Re: It's Illegal To Look At The Police, Or Talk About What They Do
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
By Jeremy Boren
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, October 4, 2009
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_6463...
State police have accused two anarchists from New York of using cell
phones and the Internet messaging service Twitter to direct the
movements of protesters during the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh.
Police arrested Elliot M. Madison, 41, and Michael Wallschlaeger, 46,
both of Jackson Heights, N.Y., after they found them Sept. 24 in a
Kennedy Township hotel room full of computers, police scanners and
Pittsburgh-area maps, according to a state police criminal complaint.
FBI agents spent 16 hours Friday raiding the home of Madison and his
wife, Elena, according to a federal court motion filed in Brooklyn,
N.Y., by Madison's attorney Martin R. Stolar seeking the return of
Madison's possessions that were seized in the raid.
Stolar did not return a message seeking comment Saturday. No one
answered the phone at a number listed for Madison.
Wallschlaeger and Madison wore headphones and microphones as they sat
in front of computers they used to send Twitter messages to protesters
in Pittsburgh to help them move about the city "and to inform the
protesters and groups of the movements and actions of law
enforcement," the state police complaint states.
State police in Findlay obtained a warrant to search the second-floor
room at the Carefree Inn on Kisow Drive based on a tip they received
about criminal activity related to the G-20 protests.
Police arrested 190 protesters of an estimated 5,000 people who
participated in marches and demonstrations in Oakland, Lawrenceville,
the Strip District and Downtown during the summit Sept. 24 and 25.
Madison and Wallschlaeger face charges in Allegheny County of
hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication
facility and possessing instruments of crime.
A manager at the Carefree Inn said he was not permitted to discuss the
matter.
Madison posted $30,000 straight bail and was released Sept. 25.
Wallschlaeger posted $5,000 and was released the same day, court
records show. Both face preliminary hearings Oct. 13.
Among the items seized by the FBI were: computers; cell phones; MP3
players; anarchist literature and books, including some authored by
Madison; business records connected to Wallschlaeger's radio talk show
"This Week in Radical History"; and pictures of Vladimir Lenin and
Karl Marx.
Records show they seized 11 gas masks, five pairs of goggles, a
slingshot, four arm pads, eight face masks and a collection of test
tubes, droppers, mortar and pestle and beakers.
Stolar said the FBI violated the terms of its search warrant and
Madison's First Amendment rights by taking "a number of documents and
other properties having nothing to do with the government's
investigation."
According to Stolar's motion, Elliott and Elena Madison are political
activists who deal with social justice issues and provide legal
support for protesters. Elliott Madison is a social worker employed
for the past 10 years by Fountain House, a psychiatric-social program
with a principal office in Manhattan. Elena Madison is an urban
planner and is assistant vice president of the Project for Public
Spaces.
The Madisons describe themselves as anarchists affiliated with a
confederation known as "The Peoples' Law Collective."
U.S. District Court Judge Dora Irizarry of Brooklyn ruled Friday that
FBI agents can't analyze the seized property until Stolar's motion for
its return is resolved, court records show.
Chilly8:
> If he had used an offshore VPN, they would have NEVER
> been able to trace him. That is what services, such as VPNGates
> are for.
>
> Services, such as ItsHidden, with servers in Holland, are
> NOT SUBJECT to United States laws. They also keep
> NO logs.
>
> Also, that is a good argument to use Evidence Eliminator on
> your hard disk, so that if the police do come calling, there
> will be NOTHING on your hard disk that can be used as
> evidence. Even the best police forensic software cannot
> recover data after Evidence Eliminator has been run.
I think the more interesting question is whether people
have a right to look at the police, and talk about what
they see. I notice there is beginning to be some stir of
interest on the part of Civil Liberties groups about this.
Not much on the Net so far, however.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Oct 5, 3:39�pm, "Chilly8" <Chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>By Jeremy Boren
>TRIBUNE-REVIEW
>Sunday, October 4, 2009
>
>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_6463...
>
>State police have accused two anarchists from New York of using cell
>phones and the Internet messaging service Twitter to direct the
>movements of protesters during the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh.
>
>Police arrested Elliot M. Madison, 41, and Michael Wallschlaeger, 46,
>both of Jackson Heights, N.Y., after they found them Sept. 24 in a
>Kennedy Township hotel room full of computers, police scanners and
>Pittsburgh-area maps, according to a state police criminal complaint.
Interesting that the Western media portrayed as heroes Iranians who Twittered
and sent text messages about police crackdowns on protests in Iran a couple of
months ago. The government tried, but failed, to stop them, and only Michael
Jackson's death succeeded.
But when it happens in America, it seems it's different.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> Was just reviewing this thread. It actually is not illegal either to
> look at the police or to talk about what they do. We've got certain
> basic freedoms in the Constitution in the United States, and *any* laws
> that attempt to restrict your freedom of speech or the press except in
> very limited circumstances (none of them mentioned here) are likely to
> be held unconstitutional when you get before a judge.
>
> That does not mean that the police won't arrest you, of course. :/ But
> it's important to remember that the fact that something pisses the
> police off does not make it against the law. "Contempt of cop" isn't an
> offense in this country, although "contempt of court" is.
>
> That doesn't mean it's wise, or necessarily justified, to be an a****le
> to a policeman. :-) But if your "offense" was to take pictures of a
> police officer, and you've got some witnesses that you were in fact
> doing just that and nothing else, chances are very good that you'll
> spend a night or two in jail and then be released. At that point, IMHO
> you would be justified in filing a complaint against the arresting
> officers for false arrest, although you might not want to spend the
> money on suing. (Most activists prefer the bright light of publicity to
> a courtroom anyway, and for this type of offense, it's often more
> effective.)
