent for having laws trump the first amendment in certain cases.

On a related note to the concept of protest permits. Question: do you think the KKK should be required to get a permit to assemble? Or at least be required to notify the cops that they're doing so? Do you think a city government should have the right to deny them a request to assemble? After all, it's just a peaceful assembly.

4/2/2012 1:50:20 PM

Quote :

"Do you think a city government should have the right to deny them a request to assemble?"

Oh dear lord, 1000x no. A city should not have the right to deny the assembly of any group under any cause. The entire point of civic action is as a part of our checks and balances, and giving the government the ability to line-item veto such action is asking the wolf the guard the chicken coop. Peaceful assembly as envisioned by the constitution, and the entire foundation of democracy, is pointless if it can't be done in opposition to the government, or more generally, unpopular with the authorities or even public opinion.

Even though the government can't have discretion over what protests to allow, there may still be some ambiguous legal grounds as to the necessity of obtaining a permit. The trouble is that anything intended originally to protect the public safety will inevitably be used to silence voices. It happens constantly, and this leads to the actual issue that the Iowa court entertained, witch has to do with those "practical" or "safety" restrictions imposed on peaceful protest. Their view is that the action amounted to a government curfew, and while curfews are fine for teenagers, they are flagrantly illegal in the context of our democracy as they completely pass over the checks that are supposed to be placed on that power.

No government has rights to begin with. It's only granted authority to govern by its constituents, who who do have unalienable rights.

added:

Quote :

"1 - do you think the KKK should be required to get a permit to assemble? 2 - Or at least be required to notify the cops that they're doing so? 3 - Do you think a city government should have the right to deny them a request to assemble?"

1 - is a maybe. I think there are ambiguous legal grounds.
2 - this is much more reasonable
3 - absolutely not

[Edited on April 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2012 3:00:42 PM

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

4/2/2012 5:59:41 PM

According to the administration, any attempts by the court to resist unconstitutional laws is "judicial activism".

4/2/2012 6:02:46 PM

If you don't mind me asking, were you charged with anything Gamecat?

4/2/2012 7:16:21 PM

right to peaceful assembly does not mean right to assembly where ever you damn well please. Permits are granted for government owned properties for X amount of time to ensure that proper security and such is available at that time. It is not property owned or controlled by you are your fellow protesters and you do not get exclusive rights to that space just because you stand there shouting "free assembly". If you are on private property with permission of the owner, you can feel free to stay there as long as you want.

4/3/2012 8:33:07 AM

In other words, you have no right to free assembly, it's a privilege you have to fill out paperwork or own property in order to enjoy.

4/3/2012 12:36:07 PM

^^^ Second degree trespass, all of us were.

^^ We never claimed exclusive rights to the space. Anyone was welcome to walk through, join us, walk away...

Quote :

"right to peaceful assembly does not mean right to assembly where ever you damn well please."

Provided you're not violent, disruptive, or damaging property...it actually does. That's why you're free to hold an unpermitted demonstration on a public sidewalk anywhere in Raleigh, around the clock. The Raleigh PD appreciates a heads up, especially if you have more than 10 people, but they don't have a form to fill out. The sidewalk is considered a public square. So long as demonstrators obey all applicable laws, as Fallon in Des Moines and the 19 of us in Raleigh did, you're allowed to demonstrate however long you want.

There is and can be no state curfew on your freedom of speech in a public square.

Imagine if the Raleigh Police Department showed up and arrested an unpermitted pre-dawn prayer service on a Sunday morning held at the Capitol. Would anyone raise hell? Or would they say..."the grounds were closed, the group was obviously trespassing."

Free Speech > Local Curfews

[Edited on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM. Reason : the first amendment is my permit]

4/3/2012 12:36:55 PM

Update: The first three were convicted today. Surprise perjury from State Capitol Police Chief Hunter. According to the chief, under oath, we were shouting and chanting inside the circle leading up to our arrests.

You've seen the video, guys. What do you think? The demonstrators who moved to the sidewalk continued shouting and chanting, but not us...

On a sidenote...

"I saw Chief Scott Hunter rape and kill a girl in 1990."

4/3/2012 9:40:53 PM

Is the video not admissible in court?

4/3/2012 9:56:55 PM

Do you have a video of the entire hour, b/c I think his statement applied for that length of time.

Quote :

"On a sidenote... "I saw Chief Scott Hunter rape and kill a girl in 1990.""

And did I miss something? Was Chief Scott Hunter influenced by Paul Cousins?

4/3/2012 10:08:54 PM

^^ You'd be amazed at what they won't review.

^ His statement certainly did not apply. Those who were arrested did not shout or chant leading up to their arrests. Before the group of demonstrators moved to the sidewalk, there was no fucking circle. We were all just a bunch of strangers wandering around talking to each other.

[Edited on April 3, 2012 at 10:15 PM. Reason : "Paul Cousins and Chief Scott Hunter started the Nuisance Party Ordinance."]

