The world waits to see what will happen at midnight tonight, as Occupy Boston is evicted from Dewey Square in Boston by Mayor Thomas Menino. The moment has been creeping up on the occupiers ever so steadily since a week or two ago. After Occupy LA and Occupy Philadelphia were cleared, it was evident the city would be moving the occupiers out as soon as they could.
I spent about a week there covering the camp. I delivered supplies to the camp, which was made possible by Firedoglake’s Occupy Supply campaign. I also was there for a day before Occupy Wall Street first was threatened with eviction in October. I had the chance to meet some fine occupiers and take in the truly remarkable spirit of the community that sprouted in Dewey Square. This is Occupy Boston’s moment though. The world is watching them tonight. I am at home blogging away madly. And I will be live blogging like I have been live blogging the Occupy movement since Day One. But, they should have their message, their words amplified tonight.
Here is the statement posted on the Occupy Boston website:
This morning, Mayor Menino issued a midnight deadline for Occupy Boston to leave the Greenway. The articulated threat of eviction is a clear and present danger to the community we have built over the past ten weeks. We came to Dewey Square to practice true democracy and give visibility to injustice; we came to see if we could not–in providing for basic needs–maintain a standing indictment against their enforced deprivation within our broader community. With this commitment came hard evidence of economic suffering, evidence that we present at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve along with our democracy, our songs and our chants that echo daily through the financial canyon. Today, the city threatens that community. It threatens the library, where we hold our classes and discuss ideas. It threatens our food tent, which has served thousands of people many more thousands of meals. It threatens our medical tent, which has provided treatment and care to the sick and to the injured. Not only these, it threatens the lives of those of us who have no place else to go. The city has cited concern for our safety as the reason for forcing us back into the streets. But make no mistake; the city’s concern for our safety will disperse when we do. We have therefore taken steps to ensure the safety of the infrastructure we have built, and to protect the most vulnerable among us in the event of the eviction. We are taking down the food tent, the medical tent, packing up our logistics supplies for safe-keeping and working with social service providers and other allies to secure shelter for our brothers and sisters most likely to experience homelessness if and when the city throws away their tents. We take action–today and always–in the name of economic and political justice, freedom of expression and our entire community.
The statement indicates much of the camp has been willfully dismantled. The most vulnerable of the population that have been taken care of by the Occupy Boston community over the past months are being moved out. Those remaining are those that have the fortitude and courage to stand their ground and send a message with their bodies that they believe what they have been doing—occupying—is speech that should be protected under the First Amendment.
I want to call attention to an individual I had the privilege of meeting at Occupy Boston, whom Firedoglake donated money to so he could construct “tiny, tiny homes” for the camp. This person is Sage Radachowsky, a research technician at Harvard. He and occupiers had been working with an MIT professor and some students from Harvard and MIT to develop solutions to help Occupy Boston last through winter. The working group was about to make “tiny, tiny homes” like the one Radachowsky has been living in for weeks now.
As Radachowsky described these shelters, “It’s a bike trailer house. It’s 3 X 6 feet inside. It’s enough for me to sleep diagonally. And it’s everything I need to make it through the night warmly. I sleep with a couple of blankets and some woolen sweaters around me and kind of nest in there. It is really warm.”
He made it from a TV cabinet that he found in the trash and “a couple of old bicycle wheels and some 2 X 4s.” He also used 2-inch styrofoam-ridged insulation and put foil lining on the insulation. The home is 4 feet tall and the top is covered with three layers of clear poly-plastic sheeting.
“At night I can read by the lights of the financial district,” added Radachowsky. “I made a door and there’s a trailer hitch on the front so you can pull it with a bicycle.” The home took about a day to build and the building materials cost about $100.

A tiny, tiny home
Over the past weeks, Radachowsky has been trying to plan days to construct these homes so they could brought in and donated to people who needed warm shelter. But, as he explained to me, things to keep homeless people warm suddenly became “contraband” days before I interviewed Radachowsky.
