Chief Adderly: Movie Crews Are Not Above The Law

This is in reference to this Pixiq story, and the images found there.

I know these Hollywood types are very impressive, but just because they insist that you do certain things, it does not mean that you can or should do them.  It's just a goddamn movie.  Filming a movie does not grant them any special rights or privileges.  They have to abide by the law; the law does not abide by the film crew.

I know that they are pressuring you to stop people from taking pictures of the film in progress.  I've worked in the entertainment business for 25 years, and I know that I frequently request that people stop taking photographs.  I've even kicked people out of my theater for taking photographs.

The thing is, my theater is private property.  I sell admittance to it at my discretion, and I have the right to revoke their right to be there.  Tickets are sold with conditions.

Note that even if I catch them taking photographs,  I can't take their cameras or their film, or their memory cards; it is illegal to seize private property without a court order (in the form of a subpoena or warrant).  I can only kick them out.

But you do not have that legal recourse on public property.  The public pays for it, they have the right to be there.  Furthermore, they have the right to take pictures or movies of anything they see from that public property, even the filming of a movie.   Court rulings are very clear on this; it is not and can not be against the law to take pictures or movies of anything you can see from a public right-of-way.  They have ruled that photography is a form of communication, and thus is protected speech under Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

No state or municipal law may override the Constitution, and no law may infringe the rights guaranteed therein.  Even if it pisses of some piss-ant film crew. 

Now, I don't know which shit-for-brains ass-kisser motivated officer did it, but all those signs being put up stating that "photography of this area is prohibited" are not only insulting, they are also without any legal support whatsoever.  I understand that a lot of these officers are off-duty.  But they are exposing the city to legal action, and that should not be tolerated. Anyone you cite for taking photos, or worse yet, actually arrest, has the basis for a lawsuit that they will win.  Every time this kind of thing has come up before the courts, the court has ruled that photography is protected speech.  Every. Single. Time.

Now you're going to tell me that even though the streets are closed for the filming, you're trying to maintain access to businesses there.  And that's laudable.  But you cannot have it both ways; if you're letting the public on the sidewalk, then all their rights come with them.  So if you want to keep the cameras out, keep the public out.  The film company is responsible to recompense the businesses for their loss - it's actually included in the language of the permit.  And the film company needs to make its choice; either shut everything down completely and foot that bill, or let the public in and live with the cameras.  It's their choice; pay up, or put up with it.  But violating the civil rights of citizens isn't on their list of options.  And it's not on yours, either.

So to sum this up for you: if it's a public space, and the public is allowed to be there, so are cameras, and the public can use those cameras to take pictures of anything they see and there is nothing the Fort Lauderdale PD can do about it without violating the law.

Midwest Realty Management: A Stain on our Republic

Dawn Price wanted to honor her husband's service for his country, and show support for all the other men and women serving our country.  So she did what patriotic men and women have been doing in this country for over 200 years; she hung a US flag in her window.  It's not a behemoth, like the Star Spangled Banner, it's just a simple flag, hung inside the glass.

But according to WLUK-TV, the Oshkosh NorthWestern, and numerous other sources, her landlord took issue with this.

Midwest Realty Management, a company with its head so far up its ass that it would make Rand Paul proud, decided that First Amendment rights don't apply, and have served an eviction notice to this patriotic family. 

WTMJ spoke with a company representative:

"We just don't allow people to stick things in their window," Midwest Realty Management president Rodney Oschleger explained. "Instead of drapes or blinds, for example, we don't allow them to put sheets. We don't allow them to put flags or banners or religious or political things."

Oschleger insisted that the company’s objections are aesthetic and have
nothing to do with the message a particular flag or banner might depict.

Oh, I see, speech is free only if it is aesthetically pleasing.  So much for all those rulings from the Supreme Court.

WLUK-TV spoke with property manager Randy Rich:

"This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds."

Great.  MRM isn't singling out Mrs. Price's civil rights, they're trampling on the rights of every victim tenant they have. 

Midwest Realty Management needs to be informed that someone has already found a way to "fair to everyone:"  it's called the First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution of the United States of America.  It states that everyone has the right to make statements.  Statements like hanging a flag or political or religious material in the windows of our homes for all to see.  Our founding fathers thought that this right was so important that they made it the very first right they defined.

