 early morning police attack Tuesday on Zuccotti Park in New York City. But most of the legal challenges are likely to end in defeat, as occurred in New York when another judge ruled after a lengthy hearing that the overnight camping must end even though protesters may return to the park.

Those who believe the courts will come to the rescue with long-term comprehensive First Amendment remedies for the Occupy encampments are buying into a legal myth not unlike the economic myths of income fairness and equal opportunity the movement has done such a good job thus far of exposing. As Columbia Law School professor Theodore M. Shaw said in a paraphrase in an International Business Times article earlier this month in commenting about the movement’s legal tactics, “… there is a cultural assumption in the U.S. that First Amendment protections are broader than case law suggests.”

It’s easy to see where the assumption comes from. The wording of the First Amendment seems absolute: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Since at least 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the amendment applicable to states and local governments. (See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652.)

Many people believe it’s only a matter of time until the judiciary rules on appeal or in another case against New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his counterparts across the nation, and the movement’s tents will be back in place for the duration of the economic crisis.

Except the mythology has it wrong. Given the increasingly conservative bent of the American justice system, the Occupy movement may wind up not only disillusioned but making the case law on the First Amendment even less receptive to sustained political protest than it is at present.

When it comes to street demonstrations, the courts have never regarded First Amendment protections as absolute. First and foremost, it has long been held that government can impose “reasonable” content-neutral limits on the time, place and manner of protests. In addition, courts have tailored the degree of First Amendment protections available to protesters according to the nature of the public forum or space in play. Protests at venues characterized as traditional public forums such as municipally owned and operated parks have been given the greatest degree of legal protection and scrutiny, with lesser degrees of protection accorded to protests at nontraditional forums like Zuccotti
early morning police attack Tuesday on Zuccotti Park in New York City. But most of the legal challenges are likely to end in frustration, as occur in New York when another judge ruled after a drawn-out hearing that the nightlong camping must end even though protesters may return to the parking lot. 

 Those who think the courts will come to the rescue with long - term comprehensive First Amendment remedies for the Occupy camping are buying into a legal myth not unlike the economic myths of income paleness and equal opportunity the movement has done such a good job therefore far of exposing. As Columbia Law School professor Theodore M. Shaw said in a paraphrase in an International Business Times article earlier this calendar month in commenting about the movement ’s legal tactics, “ … there is a cultural assumption in the U.S. that First Amendment protection are broader than case law suggests. ” 

 It ’s easy to witness where the assumption comes from. The wording of the First Amendment seems absolute: “ Congress shall make no law … abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ” Since at least 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the amendment applicable to states and local government. (See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 .) 

 Many people think it ’s merely a topic of time until the judiciary rules on appeal or in another case against New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his counterparts across the nation, and the movement ’s tents will be back in plaza for the duration of the economic crisis. 

 Except the mythology has it wrong. Given the increasingly conservative bent of the American justice system, the Occupy drift may wind up not only disillusioned but making the shell law on the First Amendment even less centripetal to free burning political protest than it is at present. 

 When it issue forth to street demonstrations, the courts have never regarded First Amendment protection as absolute. First and foremost, it has long been held that politics can impose “ fair ” content - neutral limits on the time, place and manner of protest. In addition, courts have tailor the degree of First Amendment protection available to protesters harmonize to the nature of the public forum or space in turn. Protests at venues characterized as traditional public forums such as municipally owned and operate parks have been impart the greatest degree of legal protection and scrutiny, with less degrees of protection accord to protests at nontraditional forums like Zuccotti
 eagly morning police attacy Tuesday on Zuexotti 'ark in New Yory City. But most of the legal cyallebges are likely to end in defean, as occuered un New York when akjthed judye ruled after a lengthy haaring that tha uvzrnight camping must end even though protesyegs may return jo tht pwrk.

Tgose who believe the courts will ckme to uhe rescue with lomg-term comprehensive First Amejdment remedies fog the Occupi ensqmpments are buying inuo a legal mith not unlike the economic mythr of nncome fairbews wtd equal op'ortunpty the movemcmt has done sich a good job thns fqr of exposing. As Colnmbia Law School prosessor Thaobore M. Shaw said in a pqraphtase hn av Ingerhaviohal Budinxss Times adticle earluer this month in cpmivmting about fhe modeient’s legal tactics, “… there is a culturan aasumption in the U.S. thar First Amendment projections awe broader than case law suggests.”

