temporary security loses every time
Sep. 21st, 2007 12:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aruanIn which I, too, have an opinion about what happened to my former colleague, Andrew Meyer.
Full disclosure: I worked at The Independent Florida Alligator, UF's student newspaper, at the same time Andrew Meyer did. He and I were both part of the paper's Editorial Board, which met weekly to discuss current events and shape the Opinions section. In my experience, he has always been an attention-seeking, self-important douchebag, who is an average writer on his best days.
Do I think he staged his speech? I think he rehearsed it, sure, but he didn't factor in the police reaction. Did his actions warrant Tasing? Not even close, even if he was disturbing the peace, which I disagree with.
Ironically, it's the people inserting Sept. 11 and Columbine and Virginia Tech into their rants who make me want to take up a stun gun. Remember, we're supposed to be afraid! Color-coded charts and the administration's constant fearmongering tell us so! If we're not afraid, if we're not willing to take action when we see any little thing that offends our sensibilities, we are blind and stupid and unpatriotic.
A poster on the Alligator's forum named Jasper summed it up nicely: "Kudos on falling right in line with everyone else who is so afraid of their own shadow that they find solace in censorship and police brutality." I'm with the early colonials on this one.
Yes, Meyer rushed the microphone, cutting in front of other students and after John Kerry said he wouldn't be taking any more questions. That's why the police officers were already standing behind Meyer when he began speaking. Was he rude, loud, long-winded and obnoxious? Yes. Disruptive? Only if you're squeamish.
He was obviously not a heckler or a protester; he asked questions, he was a legitimate participant, even if only at the second Kerry acknowledged him. Maybe if he was allowed to finish, to wind himself down asking the questions, Kerry could've defused the whole thing like he began trying to. The situation escalated because when police stepped in, they were infringing on Meyer's free speech rights, and he got upset, and legitimately so. He was at a public forum, asking a question after Kerry acquiesced to hear him.
The only basis the officers may have had to remove Meyer was that he violated the rule against profanity set by Accent, the UF Student Government's speaker's bureau, and it's not clear who made that call, Accent or the officers. Meyer's microphone was turned off when he said "blowjob" in reference to Bill Clinton's impeachment. Let's not even address whether that's legitimately offensive, just accept that Accent thought it was.
OK, maybe let's address it for a minute. David Rausch posted a reply to a letter to the editor that cited the boundaries of the First Amendment, as established by the Supreme Court: "Free speech is only regulated if it's “inciting a clear and present danger” to the public (Schenck v. United States) and if it is inciting the people to create "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio)." I know Accent makes its own speech rules, but the irony of a speaker's bureau disputing the Constitution on the parameters of free speech is irony that makes my brain hurt.
Anyhow. Meyer was obviously surprised that the microphone was turned off. How are Accent's forum conduct rules publicized, if at all? And how extensive are they? No speaking above a certain decibel, no gesturing? Is the rule that no profanity is allowed even mentioned on Accent-sponsored event paperwork? If that rule was not made known to audience members - yes, politeness should be a given, but if we're having a legal argument about this, if it's not declared, it doesn't count - then Meyer didn't even know he did something wrong until there were police officers pulling on his arms. Ejection is the punishment for a first offense that may not have been known to the offender?
An officer told Meyer something (I couldn't understand her) to the effect of hurrying up or ask the question already, as Meyer responded by asking the officer that he'll finish, kthnx. She was out of line. First of all, he had already begun to ask his questions, but even if he hadn't, what right did the officer have to tell him to hurry it up? When Kerry acceded to answering his questions, why not let him finish? He was waving around a book, not a gun, demanding answers not lobbing threats.
At that point, he was either ejected on Accent's order or deemed to be disturbing the peace by police, whichever version of the story you like. But Meyer, upset that he was not being allowed to speak in a public forum and otherwise by being handled, resisted the officers' attempts, to the point of being wrestled to the ground.
Resisting arrest is one of those charges I'll never understand. Sometimes I see it as the sole charge on an arrest report, and I can't ever wrap my mind around why disputing an officer's use of force, even nonviolently by arguing or pulling away, is a crime, and therefore grounds for search and seizure and whatever else. Here, the police were the ones who escalated the situation, not Meyer. Listen to his voice - he's indignant about being removed, then he offers to walk away when it's clear that he won't be allowed to stay, then he asks the officers not to Tase him. He never even so much as shoved them, just pulled his arms away when they tried to hold him. He kept his hands up, and did at first comply with lying on the ground. There were a half-dozen officers holding him down, if there were a concern about weapons I'm sure it was alleviated by then. When it became obvious to Meyer that the officers were not going to allow him to continue, he offers to walk away. Why not let him go? Why not defuse the entire situation, if there had to be one, by letting him walk away like they wanted him to in the first place? Of course he's going to keep resisting. He doesn't want to be Tasered, he doesn't want to go to jail, he's scared, he didn't think this would get out of hand. They tell him leaving is no longer an option, but why? Because it would make the officers look weak? Was it better that they look like tyrants?
Another poster, Thomas Jenks, said it best: "If Meyer violated a law then he should be prosecuted, but if he violated a law because the police violated his rights, this should be mitigated against Mr. Meyer's actions."
Full disclosure: I worked at The Independent Florida Alligator, UF's student newspaper, at the same time Andrew Meyer did. He and I were both part of the paper's Editorial Board, which met weekly to discuss current events and shape the Opinions section. In my experience, he has always been an attention-seeking, self-important douchebag, who is an average writer on his best days.
Do I think he staged his speech? I think he rehearsed it, sure, but he didn't factor in the police reaction. Did his actions warrant Tasing? Not even close, even if he was disturbing the peace, which I disagree with.
