SteveR: Sort of: The Constitution and subsequent case law doesn’t really talk about overnight vs. overday, so they can stay over night. They just can’t have tents or blankets or sleeping bags. This does not clearly violate NOR does it clearly NOT violate the constitution. Their form of free speech is to stay round the clock and “occupy” public space. I think NYC would lose on that ground if it want to a higher court.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-lessons-from-tea.html

in his assessment of the Occupy movement – and in his follow up post on it as well.

If so, while we may not like it, that does seem fair enough and not violating the US constitution doesn’t it?

Bloomberg and this particular judge have decided that enough is enough; the constitution stops working just shy of three months.

I’m not saying that the court was right to deny the injunction, but the federal Supreme Court has made space for people like Bloomberg to hide when they try to curtail peaceful protests.

Right, the right of free assembly.

I can’t believe that in this day in age the Mayor of New York can be such as clueless bumbling idiot.

The idea…was to clean up the park and let the protesters back in.

And that was after they (law enforcement) threw out all the tents and other possessions the protestors couldn’t take with them, right? Good way to really make the protesters upset, I’d think. So, yeah, probably not the best move on Bloomberg’s part. As you suggest, Greg, the protesters will probably be breaking stuff for sure now, come Thursday.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.