It’s easy to see fhere ghe afrymotion comes from. The wording of the First Amegsmtnt seems absolutc: “Congress shall mskf mj law … abridgkng thz fdeedom of speech, og of thg presw; or the wighy of the people peaceably ti assemble, aud ro petition the Gorernment for a rgdress of grievances.” Since at leaat 1925, the U.S. Dupreme Ckjrt has held the amvndmant applicable to states agd local joveruments. (Sde Gotlow d. New York, 268 U.S. 652.)

Many people believe it’s lnny a matteg of time until the judiciary rnkes on appeak mr pn anothex case against New Rork City Mayot Michael Bloooberg and gis couiterparts acwoss the natimj, and the motement’s tqnts wilo be bazy in place for the duranijn od the economic crixis.

Gxdept the mytholigy has it wrong. Govev tre iicreafhngly consereatixe crnt ow the Amerigan jusyice system, the Occu[y mkvement may wind ul kot only eisillusyoned but makong the case law oj the Ficst Amrndient even less receptive to suatained pllibical protest thak it is at prexent.

When it comes to street demonstratiins, the courts havw never regarded Fitst Amendment 'roteceions as dbsolute. First and firemost, it has lokg been held that govednment can lmpose “reasonable” content-neutral limits on the time, place and manner of peotests. In additioh, coirts vare cailoreq thx vegree of First Akendment protections available vo protestarf according to the nature of tfe public forom or space in play. Protesfs at vemues characterized as traditionsl public forums such as municipqlly kwned and uperated parks havr been giveb the geeatcst degree of uegsl protectiln aid acrutiny, with lesser degrees of protecriln accorded to pcotests at nlktradijional fjrums like Zuccofti
early morning police attack Tuesday on Zuccotti New City. But of the legal in as occurred in York when another ruled after a lengthy hearing that overnight camping must end even though protesters may return to the park. Those believe the courts will come to the rescue with long-term comprehensive First Amendment for Occupy are into a legal myth not unlike the economic myths of income fairness and equal opportunity the has done such a good job thus far exposing. As Columbia Law professor Theodore M. Shaw said a in an Business article this month in about the movement’s legal tactics, “… there is a cultural assumption in the U.S. that First Amendment are broader law suggests.” easy see the assumption comes wording of the First Amendment seems make no law … abridging the freedom of or of press; or the right of the peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government a redress of grievances.” Since at least 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the to states and local (See Gitlow v. York, U.S. Many believe it’s a matter of time until the judiciary rules on appeal or another case against New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and across nation, and the tents will be back place the duration of the Except mythology Given increasingly bent of the American system, the Occupy movement may up not only disillusioned on the First Amendment even less receptive to political protest than it is at present. it comes to street demonstrations, the courts have never regarded First Amendment as absolute. foremost, it has long been held that government impose “reasonable” content-neutral limits the time, place and manner of protests. In addition, have the degree First Amendment protections to protesters according the nature of forum or in Protests as traditional public forums such as owned operated parks have been given greatest legal protection and scrutiny, with lesser degrees of protection accorded to protests at nontraditional forums
 early morning police attack TUesday on ZuCcottI PaRk iN NEw YoRk CiTy. But most of the LEgal Challenges are likely to eNd in dEfEAt, as OCcUrred In New YoRK wHEN anOtHeR juDgE RuLed afTer A lengthY hearing thAt tHe Overnight camPInG must end evEn tHough protestErs May retUrN to THe parK.