Ironically, it's the people inserting Sept. 11 and Columbine and Virginia Tech into their rants who make me want to take up a stun gun. Remember, we're supposed to be afraid! Color-coded charts and the administration's constant fearmongering tell us so! If we're not afraid, if we're not willing to take action when we see any little thing that offends our sensibilities, we are blind and stupid and unpatriotic.
A poster on the Alligator's forum named Jasper summed it up nicely: "Kudos on falling right in line with everyone else who is so afraid of their own shadow that they find solace in censorship and police brutality." I'm with the early colonials on this one.
Yes, Meyer rushed the microphone, cutting in front of other students and after John Kerry said he wouldn't be taking any more questions. That's why the police officers were already standing behind Meyer when he began speaking. Was he rude, loud, long-winded and obnoxious? Yes. Disruptive? Only if you're squeamish.
He was obviously not a heckler or a protester; he asked questions, he was a legitimate participant, even if only at the second Kerry acknowledged him. Maybe if he was allowed to finish, to wind himself down asking the questions, Kerry could've defused the whole thing like he began trying to. The situation escalated because when police stepped in, they were infringing on Meyer's free speech rights, and he got upset, and legitimately so. He was at a public forum, asking a question after Kerry acquiesced to hear him.
The only basis the officers may have had to remove Meyer was that he violated the rule against profanity set by Accent, the UF Student Government's speaker's bureau, and it's not clear who made that call, Accent or the officers. Meyer's microphone was turned off when he said "blowjob" in reference to Bill Clinton's impeachment. Let's not even address whether that's legitimately offensive, just accept that Accent thought it was.
OK, maybe let's address it for a minute. David Rausch posted a reply to a letter to the editor that cited the boundaries of the First Amendment, as established by the Supreme Court: "Free speech is only regulated if it's “inciting a clear and present danger” to the public (Schenck v. United States) and if it is inciting the people to create "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio)." I know Accent makes its own speech rules, but the irony of a speaker's bureau disputing the Constitution on the parameters of free speech is irony that makes my brain hurt.
Anyhow. Meyer was obviously surprised that the microphone was turned off. How are Accent's forum conduct rules publicized, if at all? And how extensive are they? No speaking above a certain decibel, no gesturing? Is the rule that no profanity is allowed even mentioned on Accent-sponsored event paperwork? If that rule was not made known to audience members - yes, politeness should be a given, but if we're having a legal argument about this, if it's not declared, it doesn't count - then Meyer didn't even know he did something wrong until there were police officers pulling on his arms. Ejection is the punishment for a first offense that may not have been known to the offender?
An officer told Meyer something (I couldn't understand her) to the effect of hurrying up or ask the question already, as Meyer responded by asking the officer that he'll finish, kthnx. She was out of line. First of all, he had already begun to ask his questions, but even if he hadn't, what right did the officer have to tell him to hurry it up? When Kerry acceded to answering his questions, why not let him finish? He was waving around a book, not a gun, demanding answers not lobbing threats.
At that point, he was either ejected on Accent's order or deemed to be disturbing the peace by police, whichever version of the story you like. But Meyer, upset that he was not being allowed to speak in a public forum and otherwise by being handled, resisted the officers' attempts, to the point of being wrestled to the ground.
Resisting arrest is one of those charges I'll never understand. Sometimes I see it as the sole charge on an arrest report, and I can't ever wrap my mind around why disputing an officer's use of force, even nonviolently by arguing or pulling away, is a crime, and therefore grounds for search and seizure and whatever else. Here, the police were the ones who escalated the situation, not Meyer. Listen to his voice - he's indignant about being removed, then he offers to walk away when it's clear that he won't be allowed to stay, then he asks the officers not to Tase him. He never even so much as shoved them, just pulled his arms away when they tried to hold him. He kept his hands up, and did at first comply with lying on the ground. There were a half-dozen officers holding him down, if there were a concern about weapons I'm sure it was alleviated by then. When it became obvious to Meyer that the officers were not going to allow him to continue, he offers to walk away. Why not let him go? Why not defuse the entire situation, if there had to be one, by letting him walk away like they wanted him to in the first place? Of course he's going to keep resisting. He doesn't want to be Tasered, he doesn't want to go to jail, he's scared, he didn't think this would get out of hand. They tell him leaving is no longer an option, but why? Because it would make the officers look weak? Was it better that they look like tyrants?
Another poster, Thomas Jenks, said it best: "If Meyer violated a law then he should be prosecuted, but if he violated a law because the police violated his rights, this should be mitigated against Mr. Meyer's actions."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: September 21st, 2007 12:48 pm (UTC)That said, everything I've heard about the incident indicates that the police used disproportionate amounts of force, if they should have been interfering at all. It's incredibly disturbing.
Free speech limits are a bad idea, no matter where they're imposed (the classic "fire" scenario excepted, of course).
no subject
Date: September 21st, 2007 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: September 21st, 2007 05:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: September 21st, 2007 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: September 27th, 2007 12:49 pm (UTC)I believe that the rest of campus falls under the rule that university officials do have the right to temper or stop public speech that interferes with the educative mission. UF might have an argument that people came to listen to Kerry, and Meyer was interfering with that by taking a soapbox.
That has little to do with whether he should have been Tased. And I'm not a free-speech lawyer. Thoughts?
P.S. I think the Oxford Dictionary folks should call an emergency session to define whether the word is "Tased" or "Tasered."
no subject
Date: October 16th, 2007 03:08 am (UTC)I see UF's point, and while I take issue with charging him with disturbing the peace, the case can be well-founded for it. But we're right, it has nothing at all to do with the Tasing, which is a question of justifiable use of force. And I'm not an expert on police tactics.
Re: P.S. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES, LIKE, YESTERDAY.