This is not a protest, not a demonstration, it's a public outcry for government money when the government can't handle its own money.
Now, I'm going to compare the Occupy "protest" to those of the Civil Rights Movement, and the more I do the more you'll see my point. The Civil Rights Movement featured a purpose, which the Occupy does not. The CRM wanted basic freedom, while (to all appearances) the Occupy protest simply wants money. And as my final point, since I'm typing this last and I'm running out of time, the CRM had unity, that is that regardless of location, the protesters knew what they wanted. The Occupy movement doesn't even know what it wants, so I doubt Wall Street would agree with Cincinnati.
In my opinion, the police have every right to move them, albeit not as forcefully as they have. It's not a legitimate protest, as what they're protesting isn't justice, freedom, or anything even remotely related to human rights. At best, I'd consider it a public gathering. It's terrible what's happened in various places to various people, I won't deny that people sitting around peacefully shouldn't be pepper sprayed, people being arrested shouldn't be abused, etc. But the government protects the right to protest and freedom of speech, not the right to gather where you please.
TL;DR: It should be legal to move the "protesters", but not as forcefully as done here. What they're doing is not a protest, it's asking for money. While they still have the right to voice their opinion, they should not be able to do that wherever they please.
P.S: Here in the states, Bible-Bashing is literally bashing the Bible--it's criticizing, slandering, etc. of the Bible. Bible-Thumping, however, is condemning people to hell for sins, gay marriage, etc. to the point that it induces nausea in bystanders.
Occupy movement's primary goal is far from being "increase the taxes of the rich". It's mostly about the greed the government and corporations have shown in the course of the last decades: "Get the money out of politics". They also want banks to be taken accountable for the crisis they have caused while making profit and passing under the radar.
After that, the movement became big exactly because the initial movement didn't classify itself as communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist, or anything. People saw it was growing, and thus saw a good opportunity to finally have a decent protest where their voice would be heard... and this is where all the different answers you get come from. However, if, instead of asking "What do you want?", you'd ask more specifically what they think about the primary goals of the OWS, you'll most probably end up seeing they all protest for that as well.
What they are protesting isn't justice and human rights? You're going to have to revise all the -facts- that came out of this protest, mostly related to banks.
And in regards to your argument that the OWS movement doesn't know what it wants, you should've searched more as well. I've read about a lot of intellectual gatherings that were brainstorming about fixing the issues underlined by the OWS movement... and if I remember properly, they came up with an "Election Reform Act", and quite a few good other precise solutions. So far, at the very least 3 Occupy movements from the United States were able to be precise enough about what they wanted to have their cities to actually pass different legislations directly related to OWS. Among those, I remember about LA and Cleveland.
None.