Radachowsky had his own incident, “I pulled up in my truck to deliver some styrofoam. I didn’t think there was a police officer there but there was and he called his superiors and said no you can’t bring the styrofoam in or the tarp. I went home and cut up the styrofoam and then brought it in.”
Like many of the occupiers, Radachowsky wanted the opportunity to continue to maintain the encampment through winter:
I always wanted the chance to fight for something good and this is the chance to do it close to home. This is the movement I’ve been waiting for. I want the chance and I think that we can gain some moral capital as well showing that we do have resolve, that we do have the ability to work democratically and solve problems.
Menino is denying Occupy Boston that chance tonight. He is putting the interests of the Greenway Conservancy before Occupy Boston, which has been part of a national movement that has reset the conversation on economic issues. And not only that, it has been a part of a movement that has raised citizens’ expectations for society, leading many to have a much bolder vision for society. It has been a part of a movement that has drawn attention to the militarization of police (which Occupy Boston experienced firsthand when it tried to expand into a second encampment). And, it has been a part of a movement that has enhanced the culture of dissent in America, reminding citizens’ of the power they can wield if they get out in the streets.
From singing “Get Up, Stand Up” with Tosh 1 and the Dis-N-Dat Band to marching in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street after it was evicted, I saw the power of Occupy Boston. It may be driven from where it has been occupying tonight, but the space of Dewey Square will forever be known as the site where Occupy Boston occupied for months.
Now, here’s a photo set to view from Occupy Boston as we wait for Occupy Boston to take one more stand for economic equality and justice in America, one more stand for First Amendment rights in America.



113 Comments








God bless and good luck, patriots! I am very proud of the Occupation and their fight for all of our rights and calling well deserved attention to the depredations of the 1%. I am equally appalled and disgusted with the non-democratic city governments we have all seen in the last few weeks, which have uniformly displayed their disdain for the late and much lamented Bill of Rights.
Stay safe, people!
GA going on now. Valuable items, including the library, have been moved to safe locations around the city.
“Hey Menino — this is what democracy looks like! Hey Menino — this is what free speech looks like!”
“This is not over.”
Sage’s Tiny, tiny, home.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/firedoglakedotcom/6478806965/in/photostream
quite tiny
I’m trying to get the meaning out of that ruling. I think the judge made a big, big Boo-Boo. Under his framing the Wall Street Bull and any signage that occupies public space is illegal.
You know I love you, but I think you’re making a leap of logic with that argument that can’t be sustained, i.e., such materials are usually on private property. I think the real point to focus on is the right to peacably assemble in a public space.
Nothing will happen at midnight — it would be too easy for the local news to just extend their 11pm news coverage of it. They’ll wait until 2-3 AM, maybe even 4, before they pull out their thug tactics and go bust some heads. That way, the live news crews are gone, and all that’s left are a bunch of cell phone cameras that can’t pick up good photos in the darkness of night.
May the full moon glow with a brilliant glare tonight, and may there be no clouds to get in the way. I have no doubts that what goes on tonight will be worse than what happened when the police first arrested hundreds at OccupyBoston, when they tried to open up an expansion to their camp.
I desperately wish I could be there tonight /sigh.
It a long hard road but the first steps are far behind now.
And in the end we shall overcome, the glossy film that covers the fascist police state has been torn asunder never to be hidden again and that is most important.
The traitors are self identifying themselves, to be dealt with at a later date.
We will not forgive, we will not forget another wave is coming.
I’m not a legal expert like all of you esteemed Paper-Chasers. But it seems to me that speech and assembly do not require tents and cots and teeny tiny yurts. No one has stopped the speech, just the establishment of semi-permanent living quarters on land that is not owned by the protesters. What would the OWSers do if the Tea Party or the DNC decided to take over “their” space to plant their own flag?
I could be making a leap. I just see that they removed Grey Water and other structures across the country saying that was not free speech. The bull on wall street is in public sidewalk space.
Normally I would agree with you. However, for years now people have protested in front of the White House, called and written their representatives and even sent letters to the President. When grievances are not addressed, in fact ignored then larger more drastic means are necessary.
