Police arrest 2 as they evict protesters at Thomas Square

The only complaint against protesters which can, I think, rise to the level of official concern was their obstruction of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the corner. But that was the result of the city's convoluted enforcement, allowing them to remain, provided the occupied that tiny parcel near the corner.

Had the City truly been interested in "public safety" and other legitimate concerns, they would have allowed the encampment to move onto the grass and away from the sidewalk.

Free Speech is an important right which should be accommodated, even when it is sometimes inconvenient. At the same time, there is a legitimate public interest in minimizing health and safety problems. The City was clearly NOT motivated by these concerns or they would have allowed the campers to move away from the street and to use the public restroom after 10pm.

Big surprise. A government agency not encouraging of free speech. Rightwingers on a newspaper's discussion board not supportive of free speech. I am shocked!

I suspect you are mistaken. Either the land in question was part of the sidewalk easement belonging to the City or it was part of the park, belonging to the City. I doubt there is any land there which falls between the cracks and is owned by a third party or by nobody.

The public employees marking out the boundaries were "dotting the 'i's' and crossing the 't's'" in preparation for the eviction. By re-surveying and marking the property boundaries, they were unambiguously establishing their authority to control the use of the property. Activity within the city-owned park could be controlled through use of the park closure law. The dotted lines did not change the boundary lines. They merely helped document the existing authority, both for people being order to leave and as evidence for a trial.

The City Fathers allowed hotels and shopping centers to take over broad swaths of the public land in Waikiki. Portions of land once dedicated to public access as "sidewalks" have been shifted away from the street and onto private property, subject to control by private landowners and businesses. Areas which had been sidewalk are now private planting beds to spruce up the value of the shopping centers, hotels, retail outlets.

So private obstruction of public property is OK when it is for private gain and increased profits for the tourism industry generally. For trivial matters like "free speech" or assembling to petition the government for justice? Not so important.

I agree with you, except I would not limit that right to "Americans." Hawaiians who may not consider themselves "Americans" also have that right, as do legal residents, even non-residents.

The rights to both "free speech" and to "assemble" for political purposes, are fundamental rights under the US Constitution. Therefore, legal restrictions on those rights have to satisfy a stricter scrutiny than restrictions on things like "camping", "loitering," etc. Consideration is also given to "time and place" considerations. Had the protestors linked their free speech activity more closely to the specific place, Thomas Square, their constitutional argument would be even stronger.

The location of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration in New York, for example, can argue that Wall Street itself is a reasonable location for an ongoing demonstration directed at abuses of the corporate elite. For Thomas Square, the argument is weaker. Had the group included Hawaiians, or "local people" in greater numbers, they could make a claim that Thomas Square is a site dedicated to the memory of the pono act of returning Sovereignty to the Kingdom of Hawaii. They could say they are invoking that image in an appeal for a "pono" resolution of growing social inequality which undermines the rights of all of Hawaii's people. A society run without regard for "pono" destroys the rights and happiness of its people.

"Free speech" AND "free assembly" rights should not be disregarded simply because they disrupt people's expectations of "normalcy" or create relatively minor "inconveniences." But few people, despite their protestations about their patriotism and commitment to freedom, actually honor the need for "free speech." Sad, but too true.

Thanks, RuffDiamond! Don't ever get polished. You are too valuable in your rough form!

Allow me to present a new, improved solution to our economic woes:

"Tax the Rick!"