Tasered student incident maybe not what it appeared?

wait a minute... (5.67 / 3)

I'm still allowed to blame John Kerry for not jumping off the stage, tearing his shirt off and beating the cops to death with his Italian loafers, right?

Because even if this kid totally planned this whole thing, repeatedly ignored police warnings and was openly trying to cause a dangerous situation, all in the hope of grabbing 15 minutes of fame, I'm still holding John Kerry personally responsible for not using his Super Duper Special Senate Powers that give him authority over all American law enforcement officials.

Though let's all remember that this is an AP story and the AP is big-time MSM so this is probably just a cover story concoted by a cabal of Skull & Bones members, Opus Dei and Turd Blossom.

---

by: lola @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 23:07:17 PM CDT

my take (5.33 / 3)

is that his asinine sense of humor is beside the point if the police/security tazered him unnecessarily.  any word on if he faked being tazered while pinned to the ground?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 23:30:13 PM CDT

well... (5.75 / 4)

I'm not a fan of the tasering but the possibility that Meyers intended to be as disruptive and camera-friendly as possible does seem to bolster the whole resisting arrest angle. As it was termed on daily kos by one poster- instead of suicide by police, it was spotlight by police.

Knowing that the cameras, including his own, were on him, it seems likely that he wanted to put on as good a show as possible which in his mind may have included flailing and causing the biggest, loudest, most Action News Story at 11 worthy scene when the cops did intervene (as he knew they would according to the numerous published reports).

Isn't going to a public event with the full intention of creating a disruption and disobeying the established rules the very definition of disturbing the peace?

And honestly, what if some other kids had jumped in and physically confronted the police? Another kid ends up tased or worse just so this dork can get on YouTube.

---

by: lola @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 23:55:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But you can't dissect the "resisting arrest" part... (0.00 / 0)

before asking why was he arrested? Because he ran on too long? His mic was cut off, then the officers started pushing him out. Only then did he begin to "flail."

---

by: bostonbound @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 00:10:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

his mic was cut off... (0.00 / 0)

because he used profanity (I'm guessing blowjob). That was what the chairman of ACCENTS, the UF group that organized the event, stated. ACCENTS has a policy of no profanity and from what I've read in several sources, the audience was informed before the program began of that policy.

As someone that is well known at UF for hogging mics and going on diatribes at public events, Meyers was warned before entering the auditorium, while inside (along with the entire audience), after he barged to the front of the line and started screaming that he had listened to Kerry's crap for two hours and who knows how many other times that if he used profanity, his mic would be cut and he would be removed.

 

 

---

by: lola @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:46:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Profanity is not constitutionally unprotected. (0.00 / 0)

And it doesn't matter who sponsors the event, as the auditorium is a public forum. As such, any restrictions must be content-neutral. Cutting a mic off after the speaker said a word that is constitutionally protected is not content neutral.

---

by: bostonbound @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:05:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's not true at all (0.00 / 0)

And it doesn't matter who sponsors the event, as the auditorium is a public forum.

The auditorium might not even be a limited public forum if someone contracts with the university for its use.  The contractor controls the event.

---

by: raj @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:21:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What was the purpose of the event? (0.00 / 0)

Was it open to the public? Or was it rented out for dress rehearsals?

---

by: bostonbound @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:30:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So what if that last bit is true? (6.00 / 1)

That doesn't change the fact that the police infringed on his right to speak freely, and they did so before he started to "incite a riot." The First Amendment doesn't hinge on whether the speaker is trying to pull a stunt or not. That "last bit" doesn't change the fact that Kerry was silent in the face of police aggression and the suppression of free speech. Otherwise, if that last bit was true and was of consequence, then Kerry and the cops would have to have been in on the joke. How likely is that?

---

by: bostonbound @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 00:20:35 AM CDT

I'm sorry, but.. (5.00 / 2)

I don't see that there is any more a free speech issue in this case, than I saw a free speech issue in the case at Columbia University.  As to the latter, I'm referring to(the protest against the speech of the head of one of the anti-immigrant groups.