Legally speaking they would have to allow them to “occupy” the space too. I am not sure that they would try to drive them away. Of course, it would depend on how these hypothetical members of the Tea Party or DNC treated Occupy Boston participants.
When people have lost their jobs to outsourcing, and can’t earn a living wage under any circumstances, and they’ve lost their homes and money via financial fraud by the one percent, then Speech and Assembly do require tents cots and yurts.
The Constitution does not offer a greater level of protection in times when “drastic action” is required.
Well, the Declaration of Independence does!
I was addressing only the private space leg of your argument. I think the public space part is different, but could be viewed as a govt-approved action for public benefit; in any event, the commercial uses seemed to be the focus of your point.
The OWSers can’t “allow” the Tea Pertiers to occupy anything. They don’t own the space anymore than the Tea Party does. So how they treated OWS does not come into the equation.
It’s well-argued law that governments can require permits when groups want to assemble, march, picket, etc. Why is that not an abridgment of free speech?
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
The DOI does not permit or protect anything. It is a statement of grievances and a political manifesto. There is not a single right granted in that document.
They would probably be granted use of the space with no problem, as long as they advocated for the the interests of big business and ultrarich.
Shouldn’t there at least be an honest discussion of what the time limits, if any, would be on a peaceful assembly? Plus, under the equal protection clause, is it not incongruous that corporate money speech can take place indefinitely on a 24/7 basis?
The Tea Partiers did occupy the Washington Mall with their lawn chairs. Nobody said anything to them about it. The only uproar over their events were due to them bringing guns and ammo. Oh, and stomping on bystanders.
“granted”, huh? OWS has nothing to “grant”
Yes, the commerical side because of the wording the judge used and his reasoning. I won’t argue it anymore. It just appeared to me that he was walking a fine line between public space that is privately owned, yet commercially known for other reasons.
For 60 days?
See, it’s this spurious reasoning that makes the rest of the argument wholly suspect. The tea party sat on their lawn chairs for an afternoon, therefore I should be able to move in to Zuccotti Park.
I am trying to discuss with you and understand your point of view.
Can you clarify and elaborate on what is or should be in your opinion of peaceful protest and regress of grievances?
But don’t you think that flies into the face of public spaces being privately owned?
I said I am not the legal eagle you are so equal protection argument is blah blah blah to me.
Where are you saying that 24/7 corp speech is taking place?
Commercial signage is usually on private property, isn’t it? Don’t take me as an expert on the First Amendment, I’m not, I just know what every law school teaches, plus what I read with the background I have for legal analysis. I never litigated Constitutional cases, so I’m no expert. But the public space vs. private property distinction is a key factor.
Most billboards along the highway are on public lands. The Huge Signs of Giant Corps hangout and reach far into public space.
Citizens United case gave corps the right to unlimited money speech. The equal protection clause is in the 14th amendment, the same one that allegedly creates corporate personhood.
He didn’t say that. I did. However, I did ask you a few questions above.
They are paying rent to whoever controls the property. Commercial speech is an entirely separate category from political speech. OWS is about political speech.
The OWS movement thus far has called attention to many of the problems confronting us. But it now appears the encampments will all be broken up. I fear that is not good as the focus necessarily changes. If it were summer, they may be able to hold on since there would be more of them.
For the sake of argument,Council. Didn’t Citizen’s United put an end to line drawn in the sand of commercial versus political?
Lines. Excuse me.
I wouldn’t think so. It was about a corporate PERSON’s right to free political speech. Please don’t think of me as “counsel,” I have not practiced law for a couple decades now. rc will do just fine.
Hugs!
Where did spoons go?
I guess since free speech cannot be practiced on sidewalks, court house lawns, or parks cities will need to redraw property lines to allow for right of ways.
Not sure if this was posted here yet, but the Miami model of crowd suppression tactics is finding a welcome reception overseas.
It has been posted before, but thank you for bringing to view again. Not everyone sees what is posted at the Dissenter.