However, there has arisen a species of law under which
the police are in effect sacrosanct. You can't talk back to
them, you can't write down their badge numbers, you can't
look at them and talk about it (as above). These laws seems
clearly unconstitutional to me, and yet we have recently had
the Gates incident, where Gates did nothing but talk bad to
a cop _in_his_own_house_.
I think we have a problem.
Catherine Jefferson
> However, there has arisen a species of law under which
> the police are in effect sacrosanct. You can't talk back to
> them, you can't write down their badge numbers, you can't
> look at them and talk about it (as above). These laws seems
> clearly unconstitutional to me, and yet we have recently had
> the Gates incident, where Gates did nothing but talk bad to
> a cop _in_his_own_house_.
>
> I think we have a problem.
Certainly. But the problem isn't with the constitution. It's either
with unconstitutional laws that hold that the police can do no wrong, or
with police and others who simply act as if the police can do no wrong.
The Gates case is a bad illustration, IMHO. It is likely that Mr.
Gates, tired after a long trip, reacted rudely when the police showed up
in response to a neighbor's report of a possible burglary, and the
police returned that rudeness. From reading the public accounts, I'm
not sure anybody behaved well. :/ Fortunately no real harm was done.
I'd recommend that, instead, you cite the case of Berwyn Heights Mayor
Cheye Calvo and his wife last summer, the night of July 30, 2008. A SWAT
team broke into his house, terrorized him and his wife, and shot their
two dogs, who by all accounts were running away and trying to hide.
They claimed that they had a no-knock warrant (an abomination), but
later admitted that they had no warrant. Worst, they did this because
of a drug drop done by a gang that was *known* to use innocent houses
for that purpose. This man and his wife were not only innocent; the
police had no grounds to believe that they were anything but innocent.
The actions of the police in this case appear to have violated at least
the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and so many
laws that I quit counting after a while.
A year later, as best I know the police have held *nobody* responsible
for this clusterf**k internally, have denied that they did anything
wrong, and have stonewalled all attempts to find out what happened and
prevent it from happening again. The mayor and his wife are suing. I
don't blame them, but that doesn't comfort those of us who read about
this case and were left thinking that, if this can happen to two people
like them, it can happen to anybody. So, yes, I agree that we have a
problem.
But it is *not* illegal to look at the police, or to talk about what
they do. Any such law would violate the first amendment of the
constitution, and probably any attempt to enforce it would result in
violating the fourth and fifth amendments as well. It is against he law
to interfere with the lawful activities of the police, but any attempt
to classify looking at police or talking about them in itself as
interfering would be tossed out by the courts if challenged.
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@spambouncer.org>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
James A. Donald
> Gates, tired after a long trip, reacted rudely when the police showed up
> in response to a neighbor's report of a possible burglary, and the
> police returned that rudeness. From reading the public accounts, I'm
> not sure anybody behaved well.
In defense of the cops in the Gates case:
1. "Disturbing the peace" is what you charge people with when they
behave in a way that inclines other people to slug them. The peace is
disturbed because there is imminent danger of fight breaking out.
Gates behaved in a way that would incline anyone to slug him.
2. If a white guy behaved like Gates, he would not only be charged
with disturbing the peace, but also with repeated assaulting the
policeman's boot with his face.
3. I observed some strangers entering a neighbors house. I strolled
up to them, and before I could say "hello, hello, what is going on
here?", they immediately started with an explanation, given with a
deferential and apologetic attitude, as if I had already asked, and as
if failure to satisfactorily answer could result in them suddenly
being up to their necks in neighborhood watch. Had Gates reacted like
that, all would have been well.
4. How not to get your ass kicked by the police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
> I'd recommend that, instead, you cite the case of Berwyn Heights Mayor
> Cheye Calvo and his wife last summer, the night of July 30, 2008. A SWAT
> team broke into his house, terrorized him and his wife, and shot their
> two dogs, who by all accounts were running away and trying to hide.
> They claimed that they had a no-knock warrant (an abomination), but
> later admitted that they had no warrant. Worst, they did this because
> of a drug drop done by a gang that was *known* to use innocent houses
> for that purpose. This man and his wife were not only innocent; the
> police had no grounds to believe that they were anything but innocent.
> The actions of the police in this case appear to have violated at least
> the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and so many
> laws that I quit counting after a while.
That sounds more like the cops I have come to know and love
*Anarcissie*
It seems to me that in common sense freedom of speech
would include disparaging the police to their faces. They're
not royalty.
James A. Donald
> would include disparaging the police to their faces.
It does not, however, include screaming at police to their faces,
or indeed screaming at anyone to their faces. You surely have
seen those photos of Gates screaming while police patiently and
stolidly fail to respond. If someone was screaming at me the way
Gates was screaming at them, I would likely wind up punching him.
*Anarcissie*
On the contrary, I think it's the job of the police to put
up with precisely that sort of display, as long as it does
not present a material danger to anyone. If they can't
handle it they should go into some less annoying
profession.
James A. Donald
> > > It seems to me that in common sense freedom of speech
> > > would include disparaging the police to their faces.
James A. Donald
> > It does not, however, include screaming at police to their faces,
> > or indeed screaming at anyone to their faces. You surely have
> > seen those photos of Gates screaming while police patiently and
> > stolidly fail to respond. If someone was screaming at me the way
> > Gates was screaming at them, I would likely wind up punching him.
"*Anarcissie*"
> On the contrary, I think it's the job of the police to put
> up with precisely that sort of display
In the sense that police are not supposed to punch out people who
engage in that sort of display. They are, however, supposed to run
them in.
The problem is that the line between speech and violence is not well
defined. There are always gradations.