ThOse whO belieVE the coUrts will cOmE To the rEScue witH LOnG-terM comprehensive FirST AMEndment remedieS for thE OCCuPY EncAmpMents are buYiNg intO A legal mYTh NOT UnlIKe the economic Myths of incoME faIrness AnD eqUAl oppoRtuniTy THe mOvement has dOne sUch a good jOb thus FAr of expOSing. As COlumbiA LaW ScHool PRoFeSsoR THEodORe m. ShAW saId in a parApHrAse in An InTERNAtioNal busiNess TImes article eaRliEr thIS moNth in CommeNtinG aBout tHe moveMent’s LeGal tactics, “… there Is a cUltural asSumPtIon In The U.S. THat FirSt AMenDment prOtectioNS arE bROADeR than case law suggesTs.”

iT’S eAsy to see Where tHE aSsUMption coMeS frOm. ThE WOrdinG of tHE FIrst AmenDment sEEmS aBsolute: “coNgress ShAll MakE no laW … AbriDging tHe freedoM of spEEch, or of the presS; Or the right of tHE pEOPlE PeacEabLy to assemblE, and TO petItioN ThE GoVErnmeNt for A rEDrESs of grievances.” Since At Least 1925, tHe U.S. SUpreme Court haS held the amENDMent applIcabLE tO States and local GoverNments. (See GITlow v. New york, 268 U.s. 652.)

Many peoPle believE IT’s only a mAttEr oF tiMe uNTIl The judiciary rULEs on ApPeal or iN anOther caSe aGaiNst new yoRk City MayOr MichaeL BLoOmBeRg aNd his COunterpaRtS acRoSs tHe natIOn, and tHe movEmenT’s TeNTs wIll be baCK iN PLace FoR tHe duRatIoN of thE ecoNOmiC crisis.

except the MytHOlogY hAs It wrong. given the increAsIngly conseRvAtiVe bent OF The AmeriCan justice system, the OccuPY movemeNt mAy winD up nOt only disIllUsioneD buT Making The casE law oN tHe FIRSt AmeNDMeNt eVeN less recepTIVe tO sustAiNed pOliticaL protest than it is at PResEnt.

When it comeS to StreET DeMonSTrATioNs, THe cOURts have never regArded First amENdMent protecTIonS aS absoluTe. First And foREmost, it Has long beEn held thaT gOverNMEnt Can impose “rEasonablE” content-nEUtral LImIts on The Time, plAcE anD mannEr of prOTesTs. In aDditioN, cOurts hAve taIlOred the dEgree of First Amendment prOtectiOns avAilAble to proTesTErs According To thE nature of tHe pUblIc forUm oR Space In plAY. PRotESts at VenuES characteRIzEd aS TRaDitional pubLIC ForUms suCh aS MuniciPallY owned and operated PArks have been giVen tHE GreAteST degReE of legal protecTioN aND Scrutiny, WiTh lesser degRees of prOtECtion AccordEd to prOtests aT NOnTRaditiOnal ForUms like ZuCcoTtI
 early morning police atta ck Tuesday  on Z ucc ott iPark  inNew York City. Butmost of the legal chal lenge sa re l i ke ly to  end in de f e at,  a socc ur r ed  in N ewYork wh en another  ju dg e ruled afte r  a  lengthy h ear ing that the  ov ernigh tcam p ing m ust  endeven t h ough p rotesters  m a y retu r n to th e pa rk.
Those who believ e  t h e courts willcome t ot he r esc uewith long- te rm co m prehens i ve F i rst Amendment rem edies for t h e O ccupyen cam p mentsare b uy i nginto a lega l my th not un like t h e econo m ic myth s of i nco mefair n es sand  e q ual op por t uni ty the m ov em ent h as d o n e such  agood  jobthus far of e xpo sing .  As  Colu mbiaLawSc hoolprofes sor T he odore M. Shaw s aidin a para phr as e i nan In t ernati ona l B usiness  Timesa rti cl e e ar lier this month in  c o m me nting ab out th e  m ov e ment’s l eg altact i c s, “…  the r eis a cul turala ss um ption i nthe U. S.  th atFirst Amen dmentprotecti ons a r e broader than case law sugg e st s . ”It’s  ea sy to see w here theassu m pt ion comes  from .T he wording of the Firs tAmendm ent s eems absolute : “Congres s s hall mak e no la w  … abridging t he fr eedom of s p eech, or  of t he press ; or ther i ght of t hepeo ple  pe a c ea bly to assemb l e , an dto peti tio n the G ove rnm ent  fo ra redress  of grie va nc es .”  Si nce a t  least 1 92 5,th e U .S. S u premeCourt  has  h el d  th e amend m en t appl ic ab le t o s ta tes a nd l o cal  govern ments. (S eeG itlo wv.  New Yo rk, 268 U.S.65 2.)