Sadly, the fact is that the US Constitution doesn't apply to individuals.  That's right, the Bill of Rights doesn't impose any behavior on you or I; it is a set of rules for the government.  This omission leaves the jackbooted thugs at Midwest Realty Management  free to inflict their own petty tyranny on their tenants. "STFU or move the hell out."  Yes, Randy Rich and his cohorts at MRM are completely within their rights.  But that doesn't make it - or them - right. It's an affront to every American who has ever lived.  It's a slap in the face to every single one of us.

WTMJ quotes Oschleger again:

“If you drove by the property you would see four huge American flags flying throughout the complex!  We‘ve got them at the rental office, at the clubhouse, at the Brookside North area, and then another one just down the street!  Four American flags and we‘re unpatriotic?”

The problem, Rodney, is that you're reserving that right for yourself, and denying it to others.  That's not fair.  And that certainly is not patriotic.  That's why Freedom to Display the American Flag Act was passed, specifically banning real estate management organizations from doing precisely what you're doing.  It's too bad Congress didn't think to choose the word "residents" instead of "homeowners."  It's an oversight that needs to be addressed.

Since the law can't deal with the petty tyrants that call themselves Midwest Realty Management, it's up to us.  If you're local, don't do business with them.  If you do business with them, call them and let them know you're done with them.

If, like me, you're a thousand miles away, write or call to let them know what you think of a policy that runs counter to the high ideals we expect of all Americans.
Midwest Realty Management
2990 Universal Street Suite A
Oshkosh, WI 54904
fax (920) 426-2065
email: heidi@midwestrents.com

In Defense of the Constitution of the United States

What's this about? Read THIS and THIS.

Val Prieto is one of a gang of online thugs who purport to be against Fidel Castro and his regime. Now that sounds all well and good, until you actually read their blog. Some of their theories are off the wall, and they lash out viciously at anyone who questions their theories, or offer up conflicting facts.

In fact, much of the South Florida blogging community believe that Val Prieto's behavior on the blog 'babalu' mimics that of Fidel Castro in many ways, and when you point this out to him his first response is a stream of invective, and his next response is to threaten a lawsuit.

I stand with Random Pixels, I stand for the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and I believe that dissent is necessary fora healthy democracy. Prieto doesn't care for the dissent that is a keystone of true democracy; so I don't care for Val Prieto. My instincts tell me that if Val Prieto supports it, it's probably not good for the US of A.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

The Sons of Confederate Veterans wants its Florida specialty license plate.

Remember, I warned about this last year. So who's going to start the process on the FSM plate?

I want to proclaim my love for His noodly Goodness!

Jim Naugle Spits on Civil Rights - AGAIN.

Let us start from the point that we should always start at, when dealing with people saying things we don't like:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the very first of our 'self-evident' rights our founders chose to enumerate for those of us who can't perceive what should be evident to everyone.

Before anything else, our founders decided that Americans should be able to pursue whatever path to enlightenment we choose to follow. And that Americans should be free to discuss whatever they choose. And finally, to be able to criticize the government and demand it to adhere to the principles outlined in the Constitution.

Which is why every man, woman, and child in the United States should be offended by statements made by an official who was elected under the auspices of the Constitution.

''The County Commission needs to park these buses this weekend and remove these advertisements.'' - Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle

And what are the advertisments that Jim Naugle is demanding the removal of?

50 Broward County buses, which for weeks have been driving with the following message plastered to their exterior: "ISLAM: The Way of Life of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.''

The advertisments were placed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). It's an advocacy group that's trying to educate Americans on the core beliefs of Islam, in order to promote understanding and justice.

Enough of this idiocy!" demonstration organizer Joe Kaufman demanded. "Take down the Hamas message off our tax-funded buses now."

Joe Kaufman, chairman of the organization Americans Against Hate, believes the advertisements to be an inflammatory message. He also asserts that the ads suggest that Abraham, Moses and Jesus followed Islam.

I take issue with that assessment. The fact is that Islam follows the teachings of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Just as Christianity built itself on the foundation of Judiasm, Islam built itself on top of Christianity, which means it also built on Judaism. Is Islam Christianity? Of course not, just as Christianity isn't Judaism.

In some ways, Jesus might have been more comfortable living in an Islamic household than a modern Christian household: Islam follows the kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws. In other ways, both Islam and several flavors of Christianity are diametrically opposed to his teachings: abhor violence and killing for any reason, prayer should be done in private, and that God's law can withstand examination.

