Tapsearch Com EditorWhat 'free speech' is and is not, part II
September 22nd 2007 01:07
I've been critical of the police for Tasering a student recently, but for the reason that they used excessive force. Over at Salon.com, Joe Conason makes the absurd argument that the cops stifled the kid's free speech rights.
Let's reiterate: The student was at a school event, standing in line to ask John Kerry a question (or three). When the end of the Q&A was announced, he was still toward the end of the line, so he elbowed his way forward, yelling, and started talking into the microphone. He was told repeatedly to stop. Eventually the cops had to stop him.
Free speech allows you to say what you want. It does not allow you to disrupt an event, and ignore the event's managers, to do so.
A similar point I made in another context here.
Conason also calls Kerry "wholly innocent" in the matter, but he's wrong.
In other don't Tase me news, Wonkette features a pretty rockin' remix of the event.
Let's reiterate: The student was at a school event, standing in line to ask John Kerry a question (or three). When the end of the Q&A was announced, he was still toward the end of the line, so he elbowed his way forward, yelling, and started talking into the microphone. He was told repeatedly to stop. Eventually the cops had to stop him.
Free speech allows you to say what you want. It does not allow you to disrupt an event, and ignore the event's managers, to do so.
A similar point I made in another context here.
Conason also calls Kerry "wholly innocent" in the matter, but he's wrong.
In other don't Tase me news, Wonkette features a pretty rockin' remix of the event.
| 32 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Marty