Calling on Mayor Bloomberg to Raid The Occupiers of Bryant Park

Posted by on . 10 comments.

Walking past Bryant Park near Times Square the other day, I was reminded of the free speech double standard that exists between individuals and commercial entities. Since October 27th, the aptly named Holiday Shops at Bryant Park have been hosting an occupation of their own in a  New York City public park. Similar to the former tent encampment of Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park, the Holiday Shops are made up of semi-permanent booth structures that are powered by generators and remain on the parks premises 24/7.  Furthermore, this occupation has a skating rink (sponsored by Citi Bank) installed in the center of what would regularly be a grassy field, a charity Coat Drive that lasts until December 31st, and, lest I forget, they don’t have to worry about a people’s library because there’s a public one next door.

The Holiday Shops At Bryant Park

Anyway, the reason why I’m bringing up this seasonal holiday market is not to denounce profitable partnerships between municipalities and private commercial interests, but rather to point out the batty and inconsistent standards in which New York City, under the governance of Mayor Bloomberg, has dealt with the issue of free speech on public space. While the two-month Occupy Wall Street demonstration faced eviction at the hands of a militarized police force because they dared to remain on public space without institutional backing, the Holiday Shops at Bryant Parks are given the unfettered ability to sell knick-knacks on publicly owned space because they are supported in their endeavor by large commercial interests.

Comments

  1. JimC146 says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:11 am

    You are drawing a comparison between OWS and this “occupation”. Fine. On a high level, there is a park involved, people involved, generators, and such. Cool so far identical to OWS. So why isn’t Mayor Bloomberg coming in and arresting these people? Double standard? Sure could be, I suppose. Can you think of any other possible reason why they haven’t been kicked out? This is assuming this post is a serious comparison, so I’m treating as such.

  2. nathan says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:45 am

    The point of this post was to draw a distinction between the way the NYPD protects the freedoms of commercial entities versus those of individuals. As I mentioned above, I don’t find fault with municipalities partnering with private interests. The point is that these partnerships and their ability to use public land is taken as a given and never questioned, while the assembly of the OWS protesters at Zuccotti Park was widely condemned and their first amendment rights questioned.
    Further to this point is the fact that the NYPD has been serving corporate interests throughout the past two months. In the case of yesterday’s Day of Action, the NYPD cordoned off access to the vicinity of the New York Stock Exchange and created checkpoints where workers had to show identification to get through. This is a clear example of the Police serving the interests of the banks and not the interests of the individuals protesting. What gives the banks the rights to use a publicly funded police force to preemptively prevent demonstrators from protesting against them?

  3. JimC146 says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Do these vendors in Bryant park have a little thing called “permission”? If so, then they have legal right to “occupy”.

    The reason the NYPD is checking identification is to protect the businesses and their employees safety from actual threats to shutdown the financial district, i.e. the business of trade in this country which has serious implications on commerce and the national economy. Threats like that are taken seriously. This isn’t fantasy football, this is real life. You cannot threaten to physically disrupt commerce and trade, that’s simply not legal, again I know escapes your comprehension, but protesting by chanting nonsense is ok, threatening to infiltrate or occupy or disrupt commerce and trade, not ok.

  4. nathan says:
    November 18, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    —Do these vendors in Bryant park have a little thing called “permission”? If so, then they have legal right to “occupy”.

    Of course they have permission, but that’s not what’s relevent. The question is of who gives permission (what interests do they serve) and who receives permission (what interests do they represent). It is allowable for one group, but not another? Or let me rephrase it to “who receives the most benefits of citizenship?” I don’t remember the constitution saying that one group’s first amendment rights supersede another groups.

  5. JimC146 says:
    November 18, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Did the OWS ask to occupy Zuccotti Park? If not, then your argument is flawed. If they asked and received permission or asked and was denied, then you would have a valid argument, but simply pondering the theoretical when we have the facts in front of us is pointless. OWS did not seek permission, they just did what they want and in doing so, violated the law. Black and white, no special treatment, etc.

    Fair use is a valid point to make but only if it applies and it doesn’t in this case. You have no basis to draw any conclusion of unfair treatment simply because these shops in Bryant Park aren’t being routed by the police. It quite possibly could be that they have permission and are using the park within the guidelines for its use…just maybe.

    If you as a New York resident (if you are) don’t like this then run for City Council, work to designate an open free park where protesters have standing permission to use it for such things. Otherwise, accept the reality that you have to ask permission.

    It is pointless to whine about who gives permission to whom when those who complain about it don’t care to ask for permission in the first place. Once they broke the law in occupying the park without permission and against city ordinances, there is no argument. They are simply wrong. No class warfare, no discrimination, no favoritism. They simply failed to obey the law and the rules and they *must* reap the consequences without astonishment.

  6. Mark says:
    November 18, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    First off, I’m not extremely familiar with New York’s layout, but I understand they were actually only baracading one of the entrances into the exchange, so it wasn’t as though they were shutting down the economy.

    Second, Jim, what do you think would have happened if they had asked permission? Do you think the civil rights movement would have happened if they asked for permission?

    I think it’s incredibly naive to think this is a matter of public park camping violations and who get’s permission. This is bigger than these petty points, this is about the degree of protection afforded by the first ammendment, and it warrants serious examination. While I agree with Jim that there are limits to first ammendment rights, the message that is being sent by mayor Bloomberg is that the inconveninces created by the delivery of OWS’s message outweighs their right to deliver it.

    We need to ask ourselves how much we are willing to allow first ammendment rights to disturb the peace and we cannot pretend that it is just the physical presence of the protestors that is disrupting the peace. You can draw your own conclusions but I am always going to err on the side of supporting free speech.

  7. Peter says:
    November 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    Just a quick note-

    Nathan, you are right on target. I think it’s worth questioning this apparent dis-similarity

    Jim, park rules all over the country have been changed after OWS. This is just another tactic of police and municipalities to crush people from expressing themselves

  8. tracy says:
    November 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/11/ydanis_rodrigue.php

    he can become a city councilman and will still get beat up by the police

  9. nathan says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Did the OWS ask to occupy Zuccotti Park? If not, then your argument is flawed. If they asked and received permission or asked and was denied, then you would have a valid argument, but simply pondering the theoretical when we have the facts in front of us is pointless.

    I don’t know how much longer I am going to continue with this, but you still aren’t getting the point. It’s not about whether either group followed the rules or received permission. It’s about the status quo and contrasting the multi-month usage of public space by commercial interests against the OWS encampment. One group goes about unquestioned while the other’s rights and motives are contested and challenged by city officials who have repeatedly said that they should not be in the city and not ever be allowed to stage an enduring and persistent protest.

    What Mayor Bloomberg has made clear from his words and his actions is that freedom of assembly and free speech are allowed, but not overnight, and most certainly not for the OWS demonstrators (That’s the reason why the NYPD went in in the dark of night…). Since this is the case, why are commercial interests unquestionably allowed to takeover public space and use amplified speakers to blast Sinatra tunes for 6 hours a day? (and if you can’t detect a slight bit of sarcasm in the previous sentence – or my original post – and are going to take it for face value than don’t respond.)

  10. Cory says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Reached your blog post through AOL. You know I will be signing up to your rss feed.