I bring this up because one of the few legal recourses that the County has to violate its contract is on the grounds that the ad was placed for fraudulent purposes. If the advertise claims something that isn't true, or can lead a consumer to harm, the County would have some legal grounds to pull the ads.

But since the ads are neither false nor misleading, it would be a violation of the contract, AND a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Not that that bothers Joe Kaufman. Rather than accept that Muslims have the right to promote their religion, just like Christians and Jews do, he's trying to convince people that the ads are promoting terrorism, and that CAIR specifically supports HAMAS.

Let's examine the message again:

ISLAM: The Way of Life of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad

Hmm. Nothing about guns. It doesn't mention violence.

And in fact, despite his claims and the claims of other radical groups, I can't find any evidence to support the allegations that CAIR supports HAMAS. It's like claiming the Pope supports Terrorism because the IRA has Catholics in it.

CAIR's primary purpose is to get us to see Muslims as human beings instead of "towel-heads." Are some Muslims terrorists? Sure. So are some Christians. So are some Jews. CAIR isn't excusing them, any more than the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is excusing the actions of the radicals of their faith who broke the law for selfish ends.

Joe Kaufman, of course, can voice any opinion he chooses. However, he does have the responsibility to back his accusations with facts, and so far, he hasn't done so. Vehemently believing that CAIR supports terrorism does not mean that CAIR does any such thing, any more than vehemently ascerting that Zionists are trying to rule the world proves that Jews are evil.

By his actions, I find it hard to differentiate Joe Kaufman from David Duke, and his vitriol only underscores the need for an organization like CAIR. The fact is that there is a great deal of anti-Islam sentiment in the United States, and most of it is unwarranted.

Jim Naugle, on the other hand, is an elected official. His actions betray his oath of office, and everything we Americans should expect of our elected leadership. He is supposed to support and enforce the laws of the land, and time and again he has acted out against our Civil Rights. We deserve better leadership than this bigot who continually lashes out at those who fall outside his narrow defintion of humanity.

The County needs to keep the advertising on the buses, and remove Jim Naugle.

Abuse of Power: NY Attorny General Andrew Cuomo

One thing you can say about Andy Cuomo; he's not too bright.

Andy is the Attorney General for New York, and he's on a crusade. Remember how well the Crusades went? Andy doesn't.

To be fair, his cause is just; he's fighting child pornography. Any child pornography is too much; I don't think any basically decent person thinks otherwise. No, the problem is not the cause.

It's the method. He's chosen unwisely.

But first, Black Adder! (It's relevant, I promise you!)

Edmund Blackadder has a problem: he lives in Elizabethan England, and he's fallen in love with his house boy, Bob. They burned homosexuals back in the day. Young Bob is an androgynous beauty, as quick of wit as he is pleasing to the eye. He is also actually a young woman, Kate.

Bob's, er, Kate's father, desperate for money, was going to pimp her out as a prostitute since that was the only profession open to a woman of ignoble birth. No dowry, so now one will marry her, so he's ready to pack her off to the nearest brothel. Kate has her own ideas, and disguises herself as a boy and gets a job as Blackadder's valey...and you see where we are. There's a mutual attraction, but Blackadder thinks she's a boy, which means that someone will have to burned at the stake.

As desperate as any Republican up for election this year, Blackadder seeks the council of the Wise Old Woman:

I love that Blackadder!

Andy Cuomo wants to do something about child pornography that will get him noticed. Why? He wants to be GOVERNER, of course.

As I said earlier, the problem isn't the goal, it's the method. He's forcing several ISPs to cut off access to Usenet, the oldest and most venerable part of the internet.

I have to give you some boring history; if you know what Usenet is, feel free to skip ahead.

Usenet is basically a network of message servers. It was the first interconnected network of unrelated computers, and was the skeleton the rest of the Internet built on. It's like our limbic system; a primitive network buried under layers and layers of newer, faster, and sleeker networks. Most ISPs still offer direct access to Usenet; you access by using a newsgroup reader and accessing your ISP's NNTP server.

It's not unlike email, but instead of messages going to the mailboxes of individual users, the messages are posted to a "group." For example, if you're interested in genealogy, there are hundreds of groups dedicated to it: genealogy, genealogy methods, genealogy for specific countries, etc.

