10 Bombshells from the #OccupyBoston Court Decision

As just reported by David S. Bernstein: "Suffolk Superior Court Judge Frances McIntyre ruled against Occupy Boston this afternoon, declining to issue an injunction and lifting the temporary restraining order that has barred the City of Boston from evicting the campers from Dewey Square." We dug through the 25-page ruling, and identified some eyebrow-raisers...

10 – This might be the most alarming: “Little in the way of expression is outlawed under the United States Constitution, but an act which incites a lawful forceful response is unlikely to pass as expressive speech.” We never knew that the “forceful response” so far has been determined as “lawful,” or that a single sentence in an opinion could undermine the entire Civil Rights movement.

9 – Oh and this is quite the bombshell too: “Essentially, occupation is received as a hostile act, an assertion of possession against the right of the true owner.” Guess it depends on who you ask.

8 – I get where the judge is coming from on this next one, but anyone who's been to Dewey Square would likely agree that Occupiers are much less tyrannical than they come off as here: “The evidence presented establishes that it is Occupy Boston's intention to seize and hold public land, albeit peacefully, in order to make certain points.”

7 – “There is scant evidence as to how the occupation began.” As a newspaper that covered every moment of the genesis, we take extra offense to this particularly hollow bullet.

6 – According to the ruling: “The Farmers' Market, which traditionally used the square, has suffered loss of sales due to the occupation.” This is just alarming because there was no evidence presented anywhere to prove such claims.

5 – There were (apparently) pictures of human piss and feces (or perhaps actual human piss and feces) submitted to the record by the plaintiffs. Unless there's another way to interpret: “Toilets are available at South Station about two hundred feet away but there is evidence in the record that not all occupants make that trip.”

4 – It's now a court-documented fact that the Columbus Day raid was a tad aggressive. The decision reads that on October 10, 2011: “Considerable police force was required to clear the area, and people were thrown backward off the circle and assaulted.” Why was such force “required?” According to the document: “Protesters locked arms and formed a human circle in order to protect the second encampment because they believed they were entitled to defend and hold their turf.”

3 – “The act of occupation, this court has determined as a matter of law, is not speech. Nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes.”

2 – Dewey Square is not a square! Finally – it's settled. According to Suffolk Superior Court: “Dewey Square itself is a trapezoid-shaped parcel.”

1 – And finally: “Occupy Boston protesters . . . have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit.”


Judge: "No right" to occupy

Read the decision: Court rules against OccupyBoston, removes restraining order

The one line from the Judge's OccupyBoston ruling that could set us back 50 years

Bernstein: New, unprecedented legal question raised by the OccupyBoston ruling

Menino issues statement on judge's decision

Vibes are nervous, but campers prepared at Dewey Square in wake of judge's ruling

| More

 Friends' Activity   Popular 
All Blogs
Follow the Phoenix
  • newsletter
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • youtube
  • rss
Latest Comments
Search Blogs
Phlog Archives