|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:21 am
Okay, this video (or ones like it) has been all over You Tube of this student named Andrew Meyer who was tasered by University of Florida campus police when he resisted arrest for disturbing the peace at a speaking engagement where John Kerry was speaking and answering questions. Quite frankly I am disturbed by the large number of people saying that Andrew Meyer's free speech rights were violated or that he was being censored. Clearly there are many people that don't have a firm grasp of the concept of free speech. Yes, you have the right to express your views but you don't have the right to take over someone else's venue to do it. If anything this might be a police brutality issue (if even that) but really Andrew Meyer could have said what ever he wanted if he chose the appropriate time and place. When the moderator/event personnel started telling him that his time was up and asked him to stop then he should have been respectful of their wishes and stopped. Instead he kept talking and when they turned off his microphone he started shouting sarcastically "Thank you for cutting my mic! Thank you!" and two campus police officers came to escort him from the room one of them calmly saying to him "Stop. Stop." At this point he started to shout and wave his arms and the police eventually restrained him. So why isn't it censorship or a violation of free speech? Well, the government didn't restrict his ability to speak. It was a member of the staff who was helping coordinate a private event which was open to the students that asked him to stop. He had no more right to hog the mic there than he would at a wedding toast or a poetry reading or some other privately run event, open to the public or not.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:32 am
So true. He was given a chance to speak, and as far as I know, he wasn't really censored in any way. ((Thats as far as I know, so forgive me if I'm wrong.)) By hogging the mic, he was actually depriving other people of their right to free speech, as any political canidate has limited time in any one location, and other students had the right to pose questions to Mr. Kerry too. If he felt that he had more to say, he could have asked for an article in the school newspaper, (assuming UF has one, I don't know) or even gone so far as to write it down on a piece of paper, make a few thousand copies, and distribute it. The fact of the mattere is that he was given a chance to make his views and concerns known, and then attempted to deprive others of the same opportunity. Even if this HAD been a government action, it still wouldn't have constituted a violation of his rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to unlimited time to express yourself, just that you have the right to do so. By stepping in, Campus police protected other peoples right to free speech, and did not violate the students own rights in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:45 pm
Priestess_Kelina So true. He was given a chance to speak, and as far as I know, he wasn't really censored in any way. ((Thats as far as I know, so forgive me if I'm wrong.)) By hogging the mic, he was actually depriving other people of their right to free speech, as any political canidate has limited time in any one location, and other students had the right to pose questions to Mr. Kerry too. If he felt that he had more to say, he could have asked for an article in the school newspaper, (assuming UF has one, I don't know) or even gone so far as to write it down on a piece of paper, make a few thousand copies, and distribute it. The fact of the mattere is that he was given a chance to make his views and concerns known, and then attempted to deprive others of the same opportunity. Even if this HAD been a government action, it still wouldn't have constituted a violation of his rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to unlimited time to express yourself, just that you have the right to do so. By stepping in, Campus police protected other peoples right to free speech, and did not violate the students own rights in the process. Yep, the First Amendment does not guarantee an audience or a venue. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:48 pm
That was the clearest version of the video I've seen yet. Apparently he wasn't supposed to be in there in the first place. There was a line of students waiting to ask questions, and apparently the question time was either ending or over when he started demanding to have his questions answered. It was only by Kerry's good grace that he was allowed time on the mic in the first place. Here's another link.... there is some overlap with the first video, but after the first minute or two it shows him outside in the lobby and he's saying they're going to hand him over to the government and kill him. Apparently he's a bit of a prankster, and I guess he was more cooperative once the cameras were gone, so I'm not sure he was serious. But it would go a long way towards explaining some of his questions and assertions. After watching the end of the video, try going back and watching his questions again. It sounds to me like he's a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:55 am
Kira84 That was the clearest version of the video I've seen yet. Apparently he wasn't supposed to be in there in the first place. There was a line of students waiting to ask questions, and apparently the question time was either ending or over when he started demanding to have his questions answered. It was only by Kerry's good grace that he was allowed time on the mic in the first place. Here's another link.... there is some overlap with the first video, but after the first minute or two it shows him outside in the lobby and he's saying they're going to hand him over to the government and kill him. Apparently he's a bit of a prankster, and I guess he was more cooperative once the cameras were gone, so I'm not sure he was serious. But it would go a long way towards explaining some of his questions and assertions. After watching the end of the video, try going back and watching his questions again. It sounds to me like he's a conspiracy theorist. Yeah, especially with the "Skull and Bones" club bit. I also found a report that says he told the police afterwards that they didn't do anything wrong. MSNBC allDAY He famously got Tasered and arrested, though according to the police report, he later told officers, "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job." The whole editorial piece.Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:09 pm
Strideo Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. Probably. I noticed he said that he wanted to preface his question with a speech, to 'inform' the crowd.... It's just a little too odd. I have to think he was off his meds or something, although I haven't read anything that said he had any mental illness. I just hope those police don't lose their jobs or anything. It is a very political job, and something like this could permanently ruin their careers, even though they didn't do anything wrong. I've heard two of them got suspended, but I'm not sure whether it's a paid suspension or not. I know there's going to be an internal investigation. I couldn't find a link though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:23 pm
Yeah. It feels kinda weird to actually be supporting the government, but the police are in the right, THIS time. I think this could be a good publicity thing for us too. If we made these opinions known, it would show that the LP is NOT anti-governemt, I.E. Anarchist. A public show of support for the police in this matter shows we do favor law and order, just not so much law as we have now. And that could well swing over a block of voters that view us as nothing, but a bunch of anarchist who won't be happy until we have no government whatsoever. The publicity stunt might not have worked for him, but it could very well work for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:58 am
ehh...i think kerry should have stopped him if he didnt want him to finish. supposadly kerry himself said it was rediculous they cut him off, but thats just what i heard i dunno if he actually said it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:44 pm
Priestess_Kelina Yeah. It feels kinda weird to actually be supporting the government, but the police are in the right, THIS time. I think this could be a good publicity thing for us too. If we made these opinions known, it would show that the LP is NOT anti-governemt, I.E. Anarchist. A public show of support for the police in this matter shows we do favor law and order, just not so much law as we have now. And that could well swing over a block of voters that view us as nothing, but a bunch of anarchist who won't be happy until we have no government whatsoever. The publicity stunt might not have worked for him, but it could very well work for us. Of course. We support the law where ever the law protects peoples' rights. In this case the law would protect the rights of the event coordinators to conduct their speaking engagement how they saw fit. Laws that take our rights away or represent bureaucracy or corruption are a major problem in our government right now and I think a lot of people are distracted by these sorts of things and they aren't concerned about the real threats out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
