Federal Appeals Court Rules SC Occupy Protesters Have a "Viable Claim"

Remember back when "Occupy" was a thing? It was was back in November of 2011 or so. The protesters who were forcibly removed from the Statehouse grounds back then haven't just gone away. Maybe the Governor should have consulted with Permanent Press first.

Anyway, the Occupy folks have taken their case all the way to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which just decided that the Occupy protesters "have a viable claim" that the State of South Carolina violated their First Amendment rights.

You can read the full text of the opinion here.[PDF]

Here's where I am on this: Let's assume that the State did violate the Occupier's rights by forcibly removing them from the Statehouse Grounds. Ok, so what are the damages? The Occupy protesters want damages for the State violating their First Amendment rights. Well, for you law-geeks out there, there is a whole area of jurisprudence on who to measure such damages. You can read about it at length in this law review article, which just happens to be published by my law school alma mater.

I'm not sure I would award them much money, but I'd be fine with letting them go back to the Statehouse Grounds and protesting as much as they want, as long as they don't fall asleep. Sleeping isn't political speech, it's...well it's sleeping.

All I know is that if Governor Haley had followed my advice and just ignored these people, they'd probably be gone by now.

Occupy Columbia: When the Levy Breaks

To update you on the Occupy Columbia movement, the Occupiers had a small victory in Federal Court when Judge Currie basically allowed the Occupiers to stay on the Statehouse grounds because there were no written rules in place prohibiting camping.

So....the State is going to promulgate some rules. And the Occupiers, being Occupiers, are going to Occupy the meeting where the rules are going to be discussed. My prediction is that they make some noise, but accomplish little if nothing. Actually, that sounds like the entire movement so far.

At this point, I'm almost inclined to simply allow them to stay there as long as they want now that the winter months are bearing down upon us. If they want to camp out, that's fine. You know, the more I think about it, maybe there are some benefits to allowing folks to camp out at the Statehouse

Maybe I'll start a movement to allow people who drink to much in the Vista to sober up and sleep it off on the Statehouse Grounds. It's better than driving drunk, right? It's close, so you can walk it, and we can set up little "sober stations" with Waffle House food and Gatorade. We'll be "protesting" the fact that beer isn't free.

Occupy Columbia: Judge Lee Allows Tents and Sleeping Bags

Judge Lee has issued a TRO allowing the protesters to bring tents, sleeping bags, and other living gear.

I respectfully dissent. The Statehouse is not a campground. You cannot live there.

Protesters to Challenge Haley's 6:00PM Edict

As much as I disagree with the Occupy movement, I do not believe that Haley's decision to have everyone off the Statehouse grounds by 6:00PM is a reasonable time restriction. On the contrary, I believe it is an arbitrary and capricious time. Apparently, some people out there are going to call Haley's bluff.

Why 6:00PM? Why not 6:15PM or 7:00PM? The government needs to show a compelling reason why people should not be on public property after a specific time. Obviously, you can't camp out there, but you should be able to simply be there.

I'll be interested to see how it turns out.
UPDATE: Looks like I was exactly right. Maybe the Governor should have consulted me for legal advice first. Full roundup of the silliness from Mr. Warthen here.

Occupy Columbia: Normalcy Returns

Brad Warthen has a good, yet somewhat sympathetic, run-down of the six nineteen Occupy protesters in Columbia, SC being removed (via arrest) from the Statehouse grounds.

As I've been saying for awhile now, the Occupy movement should never have been allowed to "camp out" in public places using free speech as a stalking-horse. It's well-settled constitutional law that our First Amendment rights are subject to reasonable, content-neutral, time, place, and manner restrictions.

Obviously, the outbreak of Tuberculosis, lice, ringworm, Parvo (in the pets), scabbies, and all sorts of other horrible and gross things is evidence that these restrictions are in the public's best interest.

Protesting is fine, but you can't live on the Statehouse grounds to make a political point.

Occupy Columbia: Day 11

Breaking Hard: Our PP reporter in the field sends us a picture from the Occupy Columbia protest movement as of 10/25.

As you can see, it's Day 11. There are a few people milling about on the right-front area of the statehouse steps, and they appear to have some camping gear. Perhaps they're in this for the long-haul. I'm still not 100% on what their demands are, but at this point, one of their demands ought to be for more protesters. They don't even have enough people to need a "people's microphone" yet, and that's one of the trademarks of the Occupy movement. Stay tuned to PP for all your Occupy Columbia news.