If Dave attacks Bob, obviously police should arrest Dave. But
suppose, however, Bob approaches Dave in a manner that leads Dave to
conclude that Bob is about to attack him. So Dave does not wait
around. He punches Bob without waiting to see what Bob is about to
do. Bob collapses on the ground, dazed and bleeding. Now that there
is no immediate danger, Dave takes no further action. In that case,
obviously the police should arrest Bob, and probably not arrest Dave -
and to my knowledge, for the most part, that is what they do. If Dave
had been approaching Bob, maybe they would arrest Dave, or both of
them.
So what do you do when someone is getting close to the blurry line
between speech and violence? You run them in for disturbing the
peace.
> as long as it does
> not present a material danger to anyone.
When someone is acting in "an agitated manner", hard to say if he is a
material danger. My feeling is that anyone who displays strong
aggressive emotions in public is dangerous.
Michael Price
Exactly. If you discover someone in a way consistent with both the
law
and being a complete asshole you leave. Like everyone else with a
brain.
Constantinople
I find that argument, which I have seen often about the Gates case, to
be incoherent. On the one hand it is stressed that police should not
abuse their positions in order to lord it over everyone else. Equality
before the law is supposed to include the police, right? I agree with
this. But this works both ways! Equality before the law includes the
police, and this means that the police have no *fewer* rights than
anyone else. If you provoke a private individual and they sock you,
then there's a good chance they're well within their rights. Being
provoked is a defense! This is true of private individuals. It should
be true of the police as well.
Maybe you want to argue with that. Maybe you think provocation should
not be a legitimate defense. Okay - then do that. But that's not what
you're doing here. What you're doing is asserting that on the matter
of provocation, cops have *fewer*, more *restricted* rights than
anyone else. And that's inconsistent with the equality-before-the-law
basis of the complaint that the police should not abuse their
positions. Either equality before the law should apply to the police,
or it should not. But what you're doing here is applying it in one
dimension and refusing to apply it in another dimension - and you are
doing this in a way that is systematically unfavorable to the police.
What is your excuse for this inconsistency? What is your excuse for
taking away the equal rights of the police - the right of the defense
of provocation? Your excuse is that it's supposedly part of their job
description that they lose their normal everyday rights when they put
on their uniform.
But that's absurd. People's rights don't get taken away when they are
doing their jobs. If a cop puts on a uniform, why does it become open
season on them for people to abuse them?
Okay - let's step back and get perspective. Since cops really do have
a monopoly on policing, I fully expect that they really do regularly
abuse their power. So I agree with the idea that cops are generally
speaking the enemy. What I am addressing is not the general issue of
whether cops are abusive - or even this specific case. What I am
addressing is specifically the argument that cops lose some of their
rights as individuals when they put on the uniform, which argument is
in play when people say stuff like, "it's the job of the police to put
up with" something that ordinary people have a right to be provoked
by.
Again, to repeat, if you *also* believe that no private individual can
legitimately claim provocation as a defense if he punches someone who
was provoking him, then fine - but make that argument. My point is
that that's not the argument you made here. Your argument was to
distinguish what cops supposedly are supposed to put up with from what
private individuals don't have to put up with.
If cops have a right to arrest a private individual who is acting
provocatively toward another private individual - and I haven't seen
any statement to the contrary, though maybe I've missed something -
then since cops themselves are, you know, actual human beings with
actual rights, then cops also have the right to arrest a private
individual who is acting provocatively *toward the cop*.
Constantinople
Being provocative is not consistent with the law. If you provoke
someone and they hit you then guess what, you don't necessarily get
the right to sue them. Provocation is a defense. (If you want to argue
otherwise then do so, but don't just sweep it under the rug.) If
provocation is a defense for the other guy, then the flip side of that
same coin is that if you're being provocative, you're stepping over
the legal line. Disturbing the peace is not consistent with the law.
> Like everyone else with a
> brain.
Actually, individuals with a brain who don't have any particular
reason to be somewhere will probably leave *even if* the other person
is acting in a way *inconsistent* with the law. So even if somebody is
disturbing the peace, the smart policy is often to go away. Heck, even
if someone is torching a building, the smart policy is often to go
away (unless it's your building) and maybe call the police and fire
department if you're feeling like a good citizen. But what if your job
is to deal with lawbreakers? While you have an individual right to go
away, your employer might not like it if you turn tail every time you
see a lawbreaker. If your job is to deal with lawbreakers - to arrest
people who torch buildings or disturb the peace - then for the sake of
your job maybe you should stick around. Yeah, stick around even though
you have a brain, because your brain is telling you that it's your job
to stick around.
James A. Donald
> Maybe you want to argue with that. Maybe you think
> provocation should not be a legitimate defense. Okay -
> then do that. But that's not what you're doing here.
> What you're doing is asserting that on the matter of
> provocation, cops have *fewer*, more *restricted*
> rights than anyone else. And that's inconsistent with
> the equality-before-the-law basis of the complaint
> that the police should not abuse their positions.
> Either equality before the law should apply to the
> police, or it should not. But what you're doing here
> is applying it in one dimension and refusing to apply
> it in another dimension - and you are doing this in a
> way that is systematically unfavorable to the police.
Let us address the argument that provocation should be
legal, but reacting to it should be illegal - sticks and
stones etc.
OK, so if someone punches you, obviously you should be
entitled to punch him back, possibly with a ten pound
hammer.
What if he gives you a hard shove? An ordinary shove?
What if he intrudes into your personal space. What if
he touches you lightly - what if he repeatedly touches
you lightly after repeated requests not to touch you?
What if he yells at you while standing close? What if
he yells at you while intruding on your personal space
and waves his hands very close to your face?
