....LOL, I agree that it's clear that the First Amendment doesn't protect such conduct, but I think that such occurrences are intrinsic to New York itself, and not a direct consequence of an occupied park. It's hard to say that people weren't attacked in New York until the "occupy" people came around. In any event, it's not like the "movement" is about raping women and throwing old people down stairs either. You can't advocate collective punishment for random, individual acts.
While the narrator of an old movie did intone that
"there are eight million stories in the Naked City," and it is true that rapes (as well as other more serious crimes) can happen most anywhere, the fact that that these incidents seemed to be accumulating in Zuccotti Park is not something the police -- and even Mayor Bloomberg -- could ignore for long. The "crime hot spot" would have to be dealt with. The same would be true if it were to be noticed that an inordinate number of rapes were happening in a certain secluded area of Central Park, for example. The police, noticing the trend, would definantly take action -- or would when the activists started complaining. The action taken might be different, of course, but it would receive special attention.
And no I am not advocating collective punishment. IF the individuals could be identified they need to be dealt with through the correct judicial process.
However, remember there are other factors present; the public defecation, and other sanitation and health issues, plus the problems experienced by the property owner and even ordinary passersby who need to make way to and from work. They have rights too. I am not advocating that we abrogate rights, but at some point, reality dictates a "balancing" may have to take place. If the protestors' rights cannot be abrogated then why should the property owner's rights be any less sacrosanct?
Now just where this balance happens .... that might be a bit of a sticky wicket ....so I'll leave it at that for now.
