Occupy and the Officials Torn Between Free Speech and Public Order

• Tweet

• Tweet

The New York Mayor has taken heat for his flip-flopping on Occupy Wall Street

As Occupy Wall Street closes in on the three month mark, the patience of city officials, tired of the balancing act between free speech and public order, is wearing thin.

Yes, big-city mayors are on the so-called constitutional front-line, but they also have a duty to protect the needs and rights of those residents and business owners not involved in, or actively suffering from, the protest. As we take stock of the stance of officials, from New York, where “Occupy”, was born, to Oakland and even to London, the new buzzword on the lips of officials is “disruption”.

New York

Mayor Bloomberg is in the unenviable position of being both an “official” and the thirtieth richest person on the planet, according to Forbes magazine. Whether or not this has affected his judgement regarding “Occupy” is unclear, but he has so far continuously affirmed the First Amendment rights of the protesters, been careful to avoid any decisive action against the encampment and was even recorded saying the protesters can stay indefinitely.

In recent days, however, calls are growing for the mayor’s intervention – businesses are suffering, and local residents are complaining about the lack of public order. It is in response to these complaints from local officials, residents and businesses, that he has toughened his stance: “This isn’t an occupation of Wall Street, it’s an occupation of a growing vibrant residential neighbourhood in lower Manhattan.” Mayor Bloomberg continued to explain, therefore, that “communities, businesses and residents in Lower Manhattan feel that they are the ones that are being occupied…and it’s really hurting small businesses and families.”

From his careful original tack, Mayor Bloomberg has now vowed to take action, when the timing is right, and with an understanding of the laws and possible implications. The mayor is of course still hedging his bets, aware of the dangers of misstepping. A backlash like the one when the pepper spray incident between the NYPD and seemingly peaceful female protesters went viral is the last thing the mayor wants.

Oakland

Oakland has been the most volatile of the Occupy protests by far; police have fired tear gas and beanbag bullets on a number of occasions, one time injuring an Iraq war veteran, and there has also been more nihilistic destruction by protesters than has been seen in other cities.

As a result, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has a job no one wants. She is currently under fire for her mixed messages: first supporting the camp, then closing it down, then allowing it to spring back up, and now, once again leaning back towards eviction. In a recent City Council meeting, the besieged mayor announced that the time has come for protesters to move on as the level of disruption has reached an undesirable level: jobs are being lost, police are being diverted from more dangerous parts of the city, businesses are closing and others are choosing not to locate downtown.

So far, Mayor Quan sounds like her counterpart in New York.  Where life gets harder for her is that while Mayor Bloomberg has the support of the majority of officials he works with, many of Mayor Quan’s staunchest supporters are urging the council to support the movement and the encampment. So despite the high-profile clashes between protesters and police, pushing Oakland to the forefront of the Occupy movement, the impasse does not look like it will be resolved from above any time soon.

Elsewhere and Across the Pond

Elsewhere, Occupy Atlanta dealt with arrests and demands to move on, and protesters in Providence were threatened with court-ordered evictions. Even Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, who began by expanding the public space available to protesters, is now moving toward the same choice facing New York and Oakland officials.

American mayors are not alone in citing “disruption” as the word of the day. Across the pond in London, England, deadlock also reigns. The site of the encampment is co-owned by St Paul’s Cathedral and the Corporation of London, both of which have now backed away from the eviction route. On the other side, Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, suggested that the protesters have made their point and that they should leave as soon as possible in order to avoid further disruption. There is a situation, Mayor Johnson continued where “London businesses, tourism, the cathedral, the ability of people to worship, I’m told, is being disrupted.”

With winter approaching in London and New York, officials may have been given a free pass.  What will come of the movement in Oakland, however, remains to be seen. But any more violence on the side of the protesters threatens to further taint the image of the movement in the eyes of the media and those in charge.

Related articles

• Michael Bloomberg: Wall Street Protesters Can Stay Indefinitely (politico.com)
• Occupy Wall Street: calls grow for New York mayor to act on protest camp (guardian.co.uk)
• Occupy Oakland Protest: Police Fire Tear Gas and Beanbag Rounds, Clear Out Encampment (huffingtonpost.com)
• Jean Quan angers Occupy camp’s supporters, rivals (sfgate.com)
• ‘Occupied’ Cities Becoming a Big Problem for Mayors (npr.org)
• Mayor joins Bishop of London asking St Paul’s campers to go (bbc.co.uk)
• Does the First Amendment Protect the “Occupy” Protesters? (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)