It is impractical to draw a bright, sharp line.
Wherever those engaged in enforcement draw the line,
they cannot afford a line that is sharp enough that
angry people are tempted to approach close to that line.
So we need offenses intermediate between assault and
being unpleasant, to match the reality that there are
acts intermediate between assault and being unpleasant.
*Anarcissie*
We're not talking about "everyone" here. We are talking
about the police, who are hired agents of the government
and are performing duties under its control, which include
enforcement of, not violation of, the Bill of Rights.
At this time, there has grown up (over many years) a
theory that the police may not be disparaged or
disrespected, but abusing the police verbally or with
gestures, as long as they remain mre gestures, is
well within any reasonable interpretation of the
First Amendment.
Catherine Jefferson
> On Oct 12, 12:43 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Exactly. If you discover someone in a way consistent with both the
>> law and being a complete asshole you leave.
> Being provocative is not consistent with the law. If you provoke
> someone and they hit you then guess what, you don't necessarily get
> the right to sue them. Provocation is a defense.
This is not true anywhere in the United States that I know of. In some
cases severe provocation might be a *mitigation* when you're sentenced
after a criminal trial, but even hate speech does not legally justify a
physical response. Only a bonafide threat to your life or safety (or to
that of some other innocent person) justifies a physical response to
words when no actual physical attack has yet occurred, and then only
when you have both a reasonable belief that the person who made the
threat is about to act on it right away, *and* you have no way to leave
the scene or otherwise protect yourself or other innocent people.
In other words, if somebody insults you and you punch them, you're
guilty of misdemeanor battery (or whatever else they call it in a
particular state or county) and likely to face charges for it. This
applies to everybody, by the way -- police and citizens alike --
although a police officer in entirely too many places won't face charges
for battery when a citizen responding in exactly the same way to exactly
the same provocation would. That's due to a failure of the local DA to
enforce the laws equally, though, rather than to a legal exemption for
the police.
I agree that it's both wrong and counterproductive to be an a----le to
the police, or (for that matter) anybody else. However, being a jerk --
trash-talking somebody, insulting them, whatever -- does not give that
person legal justification for a physical attack in the United States.
The law may vary in other parts of the world, of course. I've done a
fair bit of traveling, but since I don't tend to get into fistfights or
shouting matches with people, I've never needed to learn the laws about
those things in other countries. ;-)
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're not talking about "everyone" here. We are talking
> about the police, who are hired agents of the government
> and are performing duties under its control, which include
> enforcement of, not violation of, the Bill of Rights.
>
> At this time, there has grown up (over many years) a
> theory that the police may not be disparaged or
> disrespected,
But what Gates was doing was fair bit more forceful than disparaging
or disrespecting. He was indeed disturbing the peace. If he had
behaved that way to me I might well have slugged him. If a policeman
showed up shortly after I slugged him, the policeman might well arrest
him and not me - I would not bet on it, but neither should he,
precisely because his behavior was in that gray area between speech
and violence.
Again, I bring up the example of a recent event where some people (who
turned out to be kin of my neighbor) were acting suspiciously. They
were apologetic and deferential though I do not have a uniform, they
were apologetic and deferential though they were as rich and white and
male as I am. They were apologetic and deferential because they were
aware that their behavior looked like a crime in progress and needed
explanation and justification. They behaved as Gates should have
behaved.
Constantinople
wrote:
> Constantinople wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 12:43 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Exactly. If you discover someone in a way consistent with both the
> >> law and being a complete asshole you leave.
> > Being provocative is not consistent with the law. If you provoke
> > someone and they hit you then guess what, you don't necessarily get
> > the right to sue them. Provocation is a defense.
>
> This is not true anywhere in the United States that I know of.
That may be true but it is a quibble, a minor objection which does not
negate my point. I only brought up provocation as an explanation for
the fact that disturbing the peace is considered a crime. And if
Wikipedia is not wrong, disturbing the peace is in fact a crime, and
it does in fact include provocation. Quoting from Wikipedia:
"Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling
of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can
include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight,
disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music
or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite
violence."
Note the mention of "using offensive words or insults likely to incite
violence" - which falls well short of a bonafide threat to the life or
safety of the person being provoked.
James A. Donald
> > Being provocative is not consistent with the law. If you provoke
> > someone and they hit you then guess what, you don't necessarily get
> > the right to sue them. Provocation is a defense.
Catherine Jefferson
> This is not true anywhere in the United States that I know of.
Some time ago in the United States, (I have mislaid the citation),
there was a sports disturbance that began with a sports fan throwing
the contents of a glass at a player. A lot of ensuing violent
incidents occurred on video, and the prosecutor reviewed all this
video, and made public his decisions on each violent act.
In one of the incidents, a fan walked towards a player, who slugged
the fan with his very considerable full strength, causing the fan to
fall down dazed and bleeding copiously. The prosecutor reviewed the
tapes. Fan convicted, player not charged. The prosecutor published
the commented video with legal citations and little arrows to justify
his decisions.
It was certainly that prosecutor's policy to take provocation into
account.
Dan Clore
Regardless, it is perfectly obvious that from a libertarian viewpoint,
such "provocation" falls squarely under the heading of free speech.
Unlike the other categories listed above, so-called "fighting words" do
not constitute a real invasion or initiation of force.
Those individuals so mentally unbalanced that they leap into the
initiation of violence because their feelings are hurt by a little
name-calling should be held criminally and civilly accountable for such
violations of liberty, not granted an unjustified victim status and
coddled for their own failings. If they persist in such behavior,
psychiatric treatment might be justified as well.
