The way it was conveyed to me (completely second hand BTW, so don't take this as an argument) was that the act of camping in a park was separate from the actual protest. So if that's the case, the First Amendment is irrelevant. That's why the WBC has been allowed to protest, but they always do it within the letter of the law (They are all lawyers after all). What I was told was that none of the protesters were told to GTFO, just that they couldn't camp in the park. It pisses me off because I think it makes the protesters look like a bunch of spoiled brats instead of the rational, but pissed off people that they are.RvLeshrac said:Yeah, that's pretty much complete bullshit. No locality has ever prevented the WBC from doing anything protest-related. I can't think of anyone intelligent who argues that they don't have a right to do what they do. The First Amendment is sacred, it seems, except when it comes to using public land for the public good.Signa said:If you're referring to the same story I heard, it was because by allowing the Occupy Wallstreet protesters to camp in the park, they would then have to allow the WBC to camp there too. Ground rules need to be set so that the ones who wish to abuse the system can't. The Mayor actually invited the protesters onto city hall grounds for overnight, and yet that wasn't good enough.RvLeshrac said:...but they'll damn well make sure you don't spend the night in a park.
But maybe that's all wrong. I never even heard of the issue until my friend explained it. We might even be talking about different cities, I don't know. I know some other cities have behaved rather poorly in handling the protesters.