And there are also HIERARCHIES of groups; for example, if you are approaching genealogy from a social history point of view, you might belong to soc.hist.genealogy, or soc.genealogy. If you're french, the group might be fr.soc.genealogy. Perhaps your interest is in genealogy software, in which case you'd be subscribed to comp.genealogy.

These hierarchies go back to when Usenet was mainly used by Universities and scientists. But sometimes a group didn't fit into a hierarchy, or the constraints of soc.genealogy (or whatever) was too stuffy and formal. Or maybe you wanted to create a new group, but the universities didn't see the need, or felt it was frivolous.

Thus was born the ALT hierarchies. All you had to do was get your server's administrator to create a group on your own Usenet server to create an alt group; the others would automatically pick it up. And a lot of administrators cut that step; if you posted to an alt group that didn't exist, the server would create automatically create it.

There are a lot of alt groups. Hundreds of thousands of them. And of course, it didn't take long for porn to find its way to the Usenet "alt." hierarchy. There are thousands of groups that start "alt.sex.*" or "alt.pornography.*"

Sadly, 88 of those groups are dedicated in one way or another to child pornography.

Usenet is designed to survive a global nuclear war; there is no centralization. Once a group is created any number of servers around the planet host it. And every server hooks up to every other server, in endlessly random rotations. Messages aren't routed to any particular server or user; it's posted to the GROUP. Each time a server connects, it compares lists of newsgroups. They each add groups from the other until they match. Then they compare messages within the groups, and exchange messages until those match on both servers. Then they let go and connect to other servers, and start over again.

Investigators can't track Usenet messages like email. And you can't really tell who downloaded messages from a particular group; you could watch one server, but that won't help because there thousands of servers all over the planet.

So Andy Cuomo's idea is to shut down Usenet. Or at least, forbid you from accessing it.

He's chosen the wise old woman's third plan; instead of punishing the guilty, punish everyone else.

The ISPs in question CAN simply block those specific 88 groups from their servers. Oh yes, each server adminstrator can determine what groups it wants on its servers, and block those groups.

Instead, Time-Warner is going to shut down its NNTP server completely. It doesn't seem that they are going to adjust its fees to reflect the lost service. Sprint and Verizon aren't ditching it entirely; they've decided to block the entire alt hierarchy. That's nearly a third of the newsgroups; and the 2/3 that's left services every other country on the planet; most of them are not in English. They don't want to take the chance of being accused of not trying to stop kiddie porn, even though they probably know that their impact on child pornography will be exactly nil.

It's going to cost tens of millions of innocent people access to a portion of the Internet. And the sad part is that it doesn't actually get rid of those 88 newsgroups, or prevent anyone from accessing them. While Cuomo can run roughshod over the 1st Amendment to stop US providers from having newsgroup servers, there's nothing to stop pedophiles from paying for access to an independent usenet server, and access their filth that way.

Right now, there are Republicans out there getting read to shout "Hey, if the PEDOPHILES can pay for access, that means everyone else can, too!"

That's true. But why should I be forced to do it so that Andy Cuomo can pretend to fix a problem? Why punish the innocent? Some of us have been involved in newsgroups for decades; we have friends that we've never met on these groups. I confer with people in my business all over the globe via usenet: our free exchange of ideas have helped all of us create new solutions to problems. I've learned new approached to my hobbies, and I've even found distant cousins.

No, he's not actually doing a damned thing about stopping child porn, all he's done is created an excuse for your ISP to reduce your service without reducing its fees. He's forcing tens of thousands of users to cough up more money to regain the service Cuomo so cavalierly is about to steal.

The US Constitution exists to protect us from tyrannical jerks like New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

If we're opening the door...(updated)

As long as the drooling morons in Tallahassee our elected officials are open to idiotic ideas allowing religions to prosletyze through state offices, let's let them know what other plates they will HAVE to approve if they put out even one plate that endorses a religion.

Here are my proposals:

First, the ones we should expect, and only a few will protest:

Judaism

Islam

Here's where some people will start getting upset:

Wicca (Goddess Worship)

And this is where the real trouble starts:

Church of Satan (Satanists)

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarianism)

Wiensier Fights Back

Sorry for the gap in posts: I've been very busy at work, so the blogging has slipped.

News this week: Jeff Weinsier is suing the Miami-Dade School Board and the 3 cops who arrested him on false charges.

