If we redefine it enough.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of expression, but what is freedom of expression? Is it the ability to have one’s opinions’ stated without the fear of prosecution or an ability to frame one’s thoughts and feelings in any form desired?
#Occupy Boston obtained a temporary restraining order against possible removal on First Amendment grounds. (Via Instapundit.) I’m not a lawyer, and, frankly, I’m intimidated by the legal talk. I understand there is a long history of American jurisprudence separating speech from criminality, but, the Boston court is not so sure, and the supporters of OWS can be quite adamant too. Plus, occupiers are… err… exploring “alternative forms of protest”. If camping out in the middle of a large city is constitutionally protected speech because that’s how the occupiers fancied to express themselves, then why not moving into the residences of the 1%? After all, they are already taking over real estate.
#Occupy’s real life assaults on personal property are well-known. For instance, they recently decided to squat in a vacant school building in DC. And in Oakland, the occupiers blocked the access to the port and several banks — all to make a statement. If said protesters move to redistribute the wealth stored in the bank they vandalized, that would be pretty persuasive.
R.S. McCain makes a point that disrespect for personal property has consequences. A young lady found herself assaulted by a fellow occupier, and Mr. McCain comments:
Celebrations of sociopathic tendencies — and demonizing wealth is sociopathic — tend to attract maladjusted deviants[.]
A crime against property is a crime against an individual.
It can get worse, theoretically at least, if one is interested in articulating his view of the world by murdering an old lady and her sister. Sure that was fiction, but lefties are known to name their terror groups after Dostoyevsky’s fiction, and offing, say, an mini-van driving suburban mother of 5 is a pretty pervasive argument in favor of green living.
Gutter Marxists do not feel themselves bound by the ordinary sense of morality. Armed by hand-me-down Communist theory, they feel free to do as they wilt — because they are the representatives of the 99%. Lenin felt that dictatorship of the proletariat (and its vanguard, the Communist party) was necessary to nurture socialism and unleashed the reign of terror. It’s not going to happen here, but the occupiers obviously feel themselves above the law.
And why not? If any commercial transaction and possibly non-transaction is interstate commerce (h/t DH), then any action is freedom of speech.