Really, there's nothing more pathetic than a loser who attacks someone
else and then whinges and whines that the victim started it and frankly,
such creeps deserve any abusive epithet that anyone cares to hurl at them.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Constantinople
We already know that not all speech is protected by the principle of
free speech. The common counterexample is falsely yelling "fire" in a
crowded theater. Another example of speech which is not protected is
fraud - e.g. making false statements about your own products in order
to increase sales. And not just fire and fraud. Also, I think that
deliberate manipulation of someone so that they will die would
constitute murder even if all you used were words. For example, if you
told a parent something about his child that panicked the parent at
just the right moment for the parent not to notice a bus coming
towards him. Or deliberately telling someone something distressing in
order to raise his blood pressure thereby causing him to have a stroke
and die. The possibilities are endless.
How about a Moriarty who coordinates a large-scale crime merely by
talking to people. He doesn't even have to give orders, if his
reputation as a mastermind is high enough.
> Unlike the other categories listed above, so-called "fighting words" do
> not constitute a real invasion or initiation of force.
Seems to me that "fighting words" can fall well within the range of
manipulative speech that surely is not protected. Someone who is
trying to piss somebody else off and who succeeds, has consciously,
deliberately brought about the other person's fury.
In fact it's quite like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, because
the way that yelling "fire" works is by causing panic, which then
increases as people find it difficult to get out quickly. The person
has, through his words, deliberately created an extreme emotional
state in others, and this emotional state has caused others to behave
in a harmful way.
> Those individuals so mentally unbalanced that they leap into the
> initiation of violence because their feelings are hurt by a little
> name-calling should be held criminally and civilly accountable for such
> violations of liberty, not granted an unjustified victim status and
> coddled for their own failings. If they persist in such behavior,
> psychiatric treatment might be justified as well.
>
> Really, there's nothing more pathetic than a loser who attacks someone
> else and then whinges and whines that the victim started it and frankly,
> such creeps deserve any abusive epithet that anyone cares to hurl at them.
Easy to say. You could just as easily say the same thing about people
who let panic grip them and then act in harmful ways when someone
yells "fire" in a crowded theater. How pathetic of panicked
theatergoers to react physically to mere words!
Dan Clore
Two things about this counterexample:
(1) It derives from a Supreme Court case finding that laws banning
speech opposing the draft (conscription) do not violate the First
Amendment because such speech creates a "clear and present danger". This
dishonest pedigree doesn't inspire confidence in those who repeat the
false analogy. Rather, it it suggests that the analogy is yet again
being used falsely.
(2) Falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater does not fall under
protected free speech because the false information endangers people.
Name-calling does nothing of the sort. ("Sticks and stones--")
> Another example of speech which is not protected is
> fraud - e.g. making false statements about your own products in
> order to increase sales. And not just fire and fraud.
Fraud doesn't fall under protected speech because it is used as a form
of coercion. Again, not the case with name-calling.
> Also, I think
> that deliberate manipulation of someone so that they will die would
> constitute murder even if all you used were words. For example, if
> you told a parent something about his child that panicked the parent
> at just the right moment for the parent not to notice a bus coming
> towards him.
You mean like: "A bus is about to run over your child!!!"
> Or deliberately telling someone something distressing in
> order to raise his blood pressure thereby causing him to have a
> stroke and die. The possibilities are endless.
These would seem to fall under fraud, at least in a general sense.
> How about a Moriarty who coordinates a large-scale crime merely by
> talking to people. He doesn't even have to give orders, if his
> reputation as a mastermind is high enough.
Only if this speech is part of conspiracy to commit a crime -- i.e.,
initiation of force or fraud. Again, not analogous to name-calling.
>> Unlike the other categories listed above, so-called "fighting
>> words" do not constitute a real invasion or initiation of force.
>
> Seems to me that "fighting words" can fall well within the range of
> manipulative speech that surely is not protected.
At this point I have to wonder if there's any speech that you think
*should* be protected.
> Someone who is
> trying to piss somebody else off and who succeeds, has consciously,
> deliberately brought about the other person's fury.
Yeah, and tough shit. The crybaby who gets his feelings hurt so badly by
mere words that he goes berserk and initiates violence, and then claims
justification because someone "provoked" him by name-calling or using
"offensive" language, is not sane enough for human society. It's like
the moron truckdriver reported to have kicked in his TV set when the Sex
Pistols gave an interview on the BBC because Steve Jones used the word
"fuck". (I'm hoping that Constantinople will find this so offensive that
he kicks in his computer monitor--)
> In fact it's quite like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, because
> the way that yelling "fire" works is by causing panic, which then
> increases as people find it difficult to get out quickly. The person
> has, through his words, deliberately created an extreme emotional
> state in others, and this emotional state has caused others to behave
> in a harmful way.
Again, it works (if it does) by conveying false information.
>> Those individuals so mentally unbalanced that they leap into the
>> initiation of violence because their feelings are hurt by a little
>> name-calling should be held criminally and civilly accountable for
>> such violations of liberty, not granted an unjustified victim
>> status and coddled for their own failings. If they persist in such
>> behavior, psychiatric treatment might be justified as well.
>>
>> Really, there's nothing more pathetic than a loser who attacks
>> someone else and then whinges and whines that the victim started it
>> and frankly, such creeps deserve any abusive epithet that anyone
>> cares to hurl at them.
>
> Easy to say. You could just as easily say the same thing about people
> who let panic grip them and then act in harmful ways when someone
> yells "fire" in a crowded theater. How pathetic of panicked
> theatergoers to react physically to mere words!
Once again, false analogy.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> At this point I have to wonder if there's any speech that you think
I'll say. But beyond that obvious point, there is also the
matter of laws, regulation and departmental directives
which _command_ that the police suppress those who
don't treat them in a defential matter. The Gates case,
and many others, appears to be not a matter of a cop
going off the rails, but following orders, orders which are
a direct violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed in
the First Amendment.