Weinsier was covering a story outside an area high school last year when police arrested him on a sidewalk in front of the school ON VIDEOTAPE. The cops maintained he was trespassing on school property, but the tape clearly shows that he wasn't on school property when he was arrested, or in the 20 minutes prior to the arrest.

As I predicted back in October, the charges were found to lack merit and were dropped:

"...due to the fact that the defendant was not on school property, it cannot be said that the defendant was trespassing. Since the defendant was not trespassing, anything that was found after he was arrested will be suppressed as a matter of law." - Assistant State Attorney Maggie Gerson

These three cops are the reason police do not get respect from teens; we expect law enforcement to lead by example, and these three jackasses have demonstrated that 1. they don't understand the laws they are paid to enforce, 2. they lack respect for the citizens they are paid to protect, and 3. they have no regard for the civil rights of that same citizenry.

I believe that there should be no settlement that does not include termination and de-certification of the three officers. Their presence in law enforcement degrades our legal system.

On Anonymity, the Internet, and Free Speech

I made the paper today. Yep, I was quoted in an article in today's Miami Herald. The quote was lifted from comments I made in response to a blog by Bob Norman over on the New Times website.

Here's what the Herald printed:

C.L. Jahn from the Man or Maniac? blog commented on Norman's site: ``If a blogger chooses to be anonymous, there's no point in trying to unmask them. . .''

Man, that sounds fatuous, doesn't it? I must be some kind of left-wing anarchist; let anyone do what they want anytime for any reason. Let the criminals remain cloaked! To hell with democracy, let's have a free-for-all.

I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that, especially if you also read this story by the Herald's ombudsman, Edward Schumacher-Matos. In it, he discusses the problems of anonymity and freedom it gives some people to post hateful speech. The Herald allows readers to post responses to articles; often, the comments are nothing but a stream of invective carefully crafted to avoid using words that are blocked from posting. Most of those comments are truly anonymous; no way to know who's putting up the libel, or even if it's more than one person or the same drooling idiot over and over again.

But the Herald has edited my quote, at the cost of some accuracy. So here is the full sentence (with the part the Herald omitted in italics):

"If a blogger chooses to be anonymous, there's no point in trying to unmask them unless there's a clear indication that the blogger is using his position towards a destructive end, which Rick nor SOTP has done."

Not so fatuous now, huh?

I understand both the need and the desire for anonymity. While I believe that you have more credibility if you put your real name on the things you write, I know that not everyone is in a position to do that. I work in the arts, where many of my colleagues have created names that they work under in order to ensure that they have privacy in their private lives. No one questions this practice, but they certainly put this poor bastard through the ringer.

"For the record, I HATE anonymous bloggers. They, in my view, are chickensh-- people who don't stand behind their words,''
Miami New Times editor Chuck Strouse

Strong words from Chuck. Complete bullshit, too. Remember, the sequence of events included an "anonymous" blogger standing by his words. And he got bitch-slapped and threatened for his efforts. You know what I hate, Chuck? Editorial morons who can't keep their facts straight, that's what.

You know who was anonymous and yet widely respected and even beloved by the entire world? Ben Franklin. He invented the cast-iron stove, bifocal glasses, started the post service, suggested time zones, mapped out the Gulf Stream, figured out how to prove that Lightening was made of electricity, and helped to write the Declaration of Independence.

Benjamin Franklin also wrote an "almanac," a collection of calendar events, weather predictions, useful articles, jokes, and other things that interested the author; in short, Franklin was an 18th century blogger. He wrote it under the pseudonym "Poor Richard," and maintained a separate identity for years. Why didn't Franklin just put his name on it? Franklin was already a widely known scientist and respected philosopher; certainly people would have bought "Ben Franklin's Almanac."

Dr. Franklin had a reputation as a scientist; while his wit and humor were widely known, he was respected a serious professional. "Poor Richard's Almanac," while it had some useful content, was light-hearted and accessible to the earthier members of society. It was a tabloid, complete with cliff-hanger serializations, astrologies, and political cartoons. And so he published it for 26 years, anonymously. What a chickenshit that Ben Franklin was, huh? Thanks, Chuck. Your "insight" enlightens us all.

We really should clear up what anonymous really means; we all know what we THINK it means; but everyone one of us tends to get lazy (Chuck, quit ogling your secretary.)

