Judge's Ruling on Occupy Boston: Occupation is not Speech

Birmingham campaign dogs

"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."

--Justice Frances A. McIntyre, Occupy Boston et al vs. City of Boston et al

In essence, the First Amendment interpretation of free speech is left up to the discretion of the police. If they think it needs to be suppressed, then they can do so.

In the photo above from the Birmingham Campaign of 1963, the protesters should have been arrested, following the logic of Justice Frances A. McIntyre, because their speech elicited a lawful forceful response. Ordering dogs to attack the protesters or using fire hoses to disperse the assembled citizens were legitimate reactions to the "unlawful speech" of those demanding equal rights under the law.

This is a very disturbing and alarming legal precedent, which grants sweeping powers to law enforcement.

If money is equated to a form of speech in this country, then acts of lawful assembly like an occupation should be consider a mechanism by which those without money express free speech.

Footer Info

Garden Park | East Locust and North Bremen Street  Milwaukee, WI | Email: Contact Us