But it is funny to see self-described libertarians lining
up to defend the government-mandated suppression of
free expression by the authorities. I guess there are
"libertarians" and libertarians.
James A. Donald
> such "provocation" falls squarely under the heading of free speech.
> Unlike the other categories listed above, so-called "fighting words" do
> not constitute a real invasion or initiation of force.
How about mere words coupled with intrusion into someone's personal
space. How about mere words screamed loudly coupled with extremely
close intrusion into someone's personal space? How about mere words
screamed loudly coupled with close and very rapid intrusion?
James A. Donald
> I'll say. But beyond that obvious point, there is
> also the matter of laws, regulation and departmental
> directives which _command_ that the police suppress
> those who don't treat them in a defential matter. The
> Gates case, and many others, appears to be not a
> matter of a cop going off the rails, but following
> orders, orders which are a direct violation of the
> freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment.
Many years ago a guy behaved to me, about as
aggressively as Gates behaved, though the details
differed. A fight ensued, the cops arrived, we both
truthfully told our stories (amidst a large crowd of
witnesses) - and he got in trouble, not me. The cops
correctly figured he had been looking for trouble, and
had eventually found some. I would not guarantee the
same outcome next time, for by definition such cases are
gray cases, necessarily ambiguous, but that was the
outcome that time, and it did not seem to surprise
anyone.
If the cops favored me when someone was looking for a
fight with me, then fair enough to favor themselves when
someone is looking for a fight with them.
I don't like cops. I say nasty things about cops with
great regularity. But in my personal experience, their
policy on disturbing the peace is pretty much right.
What they call disturbing the peace, is indeed
disturbing the peace.
Any time you do something that is going to create work
for cops, they don't like it, and they rightly have
authority to stop it. If you disturb the peace by
giving me a hard time, they may well arrest you - they
arrested the guy I beat up, not that I guarantee they
would do the same thing next time. So if someone gives
them a hard time, and they kick the crap out of him and
arrest him, that is fine by me.
I don't know how widely this policy is followed, but I
have seen it followed often enough, and it was followed
in my case. Police do not necessarily arrest the guy
who throws the first punch, nor do prosecutors
necessarily prosecute the guy who throws the first
punch, when they have video of the fight. They use
judgment, and when I have seen events, their judgment
seemed reasonable enough to me. Some people just need
to have their ass kicked.
It is often the weaker guy who tries to provoke the
stronger into hitting him. When police or prosecutors
observe this behavior, they do not necessarily fall for
it. They often prosecute the guy who got his ass kicked
for deserving the ass kicking - not consistently, but
often enough to deter such behavior. Their policy seems
to be to make it hazardous to deliver an ass kicking, but
also hazardous to deserve one. That is my personal
experience and observation. Your local cops may be
different.
*Anarcissie*
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:25:15 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > I'll say. But beyond that obvious point, there is
> > also the matter of laws, regulation and departmental
> > directives which _command_ that the police suppress
> > those who don't treat them in a defential matter. The
> > Gates case, and many others, appears to be not a
> > matter of a cop going off the rails, but following
> > orders, orders which are a direct violation of the
> > freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment.
>
> Many years ago a guy behaved to me, about as
> aggressively as Gates behaved, though the details
> differed. A fight ensued, the cops arrived, we both
> truthfully told our stories (amidst a large crowd of
> witnesses) - and he got in trouble, not me. The cops
> correctly figured he had been looking for trouble, and
> had eventually found some. I would not guarantee the
> same outcome next time, for by definition such cases are
> gray cases, necessarily ambiguous, but that was the
> outcome that time, and it did not seem to surprise
> anyone.
>
> If the cops favored me when someone was looking for a
> fight with me, then fair enough to favor themselves when
> someone is looking for a fight with them.
I think this is irrelevant. I have been talking about
not informal cop behavior but laws, regulations, and
official policies which I think are unconstitutional but
which have generally been widely accepted without
much question.
And it is because of that acceptance that we now
observe a situation in which someone has been
busted by the FBI for making truthful remarks in
public media about what the police were publicly
doing. Did you read the articles? They describe
behavior that would have fit right into the Soviet
Union in the bad old days.
Dan Clore
I have JAD killfiled, but I still get to read his ravings and rantings
in quoted material (sigh). I can only say that I find it unbelievable
that someone who supposedly considers himself a libertarian would go
produce these lame attempts to justify the initiation of violent force.
As if that weren't enough, now we have one bragging (truthfully or not)
about how he started a fight, beat someone up, and got away with the crime.
*Anarcissie*
> I have JAD killfiled, but I still get to read his ravings and rantings
> in quoted material (sigh). I can only say that I find it unbelievable
> that someone who supposedly considers himself a libertarian would go
> produce these lame attempts to justify the initiation of violent force.
> As if that weren't enough, now we have one bragging (truthfully or not)
> about how he started a fight, beat someone up, and got away with the crime.
I am never surprised by the peculiarities of any
particular individual, but in this case I am surprised
that a government crime like this one is generally
going unnoticed by so many people. We see one
incident after another in which it is clear that the
police have been _ordered_ to perform crimes.
No one seems to care.
Phlip
> I am never surprised by the peculiarities of any
> particular individual, but in this case I am surprised
> that a government crime like this one is generally
> going unnoticed by so many people. We see one
> incident after another in which it is clear that the
> police have been _ordered_ to perform crimes.
> No one seems to care.
Freedom is the price of eternal vigilance.
