Follow the WDRB Newsroom, Reporters and Anchors.More >>
Tweets from the WDRB Newsroom, Reporters and Anchors.More >>
Even though I mocked the "Occupy" movement a while back for lacking any clear message or goals, I do recognize their right to demonstrate -- as long as they follow the law.
But the recent attempts by "Occupy" groups to forcibly shut down major ports in cities on the west coast clearly fall outside any constitutional protection.
Apparently, trying to persuade the public of the villainy of the upper class hasn't worked as well as they hoped. But instead of reassessing the clarity of their message and its flawed delivery, the "Occupy" folks have decided to illegally interfere in the lawful transaction of business in order to, as one protest leader has said, "attack the one per cent at their point of profit."
What? Constitutional free speech guarantees don't cover anyone's right to attack someone at their "point of profit." If they did, our courts would be full of hold-up men claiming their crimes were merely economic political statements.
And isn't there something ironic about a group protesting the lack of jobs blocking people who actually have jobs from performing them?
Clearly, these "Occupy" people don't just want to have their say. They demand to have their way. But that's not the way free speech works.
These protestors have elevated themselves from mere annoyances to social vandals. And that's where we should draw the line.