From Merriam-Websters' online dictionary:

Main Entry: anon·y·mous

Pronunciation:\ə-ˈnä-nə-məs\

Function: adjective

Etymology:Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anōnymos, from a- + onyma name — more at name

Date:1631

1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability

The thing is, as far as the blogger is concerned, there is no anonymity. We have an identity, and we can easily identify what he writes. While Richard Bachman, Poor Richard, and Rick all have OTHER identities, none of them are actually anonymous. We know them by their words, their associations, and their byline.

The point I was making in my comments to Bob was that we already know enough about Rick. Here's his blog. Here are the articles he wrote. Here are his comments in response to your comments. In the strictest sense, he wasn't anonymous at all.

What Rick was REALLY doing was working under a pseudonym. A "pen-name," or "handle."

Why do it? As I noted above, there's lots of precedent. Actors, writers, and yes, even respected journalists, often have an identity under which their work is known that is distinct from the identity found on their social security cards, drivers licenses and birth certificates. This is done not to defraud the public, but to protect the privacy of the actor, writer or journalist.

It also allows you to discuss sensitive topics without repercussion. And I don't mean simply saying "bad" or "mean" stuff about others. There are topics so private that we are embarrassed to discuss them; and right now you're thinking I mean sex. And you'd be right, and you'd also be wrong.

In society, we have all sorts of taboo subjects; sex, religion, teen pregnancy, capital punishment, polygamy, drugs, and how to hang the toilet paper on the dispenser. These are subjects that require examination from time to time. But there can be costs to that: family spats, personal vendettas, ostracization, and even murder.

It is for this reason we have anonymous balloting at the polls: even your spouse doesn't get to know how you voted. It's the only way we can keep the polls honest. There are places in the world where they hold elections: once a year, everyone comes into town and votes the tyrant back in power while the tyrant's goons watch you fill in the ballot.

Val Prieto ought to know something about that: he writes for Babalu, a blog dedicated to a Cuba free from the oppression of Fidel Castro. There is no free-press in Cuba, and certainly no free exchange of ideas. You can be arrested for speaking critically of the Castro regime, its policies, or even Marxist socialism itself.

Here's a clip from the Herald article:

One person who won't miss it is Val Prieto. His blog, Babalú, which focuses on politics and Cuban issues, has often been critical of Stuck on the Palmetto, and vice versa.

Prieto, whose full name appears on his site, said he thinks readers give more weight to blogs with identified writers.

''Anybody can say whatever they want if they're hiding behind a pseudonym,'' Prieto said in a phone interview.

Yes, they can. That is exactly the point.

Andrew Meyer, John Kerry and Campus Security: Clusterfuck Royale.

I've seen the video. The audio quality is poor, but you can make out what's being said. Then there's all the hullabaloo: Critical Miami is horrified, Stuck on the Palmetto is torn: Alex goes one way, Rick the other.

First, it was a forum for students to ask questions of Kerry.

Andrew Meyer was standing at the microphone, and asking Kerry a question. Well, two or three questions, really. But all he was doing is what the event was specifically set up to do: allow students to ask a US Senator and major US political figure direct questions. Andrew Meyer might have been doing it badly, but he absolutely wasn't breaking any law.

Second, Andrew Meyer really sucks at asking questions.

To be fair, Andrew did have to set up some background to give his question absolute relevance. Unfortunately, in the process he got so wound up that he seemed to forget which question he actually wanted to ask. And then he kept repeating it, cutting off Kerry several times. Andrew, Andrew, Andrew; once you've ASKED a question, you have to let the guy actually ANSWER, or at least respond. Your interview technicque sucks ASS. But you didn't deserve to be manhandled by thugs and tasered.

Third, the audio engineer was asleep at the desk.

I've worked this kind of event. It's boring to run the board. There is supposed to be someone in control of the mic. The Audi Engineer should have cut Andrew's microphone the third or fourth time he cut off Kerry's response.

Fourth, who was running this event?

Where was the moderator? The moderator should have sent a monitor out to explain to Meyer that part of asking a question is letting the man answer. And there is supposed to be someone there to do just that; keep order at the microphone. That person was not evident in any of the video, and they ought to have been. Whoever was supposed to be running this event wasn't doing it. They should be fired.

Fifth, WTF was campus security thinking?

