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.”
BREAKING NEWS: thephoenix.com/occupyboston
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
Latest Slideshows