It has long been the case that government can place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech.  The example I frequently use is that you don't have the right to go down a residential street at 3AM blairing you speech at 300dB.  I don't know who invited Kerry to speak at the university or who arranged for the use of the auditorium, but whoever did had the right to control the proceedings there and then.

If the disruptor wanted to blather on with his speech, after having asked the one question (apparently) that was allotted him, he could have arranged for use of the hall and done so.  Or go outside and blather on.

There is no free speech issue here.  The disruptor obviously wanted to dominate the question-and-answer period, and that should not be permitted--and, further, that is why he was arrested for disorderly conduct.  Whether or not he should have been tasered is a separate issue.

---

by: raj @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:26:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your time-place-and-manner analysis is flawed. (0.00 / 0)

Time, place, and manner restrictions must be content-neutral. This was anything but. The speaker's mic was cut off after he used the word "blowjob" - which, while it may be profane, is not an obscene or otherwise constitutionally unprotected word. It doesn't matter who sponsored the program, as the auditorium is a public forum.

---

by: bostonbound @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:53:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Content neutralitity is indeed an issue, but... (0.00 / 0)

...who arranged for, and presumably paid for, the use of the space for Kerry's speech is also an issue.  The fellow could arrange for the use of the space for his own diatribes on a non-discrimatory basis.  Time, place and manner.  Do you have a failure to understand?

Speech anywhere and everywhere at any time, on any topic, at any decibel level is preposterous.  Suppose a student at the college wanted to talk gibberish at 300dB during a lecture; do you really believe that would be allowed as "free speech"?  Don't be silly.

This fellow apparently wanted to dominate the Q&A session, to the exclusion of everyone else.  (I don't have the ability to view the video here in Germany, but as has been reported in other threads here, he bolted in front of the line of other questioners, not even engaging in simple etiquette).  I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.  Perhaps he should not have been tasered; maybe he should have been tranquilized if he refused to comply with police orders to leave, but that tranquilization has its own problems.

---

by: raj @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:14:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Content neutrality is not only an issue, it's THE issue. (0.00 / 0)

I understand perfectly. But your emphasis on who paid and arranged for the space is misplaced. It took place in a PUBLIC auditorium.

And your parade of horribles is unwarranted. We're not talking about a slippery slope of soundtrucks at 3am and gibberish at 300dB. Clearly that could be regulated based on auditory welfare, etc. Non-content-based restrictions. This incident didn't fit the content-neutral paradigm. It's a threshold question.

This isn't about sympathy. It's about rights.

---

by: bostonbound @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:26:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Content neutrality is indeed important, but... (0.00 / 0)

...and there's always a but, the "content neutrality" need not be observed at any one specific event.

Preliminarily, from what I have read, the fellow barged to the front of the question/comment line, which, in itself, was disruptive and probably warranted his removal.

Regarding "content neutrality," I do not know who was sponsoring the event at which Kerry spoke, but the sponsors during the event controlled the auditorium and could have ordered him removed during the event.  Even if the auditorium was public property. 

I'll give you two examples.  One, the South Boston St. Patricks Day Parade is held on a public street--public property.  The organizers have the right to determine who can march in their parade, and can choose to exclude gay groups (marching under their banners).  If the city chose to not allow gay groups to hold their own St. Patricks Day Parade, possibly even over the same parade route, but at a different time, that would violate content neutrality.  Time, place and manner.

Two, the annual gay pride parade through Boston, also on public property.  The organizers have the right to determine who can march in that parade, and can exclude, for example, anti-gay groups.  If anti-gay groups want to have an anti-gay parade at some other place or some other time, and the city refuses to allow them to, that would also violate content neutrality.  Again, time, place and manner.

It would not have violated content neutrality to prevent this disruptor at Kerry's event from speaking at that time and place.  What would have violated content neutrality would be if the university refused to allow him similar access to the auditorium at a different time.

---

by: raj @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 23:27:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

However interesting this is... (0.00 / 0)

..., it is a side point that isn't really relevant to the question of what happened.  For as I explained below whatever the sponsor's or hall's owner's positions are, the actions in question (right or wrong) were content-neutral.  So content doesn't play into an analysis of what happened.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 09:04:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your comment is correct.... (6.00 / 1)

...I seriously do not understand the "free speech" objection.