Back at you, PP. Unless I miss my guess, “spoons” is researching the equal protection clause and Citizens United lol. I don’t mean to seem pedantic when discussing these issues, I’m just trying to convey that you really need to have some expertise to be sure of yourself, because the cases are very fact-specific and the reasoning can be extremely complex. People spend their entire careers just doing First Amendment cases. All Constitutional issues require some expertise if you want to be sure of your conclusions. And even then you can’t be sure.
Ran off with the dish again I suspect ; )
Yeah, but the over-reach in rulings is just making my head spin.
LOL!
Hiya, Phred! How are you doing these days? I haven’t had the great opportunity to read any of your posts lately.
Oh, welcome to FDL. You’re going to make the comments threads of posts interesting. So thank you.
I don’t think this particular ruling will survive very long. Some of the commenters above did a very good job of pointing out the flaws in it. The high court in Mass, the Supreme Judicial Court, has always been a pretty good court.
I don’t think it will either. Oh well, the lawful arguments caused a few spoons to jump over the moon with the Holy Cow.
And those OWSers can stay up 24 x 7 and yell their little hearts put. They can’t pitch tents. So what?
The key words and phrases used by this Mcjudge in her opinion are chilling when the question was about Free Speech and Public Space.
siezure of land
tresspass
hostile action
possesion against rights of true owner
Which public spaces are privately owned? No such thing
Zucotic Park would be one example. Oh yeah, and they have failed to pay their property taxes. The city of New York has also failed to place a tax lein on them.
Nope, putting my kid to bed. I don’t know where CU says that corporations can pitch tents on public property for unlimited amounts of time anymore than a private citizen can.
Don’t confuse the facts by bringing up CU. that may be what OWS is protesting but it does not govern the occupation of public space by protesters and that being a first amendment issue.
Hiya PeasantParty : ) I’m fine, just buried under a mountain of work, so precious little time to hobnob on-line. Still, I’ve been trying to keep an eye on all things OWS and try to keep up over at the News Desk so I’m not entirely clueless, just quieter than normal ; ) Couldn’t resist a joke though with the opening you gave me ; )
Zuccotti is privately owned space that the owners have granted (see how that word takes on meaning when it is the rightful owners doing the granting?) to be used by the city. And if they have not paid their taxes, foreclose. I don’t care. But that does not grant (see that word again) OWS some special right to use the space.
Never been to Boston in December I take it?
Question:
Where are people to protest when they are removed from the sidewalks, have entire streets blocked from their access, cannot stand on court house lawns, etc?
Just where exactly is that Freedom of speech and assembly supposed to take place?
You know I am all about the funny. Joke anytime, friend!
Go read Givethemspoons’ comment history (especially this one) and you should see where he/she/it is coming from. Sounds like somebody from a right-wing think tank checking out the lay of the land before dropping off some Frank Luntz talking points along with calculated provocations.
No one said they cannot protest! They cannot set up cities on public property and justify it as speech any more than I can set up a tent on Main Street because I want to sell cookies and lemonade and call THAT legally protected speech.
Good to see you PP, gotta call it a night though… Hopefully I’ll be around more before too much longer…
He/she/it doesn’t care, he/she/it’s just here to troll. Check the comments history and then ignore it.
That’s right. You can’t come up with a coherent argument against my stance on the issue, so my other beliefs will somehow minimize their validity.
You have no leg to stand on in this issue. No one can build a tent city on property they do not own or have a right to occupy and call it free speech. Period.
In Free Speech Pens with chain link and barbed wire that’s where.
I liked that last one but thought it had been modded out. I was in fact reacting to being called an a-hole by some of the regulars on those site. So what?
Ironic, that modding, given we are on a site so dedicated to free speech.
Yes! Somebody did say that could not protest!
Bloomberg blocked Wall Street, then ran them off the sidewalks everywhere they went. He even blocked them and forced them into driving lanes on the bridge! They came from all over the US to protest at Wall Street. They were blocked from walking up and down the street by Bloomberg’s private Army!
WHOA!
I asked you two questions way up thread. I was trying to get you to clarify your point of view. Don’t go there with Phoenix Woman.
