Occupy Boise wins permanent injunction protecting tent laden protests!

https://acluidaho.org/occupy-boise-victorious-again-in-ongoing-battle-to-protect-free-speech-on-the-capitol-mall/

The Santa Cruz ACLU should try following the example of the Idaho ACLU!

Maybe Idaho has better lawyers? Better judges?

i don't see how they distinguished this case from Clark v. RCNV. How were the grounds maintained with tents in the way? On the other hand, G's sleep protest with no daytime occupation never interfered with maintenance.
G got a 2 year sentence for sleep protesting on 3 nights.

NO JUSTICE IN SANTA CRUZ

"Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the National Park Service's regulation which specifically prohibited sleeping in Lafayette Park and the National Mall. The Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) group had planned to hold a demonstration on the National Mall and Lafayette Park where they would erect tent cities to raise awareness of the situation of the homeless. The group obtained the correct permits for a seven-day demonstration starting on the first day of winter. The Park Service however denied the request that participants be able to sleep in the tents. The CCNV challenged this regulation on the basis that it violated their First Amendment right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_v._Community_for_Creative_Non-Violence

The often argued problem with Clark v. Community For Creative Non-Violence is the court 'assumed without deciding' that sleep was expressive conduct.

The Idaho court stated explicitly that sleep was expressive conduct, and appropriate when used at a traditional public forum. The Idaho court also stated explicitly that bans via the time, place, manner loophole were OK. Apparently Idaho will allow 24 hour 'tent city' protests as long as no one is in the tents, sleeping or otherwise.

I guess that means corporations are people, (empty) tents are protest, and poor people can drop dead (with daily encouragement). Another empty Amendment, that 1st.

See also:

Watters et al v. Otter et al.
Occupy Columbia v. Haley
Occupy Nashville v. Haslam
Occupy Fresno v. County of Fresno

FYI, the Board of the Santa Cruz Chapter of the ACLU is all volunteers and has no legal staff of any kind. Like all ACLU Chapters, the Santa Cruz Chapter cannot and does not file lawsuits. That is handled exclusively by the ACLU affiliate in SF. The Santa Cruz Chapter can and does ask the affilite to get involved in local cases, which it did with the amicus brief the affiliate filed that helped get charges dismissed against some of those who occupied the bank.