I do understand the potential objection to the tasering, but those are two separate issues, a fact that some people apparently wish to ignore.

---

by: raj @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 09:18:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is getting tiresome (0.00 / 0)

While the sponsors could have ordered him out during the event, they could have done so only for disruptive conduct - which, assuming they could have done so for the speaker's barging in, once they let him in to answer a question (as they relented after Sen. Kerry implored them to), they could no longer remove him unless he was disruptive yet again. They waived that right. The greater power to remove based on disruptive conduct does not include the power to remove based on speech.

Regarding this point: "Regarding "content neutrality," I do not know who was sponsoring the event at which Kerry spoke, but the sponsors during the event controlled the auditorium and could have ordered him removed during the event.  Even if the auditorium was public property."

I don't know where you get the basis for this. Your parade examples are distinguishable because parades require permits. The permit holder can then restrict who goes on his parade, even if the parade is held in public. The parade is for show, not debate.

An auditorium like this, however, is open to public participation, at a public place. Who ordered the mic to be cut off and the police to push him away and restrain him? The event sponsors? Even if they're a private group, the police conduct is imputed to the university, which is a creature of the State of Florida.

Your view on content neutrality is baffling. It's as if you say that no harm was done as long as the university could have let the speaker use the auditorium at 3 in the morning.

And, even if the restriction was content-neutral, the speech restriction was overbroad and an overreaction. Not a narrowly tailored response. See my post below for more on this last point.

---

by: bostonbound @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:14:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure if this... (0.00 / 0)

... is relevant to what you were addressing with this:  "...the speech restriction was overbroad and an overreaction", but it seems to me that the wanting the guy to stop hijacking the forum by hogging the microphone is not an unreasonable restriction.  The manner in which they acted to enforce this 'restriction' is another matter.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:25:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is largely redundant (0.00 / 0)

Wanting to stop a "hijacking of the forum" - that's why some places have time limits on microphones. That would be a content neutral restriction that is narrowly tailored. We're not sure if this is the case here. We have cops pushing him right after the mic got cut off (why?) and while he was still speaking. Pushing and restraining. Not reasonable and not narrowly tailored.

"The manner in which they acted" is not "another matter" - it's part of the same time, place, and manner restriction. Don't take my word for it - read this case: http://caselaw.lp.fi...

---

by: bostonbound @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:36:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

For by time, place and manner... (0.00 / 0)

... restriction to be content-neutral, you mean that given different content the restrictions would still be justified, then this incident does look content-neutral to me.  From what I gather the principal objection was his self-allotted time at the microphone.  Nobody contested what he was saying until he hijacked the forum by hogging the microphone.  If he did the same thing with different content the result would have been the same. 

All of the above reasoning, of course, does not condone the content-neutral resultant actions by the officers.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:44:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Getting into the constitutioal law thicket (0.00 / 0)

The only way the speech restriction was content neutral is, as you've said, it would have been done with different content - a less ebullient speaker, no use of the word "blowjob." But this is all speculation. You can't say for sure that his mic got cut off because of time limitations, just as I can't say for sure that his mic got cut off because he said the word "blowjob" (or any number of other things he said). What militates in my favor is that the mic got cut off very quickly after he said the word "blowjob," and then the police very quickly moved in to push him away and then restrain him. Which brings up another issue that implicates time, place, and manner. I didn't bring this up earlier because I didn't want us to get bogged down in constitutional law nuances, but here it is: for a content-neutral restriction to be permissible, it must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. US v Grace, 1983. How is pushing and restraining the speaker (not to mention tazering him) a narrowly tailored response to serve whatever government interest they can think of?

You even impliedly admitted the latter by saying, "All of the above reasoning, of course, does not condone the content-neutral resultant actions by the officers."

---

by: bostonbound @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:01:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rule of restriction or manner of enforcement? (0.00 / 0)

"How is pushing and restraining the speaker (not to mention tazering him) a narrowly tailored response to serve whatever government interest they can think of?"