Walking up and down a STREET? You mean where CARS are driving? Gosh, I guess that lemonade stand on Main Street really never will happen after all.
That would be a commerical enterprize. Not the right to assemble.
Under our present regime you are correct spoons. That is why this Movement is about taking action not asking for permission. Revolutions are not made by begging the PTB for concessions.
So many posts, so little time. My argument is that NO group of people can OCCUPY property they do not own, plant structures, prevent others of a different viewpoint from enjoying that property, and justify it by saying they are practicing free speech. They cannot clog streets, cause traffic jams and disrupt local businesses as a way of airing their grievances and call it free speech.
Capische?
Ok, give away cookies in a bag with my capitalist manifesto written on the outside.
Under our present constitution, not regime.
Wake up spoons this is about those little spoons you just put to bed.
You have no idea what is in our present Constitution. Oh, I capishe what you are all about there. You refuse to capishe the evidence in front of you.
Let’s see if we can agree on somethings.
Are you upset over the bailouts?
Yes
Really? Their lemonade stands and “libraries” can’t be put up in the city park?
Never say “no one.” I think you have not heard of MERS, fraud in the foreclosure market, and fraud in the mortgage backed securities market.
Banks claiming for themselves houses without producing documentation proving ownership, etc.
I missed the MERS tent. Was it next to the ” why do you have to reach for idiotic, irrelevant comparisons when you realize you are losing the argument”" hut?
You’re not really that simple are you spoons?
Have we been hyjacked and transported to The Jersey Shore?
Gandhi being removed for safekeeping. Hundreds at Dewey Square.
http://www.peaceabbey.org/2011/10/occupy-boston-globe-how-did-we-get-a-statue-of-gandhi/
GA proposal to clear the camp without a fight failed after a block. Impassioned speeches on both sides, and John Ford the proposer stormed off site. Working plan is to defend the camp. NLG gave pre-arrest briefing. Brass band playing, people dancing.
There is nothing irrelevant there. Protests against Wall Street for occupying homes they cannot prove ownership of and throwing the people in those homes into the streets is the same thing. Like I said above, you can’t comprehend the reality.
No I am rather complex and focused on the argument at hand. No one yet has been able to show how the first amendment guarantees a group – any group – the right to take over property not their own , occupy it for extended periods of time, prevent others the fre and reasonable use of said property, disrupt local commerce and traffic, build encampments on said property, and call if free speech.
We’ve already told you! They encamped in the park after being blocked from protesting on the sidewalks and corners!
I’m fine with the protests though I disagree that it is all wall street’s fault. But the protesters’ freedom of speech does not extend to occupying public property.
And they were free to protest in the parks UNTIL they decided to make it a permanent home!
It is Wall Street’s fault. All of it. They have bought any government representative and crush any agency of oversight. It is their fault. They placed an Economic Hit on this country.
They are more criminal than any group of people camping in a Park!
You know, PP, we probably agree on a lot wrt the bailouts, the concentration of political power in Washington’s oft-corrupt beltway, and the fact that the middle class is shrinking away. But don’t dilute the power of that message by claiming that OWS is somehow guaranteed by the first amendment to set up shop on a semi-permanent basis on public property. It’s intellectually dishonest and makes the rest of the argument seem incoherent
What part of Wall Street Occupying our Government, our real estate, and our economic functionality do you not get?
Civil disobedience is not about asking permission to camp and abandoning the plan after being told no.
The people doing this are prepared to be arrested for their beliefs, just as people who dared to ride in the front of buses or sit at lunch counters were arrested or in some cases killed.
Also, I would point out that the proposition that this is not free speech has not yet been fully litigated. In Boston there is one trial judge who has made a ruling, and I see that some of the legal minds on this board and elsewhere do not agree with it. There are other cases pending. May I ask where you went to law school?
Never did go to law school. You?
The part between “tents in Zuccotti park” and “first amendment”
Iagree that it’s not all Wall Streets fault just mostly their fault and that’s why they are the symbol of corruption.