James A. Donald
> > If the cops favored me when someone was looking for
> > a fight with me, then fair enough to favor
> > themselves when someone is looking for a fight with
> > them.
"*Anarcissie*"
> I think this is irrelevant. I have been talking about
> not informal cop behavior but laws, regulations, and
> official policies
The law and the official policy is that "disturbing the
peace" is illegal. What is "disturbing the peace"? It
is necessarily hard to define but I know it when I see
it, and cops know it when they see it. By and large, it
is asshole behavior that deserves an ass kicking, and is
likely to result in an ass kicking. Professor Gates was
disturbing the peace, and if a working class white guy
or a working class black guy had behaved like that, not
only would he have been charged with disturbing the
peace, but he also would have gotten his ass kicked.
> And it is because of that acceptance that we now
> observe a situation in which someone has been busted
> by the FBI for making truthful remarks in public media
> about what the police were publicly doing.
Yes, that is a clear and flagrant abuse of police power.
I agree entirely. Publishing information police do not
want to hear can never be disturbing the peace.
However, charging Professor Gates was entirely
legitimate, and I would have been sympathetic had they
not only arrested him, but also kicked his ass. I would
have considered an ass kicking regrettable, but an
entirely natural and understandable response.
James A. Donald
> I am never surprised by the peculiarities of any
> particular individual, but in this case I am surprised
> that a government crime like this one is generally
> going unnoticed by so many people. We see one
> incident after another in which it is clear that the
> police have been _ordered_ to perform crimes. No one
> seems to care.
People get upset in proportion to the money involved, as
they should. Plenty of people care about eminent
domain, and lots of people care asset seizure.
If they had given Gates a good ass kicking, I would have
been untroubled, for they are unlikely to do it to me,
because I never disturb the peace. Had they seized
Gates's money and car, on the legal theory that the
money he was carrying might have come from drugs and he
could not prove that it was not, under which theory
quite a few people have lost their cars, I would have
been mightily pissed, for they might well seize my car.
*Anarcissie*
Actually, it is more peculiar than that. In dealing with
the situation in the streets, the police would, from time
to time, give an order to a crowd to disperse. This was
a public order given openly to a crowd in the streets.
Someone would text this in to the accused, and he
would then distribute the news: "The police have given
the crowd at Fourth and Fifth an order to disperse."
In effect, he was amplifying the police message. At
least, this is what has been said so far.
It has been theorized that the police would have
preferred it if the crowd did not disperse, since this
would give them an opportunity to break heads
and make arrests. A demonstrator who walks
away lives to demonstrate another day, or even
on the same day, whereas one who is arrested
or has his head broken has been neutralized
for the time of the current event.
> However, charging Professor Gates was entirely
> legitimate, and I would have been sympathetic had they
> not only arrested him, but also kicked his ass. I would
> have considered an ass kicking regrettable, but an
> entirely natural and understandable response.
It seems to me the Bill of Rights guarantees
the people the right to disparage and deride
the police to their faces. It's free speech. Unlike
ordinary citizens, the police are doing a job and
are not free to respond any old way they feel
like it. Or should not be. In any case, part of
the problem is not the hurt feelings of the
police but the laws and regulations which
command that they must be "respected."
James A. Donald
> the people the right to disparage and deride
> the police to their faces.
The founders were apt to kill a person in single combat in a formal
duel when that person disparaged their sacred honor, so I doubt they
shared your interpretation.
Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton over remarks made at a dinner
party.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Tell us what became of him afterward.
James A. Donald
> > > It seems to me the Bill of Rights guarantees the people the right to
> > > disparage and deride the police to their faces.
James A. Donald
> > The founders were apt to kill a person in single combat in a formal duel
> > when that person disparaged their sacred honor, so I doubt they shared
> > your interpretation.
> >
> > Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton over remarks made at a dinner party.
> Tell us what became of him afterward.
People complained this was excessive, but he was not convicted of any
crime.
Hamilton had previously had duels with William Gordon (1779), Aedanus
Burke (1790), John Francis Mercer (1792-1793), James Nicholson (1795),
James Monroe (1797), and Ebenezer Purdy/George Clinton (1804).
Additionally, Hamilton's son, Philip, was killed in a November 23,
1801 duel with George I. Eacker
Joseph K.
>On Oct 16, 10:06�ｿｽpm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > If the cops favored me when someone was looking for
>> > > a fight with me, then fair enough to favor
>> > > themselves when someone is looking for a fight with
>> > > them.
>>
>> "*Anarcissie*"
>>
>> > I think this is irrelevant. �ｿｽI have been talking about
>> > not informal cop behavior but laws, regulations, and
>> > official policies
>>
>> The law and the official policy is that "disturbing the
>> peace" is illegal. �ｿｽWhat is "disturbing the peace"? �ｿｽIt
>> is necessarily hard to define but I know it when I see
>> it, and cops know it when they see it. �ｿｽBy and large, it
>> is asshole behavior that deserves an ass kicking, and is
>> likely to result in an ass kicking. �ｿｽProfessor Gates was
>> disturbing the peace, and if a working class white guy
>> or a working class black guy had behaved like that, not
>> only would he have been charged with disturbing the
>> peace, but he also would have gotten his ass kicked.
>>
>> > And it is because of that acceptance that we now
>> > observe a situation in which someone has been busted
>> > by the FBI for making truthful remarks in public media
>> > about what the police were publicly doing.
>>
>> Yes, that is a clear and flagrant abuse of police power.
>> I agree entirely. �ｿｽPublishing information police do not
>> want to hear can never be disturbing the peace.
>
>Actually, it is more peculiar than that. In dealing with
>the situation in the streets, the police would, from time
>to time, give an order to a crowd to disperse. This was
>a public order given openly to a crowd in the streets.
