Comments on: Free Speech Consequences

By: mike

mike — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:05:04 +0000

That’s priceless Kevin, thanks for posting it here.

Don’t Tase me Bro!

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:22:14 +0000

Now you can get the t-shirt.

http://tinyurl.com/2zdvge

By: mike

mike — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:54:15 +0000

Fair enough Kevin, I concede the point. There is no upside for the students interfering in this situation. Read about the other bogus arrest posted today. This looks to be a trend…

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:17:06 +0000

I think we are talking about two slightly different things. You
are talking about the censorship of the questioner, and we both
agree that was wrong. He was obviously an agitator, but a person
of true character and leadership (which Kerry didn’t show) could
have dealt with him better. Let him rant and ask his multiple
questions, but at some point you, the quesioned, must demand that
you be allowed to answer the questions. If the person asking
questions really wants answers they will listen. But if they just
want to speak and be heard then, and only then, should that person
be removed. The students could have, if they knew what was coming,
created a human shield to protect the student and let him finish
asking his questions.

Now, the situation that I’m talking about is after he was (wrongfully)
detained. The moment has now passed for the students to create
their human shield. Passive civil disobedience can work but actively
interfering with the duties of an officer is dangerous for all.
Unless the cops started beating him with their batons it wouldn’t
be wise for a mob of students to converge on a small number of armed
police officers.

The tasering is the grey area. It’s almost a baton attack. How
much does a crowd allow before stepping in and risking a riot? In
my opinion that moment didn’t occur. Dispite their mistakes, the
situation did diffuse enough down stairs where the tasering stopped
and a large enough crown (with cameras) had gathered to keep things from
escalating.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:23:05 +0000

Kevin, I understand your point and you could well be right.

However, at some point, we all have to stand up and say “not on my watch.” This presumably is all done to “protect” a celebrity from a disturbed audience member. At no point was this student threatening to Kerry, his fellow audience members, or the police. As you say, at least it was documented - but that’s not enough.

I remember during the 2006 campaign for governor that Arnie came to the Sun campus. The audience was screened in advance for that event - it was an orchestrated event and it was clear that no “dissenting voices” would be welcome. That’s the sort of environment we’re working in now and when people do voice dissent, they’re being arrested.

How far do we let this progress? It seems to be so common that people have forgotten that dissent is the most patriotic of activities and that dissenters should be protected not prosecuted.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:17:05 +0000

I agree with everything except your third point. The students should not have interceded. They should have done exactly what the did do: record the event and follow along as much as they could without threatening the officers. Interfering with the officers’ duties would really have escalated the situation. As you noted, they were not well-trained so they might not have responded well. Just the act of recording and observing is enough to keep the situation in check. Something “bad” happened but at that moment the only thing that can be done is to keep it from getting worse. Of course he never should have been arrested, but once he was that bell can’t be unrung. You just need to keep everyone calm until things can settle down.