Inconvienence may be the cost of freedom but that is a small price to pay.
Do you have some personal reason for not wanting to blame Wall Street for most of our problems?
I don’t even care if it is legal anymore. We no longer have a just legal system. What matters is that people are in the streets. People are just not going to take it anymore.
Was it legal for banks to gather up mortgages, divide them 30,000 times and sell it as a growth investment? NO! Was it legal for our government to pay them for their mess? NO! Is it legal for them to continue ownership after we paid for them? NO!
Other than the fact that wall street by and large does not foreclose on people who are paying their debts in accordance with the mortgage agreements they freely and knowingly signed? Other than the fact that every person in congress is there as the result of a freely-contested, legal election in which every eligible American had a chance to participate? Other than the fact that I think it’s specious to blame wall street and the 1% for my personal economic failings (just as I don’t give them credit for my personal economic successes)?
No, that about sums it up
Is your name Rush?
Have we been playing, Who is the guest or What’s my line?
You need to actually read Citizens United to understand that the rationale is that spending money is the only way they can express themselves. For poor and homeless OWS people, assembling peaceably and staying assembled is the analogous right. Now, read an article about the equal protection clause, which is the very clause that the courts say gives corps the rights of a person, including any right to free speech or expression. Then, we’ll talk. It’s not my job to educate you about the issues you want to discuss, but I’ll be happy to discuss them with you if you’ve done your homework and there is some chance we won’t both be wasting our time and energy.
Again spoons you can’t be that simple. If you made your economic success in that arena you know the how the system works.
This isn’t about personal success or failure it’s about the corruption and near distruction of our economy and Democracy.
Who is to blame then? Who should take responsiblity?
You are full of SheeeIT! I will never blame myself for the actions of the government nor the banks that destroyed this country.
I’m glad the 9 foot tall Gandhi statue will be safe.
According to the article in The Boston Occupier (Issue 1 November 18, 2011) the Gandhi statue was a donation by The Peace Abbey of Sherborn, MA–initially to the lobby of Goldman Sachs’ Boston office on October 28, 2010 “as a reminder of greed’s corrosive impact on our world.”
Goldman Sachs, however, rejected Gandhi– so The Peace Abbey of Sherborn, MA took him home until October 2011 when the abbey’s founder and director Lewis Randa heard about Occupy Boston and had Gandhi relocated to Dewey Square. Gandhi has been the meeting point for several of the Occupy Boston working groups during the past 2 months.
Responsibilty falls at the doors of the two entities I mentioned above. They should own it and correct it.
End of Story.
I was not quite correct in believing that he is offsite — Gandhi has apparently been moved over to the corner where the library tent used to be.
Excellent news!
According to the Boston Occupier (Issue 1, November 18, 2011), “An inquiry by the Boston Herald prompted inspectors to visit the encampment during the last week of October, with a followup visit last Friday [November 11, 2011], to ensure that all food and medical services were up to code.”
[snip]
“They were kind of nice,” said Frank, a chef who has been volunteering at the food tent for several weeks. “After a couple minutes it was clear they didn’t want to be the media’s tool to take us down.”
Since ‘deteriorating sanitary conditions’ was the reason Mayor Menino claimed for asking OB to disband, perhaps he was visited by a One Percenter task force with marching orders similar to the Boston Herald when it descended on the city health inspector.
bostonoccupier.com had two print editions: Issue 1 November 18, 2011
and Issue 2 December 4, 2011.
Those two print editions are available for viewing online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73464091/The-Boston-Occupier-Issue-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74856035/The-Boston-Occupier-Issue-2
in addition to online editions
Good to hear. Hope he keeps watch over the banks encircling Dewey Square (Bank of America, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston).
What a shame to see OWS abandoned by the once great city of “Bastin”. The people there were once “wicked smatt”. Long gone is the memory and soul of Bobby Kennedy, replaced by corporate tools like Menino, who have forgotten where they came from.
Have it your way. it’s much more fun to bloviate blindly than to actually get familiar with the facts of the things you are bloviating about, isn’t it?