4/3/2012 10:14:20 PM

Update 4/11: We challenged the State's permit regulation as unconstitutional because it does not allow for a small groups exception, citing Cox vs. City of Charleston as precedent. No verdict today. Judge continued to June 6.

4/11/2012 10:09:01 PM

you don't have the right to block sidewalks.

Tough shit.

4/11/2012 11:41:46 PM

Is it really smart for you to be on here blathering about your case?

4/11/2012 11:52:03 PM

It's a guaranteed guilty verdict with maximum sentencing. What does he have to lose?

Protesting is pointless. Force gets results.

4/12/2012 2:51:37 AM

nutsmackr This particular case is about the Capitol Grounds protest, not the sidewalk.

4/12/2012 8:31:46 AM

Same damn thing.

4/12/2012 10:17:27 AM

Quote :

"The 1st amendment is your permit."

This. Can the powers that be deny you a permit? Would denying a permit be against the 1st amendment?

4/12/2012 11:38:19 AM

yes, no

4/13/2012 8:23:06 AM

^^ Yes, no. The city owns city property and can throw anyone it wants off said property. If you want to protest the government with your first amendment rights, then go protest somewhere you have permission to be from its owners, such as the mall or your front yard.

4/13/2012 5:09:42 PM

^You are basically suggesting that only landowners are guaranteed the freedom of speech/protest?

4/13/2012 6:57:08 PM

the public square is open to all, but the government has the obligation to make sure that it is being used in a safe peaceful manner. This translates into prohibiting the blocking of sidewalks, establishing curfews, etc. None of those are prior restraints on speech.

4/13/2012 7:25:47 PM

if the government can deny permits, then it's obvious that people don't have real free speech in that place.

Free speech, and Democracy itself, only has a role in the checks and balances of the government if we can deliver messages that the government viscerally hates. That is, our founders basically told us to write laws under the assumption that governments are power hungry and that we should challenge their power. Allowing them the ability to reject a permit for public speech violates this.

4/13/2012 11:42:15 PM

The Supreme Court has been a bit over the map on how far the First Amendment reaches with respect to protest, but generally under its "public forum" doctrine the courts have divided up locations for protest into groups, with each successive group being more restrictive: traditional public forums (streets, parks, sidewalks); designated public forums (a government meeting room open to the public, the "free speech zones" you see at rallies); non-public forums (inside a courtroom); and non-forums (a military base, inside a prison, etc)

With respect to traditional public forums -- which the sidewalk outside of the state capital building would certainly seem to be -- the courts have generally upheld "reasonable" restrictions on "time, place, and manner" of protests, so long as those restrictions are both content- and viewpoint-neutral (e.g. a city could deny a permit for cross-burning b/c an ordinance doesn't allow open flames, but couldn't deny a permit for cross-burning b/c the ordinance banned offensive displays), but those reasonable restrictions must still be narrowly tailored and must also leave open ample alternative means for expression.

As much as I dislike hippies, I'd say Gamecat's right on this one. The "reasonableness" of certain restrictions is proportional to the size of the group (if you've got so many people you're shutting down a thoroughfare, you probably need a permit; not so if you're a single person holding a "The End is Nigh!" sign) and it's questionable at best whether the Occupy folks should have been arrested, permit or not.

4/14/2012 9:20:11 AM

Quote :

"^You are basically suggesting that only landowners are guaranteed the freedom of speech/protest?"

In my opinion, yes. Although it is nice when the government allows protest even though it has a right to stop it, such as by closing the park/street to all traffic.

Of course, we also need to keep in mind your opinion, which is being on private property is no protection from the government which has every right to interfere with what a private citizen does on their own property. "Your property is not zoned for a printing press!"

[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2012 10:23:05 AM

Quote :

"TGD: As much as I dislike hippies, I'd say Gamecat's right on this one."

Really? I came all the way to The Soap Box just to argue with you. This should be interesting.

4/14/2012 4:16:37 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: Really? I came all the way to The Soap Box just to argue with you. This should be interesting."

I think you forget that I've always been a little-l libertarian and generally averse to government restrictions on speech

4/14/2012 5:26:38 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion, yes."

Please tell us, what other rights should only be guaranteed to land owners? The right to vote?

[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 6:31 PM. Reason : Just checked my watch to confirm I'm still in the 21st century]

4/14/2012 6:30:37 PM

The problem is land must be owned by someone for it to be not just productively used but maintained against destruction. To suggest we have a right to stand and do whatever we want on publicly owned property would be a bad regime to impose upon society, as it would result in chronic abuse of public property with the inevitable destruction there-off. It would be the end of public property as we know it.

So, no. As the city must have the right to close a city park for either the night or forever, that means we cannot guarantee others in society the right to protest there at their whim.

Similarly, we cannot guarantee everyone the right to vote, as some of them will be unable to arrive at the polls or register for an absentee ballot.

4/14/2012 9:06:43 PM

I'm very glad the law does not agree.

[Edited on April 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM. Reason : Welp...off to an unpermitted demonstration on the Capitol sidewalk...]

4/15/2012 9:16:40 AM