>
>Someone would text this in to the accused, and he
>would then distribute the news: "The police have given
>the crowd at Fourth and Fifth an order to disperse."
>In effect, he was amplifying the police message. At
>least, this is what has been said so far.
>
>It has been theorized that the police would have
>preferred it if the crowd did not disperse, since this
>would give them an opportunity to break heads
>and make arrests. A demonstrator who walks
>away lives to demonstrate another day, or even
>on the same day, whereas one who is arrested
>or has his head broken has been neutralized
>for the time of the current event.
>
>> However, charging Professor Gates was entirely
>> legitimate, and I would have been sympathetic had they
>> not only arrested him, but also kicked his ass. �ｿｽI would
>> have considered an ass kicking regrettable, but an
>> entirely natural and understandable response.
>
>It seems to me the Bill of Rights guarantees
>the people the right to disparage and deride
>the police to their faces. It's free speech. Unlike
>ordinary citizens, the police are doing a job and
>are not free to respond any old way they feel
>like it. Or should not be. In any case, part of
>the problem is not the hurt feelings of the
>police but the laws and regulations which
>command that they must be "respected."
They must be respected because they are altruistic, they are 'public
servants', people that have given away their personal interest to work
for the general well being. I am sure this is written theory, probably
in the constitutional documents of police forces.
Catherine Jefferson
What has that got to do with what the founding fathers would have
believed was appropriate behavior by the *government*? They were
vehemently insistent on keeping government limited and largely out of te
private sphere of life. For example, government was forbidden to mess
with religion, but most of the founding fathers attended church and many
were believing Christians. Do you see a contradiction there?
Sheesh.
James A. Donald
> > Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton over remarks made
> > at a dinner party.
Catherine Jefferson
> What has that got to do with what the founding fathers
> would have believed was appropriate behavior by the
> *government*?
To fill in the missing steps:
"Disturbing the peace" is behavior that is likely to
lead to an ass kicking.
Observed behavior of the police is that when one person,
not a cop, disturbs the peace by behaving offensively to
another person, not a cop, and the other person, not a
cop, kicks his ass, the police are apt to arrest the guy
who was looking for trouble got his ass kicked, and may
well let the guy supplied the trouble off, depending on
their wholly subjective feelings of how much the peace
was being disturbed.
Therefore, it is reasonable to arrest someone who
disturbs the peace by behaving offensively to anyone,
including the police. And it is no great sin to
overlook an ass kicking delivered by the police to
someone who has genuinely been disturbing the peace.
Now obviously police may well be tempted to wrongfully
demand an unreasonable standard of civility and respect
for themselves, higher than they demand for others, and
they frequently do - but they can legitimately demand
*some* standard of civility and respect.
Jorge Cruz Rodriguez
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
>
>
> >On Oct 16, 10:06 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > If the cops favored me when someone was looking for
> >> > > a fight with me, then fair enough to favor
> >> > > themselves when someone is looking for a fight with
> >> > > them.
>
> >> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> >> > not informal cop behavior but laws, regulations, and
> >> > official policies
>
> >> The law and the official policy is that "disturbing the
> >> is necessarily hard to define but I know it when I see
> >> is asshole behavior that deserves an ass kicking, and is
> >> disturbing the peace, and if a working class white guy
> >> or a working class black guy had behaved like that, not
> >> only would he have been charged with disturbing the
> >> peace, but he also would have gotten his ass kicked.
>
> >> > And it is because of that acceptance that we now
> >> > observe a situation in which someone has been busted
> >> > by the FBI for making truthful remarks in public media
> >> > about what the police were publicly doing.
>
> >> Yes, that is a clear and flagrant abuse of police power.
> >> want to hear can never be disturbing the peace.
>
> >Actually, it is more peculiar than that. In dealing with
> >the situation in the streets, the police would, from time
> >to time, give an order to a crowd to disperse. This was
> >a public order given openly to a crowd in the streets.
>
> >Someone would text this in to the accused, and he
> >would then distribute the news: "The police have given
> >the crowd at Fourth and Fifth an order to disperse."
> >In effect, he was amplifying the police message. At
> >least, this is what has been said so far.
>
> >It has been theorized that the police would have
> >preferred it if the crowd did not disperse, since this
> >would give them an opportunity to break heads
> >and make arrests. A demonstrator who walks
> >away lives to demonstrate another day, or even
> >on the same day, whereas one who is arrested
> >or has his head broken has been neutralized
> >for the time of the current event.
>
> >> However, charging Professor Gates was entirely
> >> legitimate, and I would have been sympathetic had they
> >> have considered an ass kicking regrettable, but an
> >> entirely natural and understandable response.
>
> >It seems to me the Bill of Rights guarantees
> >the people the right to disparage and deride
> >the police to their faces. It's free speech. Unlike
> >ordinary citizens, the police are doing a job and
> >are not free to respond any old way they feel
> >like it. Or should not be. In any case, part of
> >the problem is not the hurt feelings of the
> >police but the laws and regulations which
> >command that they must be "respected."
>
> They must be respected because they are altruistic, they are 'public
> servants', people that have given away their personal interest to work
> for the general well being. I am sure this is written theory, probably
> in the constitutional documents of police forces.
More generally, they are supposed to be respected
because they represent the State, which in supposed
to be "the people" -- something like the Flag. Equally
mystical. Just so, the power of the king was supposed
to represent divine will and contradicting it or impugning
the king was not only treason but blasphemy. The
Constitution however was supposed to dispose of all
that sort of mystical claptrap. We are supposed to
have freedom of speech and part of the job of being
a police officer is to put up with it and indeed
protect it. That's what we hire them for.