Meyers was participating in the event in the manner the event was designed for. He was passionate, and a little disorganized. The campus cops were completely out of line. The shouldn't have tried to get him away from the mic, they should not have grabbed him, and they absolutely should not have tasered him. They were out of line. WAY out of line.

Conservative detractors have wasted no time to bash Kerry for not jumping in. In fact, Kerry can be heard trying to tell the police to stop. "Please - I'm going to answer his question. Hey! Let me finish!" I think Kerry did the right thing; if he'd gotten emotionally involved in the police brutality, the crowd would have grown agitated, and then we'd have been watching video of "the ensuing riot" instead of "redneck cracker cops beating up a student for no defensible reason."

Rick at SotP felt that Meyer should have capitulated when the jackbooted thugs ordered him to "stop resisting." Rick is wrong, plain as that. While I know that law enforcement has a tough job, and that keeping the peace is a difficult task in a crowd, the public should not capitulate to illegal actions by rogue officers. These "officers" were not arresting a criminal, they were haranguing a citizen engaging in a spirited exercise of his first amendment rights. What was Meyer's crime? Being passionate? Failing to resolve all his questions down to one?

Why did Meyer resist? Because he wasn't doing anything wrong. He was fully within his rights to be there, and to be asking his questions, and he absolutely had the right to stand there and listen to Kerry's response. And Kerry wanted to answer Meyer; and he told the stormtroopers that even as they were assaulting Meyer. Meyer did what a journalist should do: make everyone pay attention.

It's this kind of lack of self control on behalf of law enforcement that lead me to think that giving all patrol officers assault weapons is A Very Bad Idea. A taser is supposed to be used against violent offenders, not students shocked that their rights are being trampled. Give these same bozos the ability to lay suppressing fire? Fuck that. I'd rather they take cover and wait for SWAT to show up, given the propensity for undue escalation.

It is chilling that anyone could defend the UF campus hoodlums. This is the worst violation of free speech and the civil rights of students since Kent State. Law enforcement needs to expel these thugs and condemn their behavior; it's "cops" like these that make the jobs of real cops that much harder.

Hot Springs: Police Brutality Hot Spot

While it's entirely possible - even likely- that the office had a reason to stop these kids, it's obvious that he lost control of himself and the situation. I grew up around cops, and with cops. I usually side with them; they have a tough job, and sometimes the laws they must enforce - and they way they must be enforced - chafe. But choke holds are not legal in any police department in the US, and beating up children is unacceptable.

An argument might be made about the kid who ran; but remember, he had a picture of the cop breaking the law, the cop was beating up his friend, and then started screaming at him. He had every reason to believe that the cop was simply going to beat him up, too.

Finally, and the thing that turns me against this cop, he apprehends the witness taking the video. He accuses this witness of "getting in the middle of it," but the fact is all the camera man did was try to tell the cop to calm down. Something that is obviously warranted in this case.

These weren't armed thugs, they weren't criminals on a spree, these were 13 and 14 year old kids skateboarding as part of a pro-skateboard movement. Whatever crime they committed (and I will guess it was skateboarding on the sidewalks), it didn't warrant a beating from a 240 pound gorilla.

The video gives an email link to the Chief of Police; the mailbox has been shut down. Which means that he's a coward. I suspect that he's been flooded with well-deserved criticisms. And I suspect that he decided to shut down the mailbox rather than deal with thousands of people excercising their first amendment rights.

So you'll have to complain to the city commission:

Peggy Brunner- Maruthur (term expires 12/31/2008) Home:624-1965 E-mail: pege1947@aol.com

Elaine Jones (term expires 12/31/2010) Home:321-1839 E-mail: direlainejon1@sbcglobal.net

Steve Smith (term expires 12/31/2008) Bus:624-4699 Cell:627-8127 E-mail: srsmith12003@yahoo.com

Carroll Weatherford (term expires 12/31/2010) Home:276-7945 Cell:545-3153 E-mail: sable@hsnp.com

Bill Edwards (term expires 12/31/2010) Home:321-2291 E-mail: N/A

Tom Daniel (term expires 12/31/2008) Home:623-0682 Cell:627-8641 E-mail: td7965@aol.com

Interestingly, the mayor doesn't have an email address. Says a lot about the city. In this day and age, a city official without an email address is proclaiming "YES, I AM A HICK!!" Even the AMISH have a website, with email, fer goshsake.