Acceptable "Free" Speech?

Is free speech really free if it costs the rest of us? If a building is empty, is it ok to break in and occupy it? I wonder if the President will applaud occupy protesters again during his campaign.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 0520120129

Violence erupted again in Oakland on Saturday when protesters attempted to take over the apparently empty downtown convention center to establish a new headquarters and draw attention to the problem of homelessness.

What? Nobody running to defend today? Yup, it's going to get harder.... so just plug your ears and close your eyes, I'm sure these peace lovers will bring sunshine to our state too.

At least it becomes easier every day to differentiate these protesters from Tea party protesters (as if there ever was similarities).

Here is what I don't get about this. I have looked into some the various cities laws that deal with PEACEFUL assembly, parades etc. There are permits etc that must be purchased, rules to follow etc. They are not following the laws and regulations at all, then they use thier BS to say they can break into a building and use it. These groups constantly are breaking the laws etc. Seems to me that alot of these Mayors are just scared of them, IMO, I think it has alot to do with politics. They are breaking the law, and should be dealt with.

Then there is those that want to call the police "stormtroopers". Well seems when the police move in to disband they get attacked, thrown at with rocks bottles etc. Then when they use their training, and tear gas, etc, they are in the wrong. And to think, soros is out there just laughing that his plan is working.

I support th police on this one.

How is trespassing in a vacant building "free speech"? I think they should be allowed to protest in a lawful manner, but free speech rights don't entitle you to take over buildings you don't own.

AspenValley wrote: How is trespassing in a vacant building "free speech"? I think they should be allowed to protest in a lawful manner, but free speech rights don't entitle you to take over buildings you don't own.

For once we agree :woo hoo:

But here's something you probably will disagree with. Why is it that President Obama has remained as silent as a mouse on these destructive protests that cost Oakland alone $5 million already while they are strapped for cash already?

Remember the beer summit when Obama had nothing better to do but get involved in an arrest where he said the cop acted "stupidly". Since he has come out in support for occupy protesters, would this not be a good time for him to speak up? Are these people not acting stupidly at the very least?

CritiKalbILL wrote:

AspenValley wrote: How is trespassing in a vacant building "free speech"? I think they should be allowed to protest in a lawful manner, but free speech rights don't entitle you to take over buildings you don't own.

For once we agree :woo hoo:

But here's something you probably will disagree with. Why is it that President Obama has remained as silent as a mouse on these destructive protests that cost Oakland alone $5 million already while they are strapped for cash already?

Remember the beer summit when Obama had nothing better to do but get involved in an arrest where he said the cop acted "stupidly". Since he has come out in support for occupy protesters, would this not be a good time for him to speak up? Are these people not acting stupidly at the very least?

As President of the United States, it is appropriate for him to take a position on the national aspects of the OWS movement, but as far as I can see the issues in Oakland are strictly a local matter, probably left best to local authorities. (May have learned his lesson on that from the earlier comments he made about local police actions that you mention.) However, if the same kinds of things appeared to be becoming the national policy of OWS, yes, I would expect him to take a stand one way or another on the issue at that point.

So it's a national movement when it's peaceful, but when it turns violent it then becomes a local matter? And was the beer summit a result of a local or national matter?

And I submit that if the protests were all peaceful and law abiding, Obama would reference the movement throughout his campaign, but if it continues to have violent aspects, you won't hear him praise the movement ever again...jmo.

CritiKalbILL wrote: So it's a national movement when it's peaceful, but when it turns violent it then becomes a local matter? And was the beer summit a result of a local or national matter?

And I submit that if the protests were all peaceful and law abiding, Obama would reference the movement throughout his campaign, but if it continues to have violent aspects, you won't hear him praise the movement ever again...jmo.

You seem confused. Let me give you an example of why one might praise a national movement yet remain silent on a local issue involving that movement.
Suppose George W. Bush had praised teachers nationally for the great job they were doing for the No Child Left Behind program. And then a group of teachers in Peoria were found to be cheating on the tests. Does that negate the whole program? Or is it simply a local example of wrong-doing best left to local authorities?

On the other hand, if it turned out that the cheating was widespread and national, would you blame George W. if he stopped praising the teachers on a national scale? Or even just fell silent on the topic until and if it was established that the cheating was in fact a national problem?

There are examples in almost every city of trashing an area, violence, and even rapes. One guy (supposedly) yells a racial slur in a Tea Party rally and the left flips out. Where are any of the occupy supporters in politics? Should nobody say anything here or do we just accept this crap?

And again, why did Obama feel that a beer summit was neccesary but say nothing about this? My guess is that it may taint his rich vs poor strategy.

Maybe Obama has more pressing issues to deal with than making you happy or unhappy by commenting on this issue. Either way I suspect you would complain.