Is that a statement of concern for 'what is a reasonable reasonable restriction?' or for 'what is a reasonable act to enforce a restriction?'. 

Point taken about the blowjob comment though.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:29:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Manner of enforcement is part of restriction here (0.00 / 0)

I'm saying that police restraint and arrest of a speaker who is not being disruptive at that moment is an overreaction (remember, any disruption earlier was waived and cannot be acted upon while he's speaking). In constitutional law language, this is not a "narrowly tailored response" to serve an important government interest - peace and order, etc.

Withregards to your question - the act here of pushing and restraining is not one used to "enforce a restriction" - it's part of the restriction.

---

by: bostonbound @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:42:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In understand, but... (0.00 / 0)

... it makes no logical sense to me.  To link the two is to imply that it is impossible (in any hypothetical situation) to act badly only in the manner of enforcement while acting properly in allowing free speech.  Since I can imagine a hypothetical incident where it isn't impossible (everyone gets 60 seconds to say whatever they want, then when someone goes into 61 seconds we shoot him or her), the association doesn't seem to hold.  Clearly a rule about the time, manner, and place of speech and a rule about what is permissible to do potential violators are separate rules (that relate to each other, but clearly separate).

If the legal opinion can't accommodate that framework, it is probably flawed.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:12:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not that the legal opinion can't accomodate that framework, (0.00 / 0)

it's that the law takes into account broader principles than merely linking together sequenial events. They may seem like separate events if you place them in isolation, but you have to remember what this looks like under the lens of free speech: a guy gets up to speak, and 2 minutes later he is on the ground getting tazered. Is this the kind of America you want to live in? I don't mean that in a polemical sense, but if we dissect each incident and hold apart its constituent moments, we lose sight of the right to speak freely. Letting this incident go without scrutiny or vindication creates an intolerable chilling effect on public discourse. That's what as stake.

---

by: bostonbound @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:33:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But that is my whole point. (0.00 / 0)

"...we lose sight of the right to speak freely"

The actions of the officers only interfered with the right to speak freely in perception, not in fact.  If an officer beat a suspect for actually jaywalking, it wouldn't be a clear violation on the suspect's freedom of movement, it would be a violation of the suspect's right not to be unreasonably beaten when arrested.

"Letting this incident go without scrutiny or vindication..."

I have no intention of promoting that this be 'let go'.  I just want the facts to be clear and linking the behavior of the officers to not unreasonably impinging on the man's speech, clouds the issue of what really happened here.  What happened hear was not that a reasonable man was silenced,... what happened here was a beating.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:54:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perception matters. (0.00 / 0)

The speaker was still talking after the mic was cut off, when he was being dragged away. How is that not a interference with the right to speak freely in fact?

Besides, a beating that occurs right on the heels of passionate dissent looks very suspicious. Whether it interfered with the right to speak in appearance or reality, this incident cannot be analyzed as if it were an ordinary car accident, in which a court would scrutinize the timeline to determine cause-and-effect and would be careful to place liability on a private citizen.  We're talking about the First Amendment here. It looks bad for cops to beat someone on the heels of passionate dissent. It erodes our credibility overseas as a bastion of feedom. I don't see this alternative argument as "clouding the issue." Whether he was just beaten and not silenced does nothing to stop the next person from keeping his mouth shut. And we all lose because of it.

---

by: bostonbound @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 12:22:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK... I'l bite... (0.00 / 0)

If... "It looks bad for cops to beat someone on the heels of passionate dissent", then it doesn't necessarily follow that it is bad "for cops to beat someone on the heels of passionate dissent".  Whether it is becomes a matter of investigation of fact not perception.  Is is suspicious... yes, of course.  But upon further examination, enforcement technique aside, his speech rights were not impinged. 

If you could prove that the enforcement action's harshness was intended to stop the next person from opening his or her mouth, then you could say it was conspiracy to impinge on speech rights.  Again, by all means, be suspicious, but in suspicion investigate fact before pronouncing that the enforcement was necessarily in and of itself a free speech impingement.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---