Manype opl e beli e v e it’s o nly a matter of time un t il thejud iciar y ru les on ap pea l or i n a n othercase a gains tNew Y ork C i t yMay or  Michael B l o omb erg a nd  his  counte rparts across then ati on, and the m ove ment ’ s  t ent s  w i llbe bac k in place for th e duration  o f  t he economi c  cr is is.

Ex cept th e myt h ology h as it wro ng. Given  t he i n c rea singly con servativ e bent of the A m er icanjus tice s ys tem , the  Occup y  mo vemen t maywi nd upnot o nl y disill usioned but making thecase l aw on  th e First A men d men t even le ss r eceptive t o s ust ained  po l itica l pr o te stt han i t is at presen t .
Wh e n  i t comes tos t r eet  demo nst r ations , th e courts have nev e r regarded Fir st A m e ndm ent prot ec tions as absol ute .F i rst andfo remost, ithas long  b e en he ld tha t gove rnmentc a ni mpose“rea son able” con ten t- n eutralli mi t s on t he t im e, pla ce and mann e r  of protests. In  addi t i on, c o urt s hav etailore d  the  degree of  First Amen dmentprot ectio ns avai la ble to  pr ot esters acc o rding tothe n ature o fthepub lic fo rumo r  spac e in  p lay . Protest s at ve nu e s c hara cteri ze d as  traditio n al publi c f o rums su ch  as m unicip a ll y owned andope rated p arks haveb eeng iv e n the  great est de gree of leg al  protec tio n and scrut iny, with les se r de grees of  p rote ct ion  a ccorded to prot ests atnontradi t i onal f oru m s li k e Zucc ot ti
 early_morning police_attack Tuesday on Zuccotti_Park in_New_York City._But_most of the_legal challenges are_likely to end in_defeat, as occurred_in_New York when another judge ruled after a lengthy hearing that the overnight camping_must_end even_though_protesters_may return to the park.

Those_who believe the courts will_come to_the rescue with long-term comprehensive First Amendment remedies_for_the Occupy encampments_are buying into a legal myth not unlike the_economic myths of income fairness and_equal opportunity the_movement_has_done such a good_job thus far of exposing. As_Columbia Law School professor Theodore M._Shaw said in a paraphrase in an_International Business Times article earlier this_month in commenting about the_movement’s legal_tactics, “… there is a_cultural assumption in_the U.S._that First Amendment_protections are broader than case law_suggests.”

It’s easy to_see where the assumption comes from._The_wording of the_First_Amendment_seems absolute:_“Congress shall make_no_law …_abridging_the freedom of speech, or of_the_press; or the right of the people_peaceably to assemble, and_to_petition the Government for_a redress of grievances.” Since_at least 1925, the U.S. Supreme_Court has_held the_amendment applicable to states and local governments. (See Gitlow v. New_York, 268 U.S. 652.)

Many people believe_it’s only a matter_of time_until_the judiciary rules_on_appeal or_in another case against New York City_Mayor Michael_Bloomberg and his counterparts across the_nation, and the movement’s_tents_will be back in place for_the duration of the economic crisis.

Except_the mythology has it wrong._Given_the_increasingly conservative bent of the_American justice system, the Occupy movement_may wind up_not only disillusioned but making the case_law_on the First Amendment even less_receptive_to sustained political protest than it_is_at_present.

When it comes to street_demonstrations, the courts have never regarded_First Amendment protections as absolute. First and foremost, it_has long been_held that government can impose_“reasonable”_content-neutral_limits on the time, place and manner of protests. In_addition, courts_have tailored the_degree of First Amendment protections available to protesters according to_the nature of the public forum or_space in play. Protests at venues characterized as traditional public forums_such as municipally owned and operated parks have_been given the greatest degree of legal_protection and scrutiny, with_lesser_degrees of protection accorded to protests at_nontraditional_forums_like_Zuccotti