By and large, I do not go to political speeches, rallies, or events… I generally read faster than most people talk, so I tend to get bored, and the honest reality is that I hate having to listen to people tell other people that they are going to to do something when they have next to no actual interest in actually doing it. I guess I am old-fashioned like that.
In the end, though, it is probably just as well I do not waste my time at those public celebrations of prevarication, just to minimize the chances of something like this happening to me:
Representative Steven Chabot, if you did actually instruct those police officers to take cameras away from law-abiding citizens in attendance to your little speech, you have egregiously violated your oath of office, broken your word to your constituents, and failed in your duties as a duly-elected representative of the people, and should be held to the appropriate consequences for those actions, up to and including ejection from office.
And to the police officer who unlawfully confiscated people’s phones and video cameras, you should be brought up on charges of armed robbery and assault at the least, and administrative proceedings should be commenced to drum you out of your respective police force. Yes, this halfwitted Representative may have “ordered” you to confiscate private citizens’ property, but that does not give you the right to do so, and you bloody well should have known better… or do they not teach the Constitution in Police Academy any more?
This was a blatant trampling of those people’s First Amendment-protected rights, and should be regarded – and handled – as such.
But it will not be. They almost never are. Representative Chabot will continue going around like he is better than his constituents, and people will continue tolerating having their rights squashed before their very eyes because they are too afraid of saying “No”… because we all know where that ends up.
However, I say “almost” for a reason – it would appear as though the First Circuit Court of Appeals, surprisingly enough based in Boston, has the faintest of understandings on how our country was supposed to work:
The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” …
Granted, in this particular case, we are talking about police officers, and I sincerely doubt that Representative Chabot would consider himself “equal” to a police officer, but it is a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, it is also a step we never should have had to take. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of our having to constantly stand up and point out that the Constitution really does mean what it says…
(Courtesy of The Breda Fallacy, No Silence Here, and A Geek With Guns.)
The sad part is that representative Chabot is the best choice of a bad lot. He’s much better than the former congressman who voted for the stimulus, Obamacare and so forth.
I remain utterly revolted by what occurred, and his continued lack of communication following other than some tepid drivel about public safety.
And the best part is that I’m a constituent.
If you are concerned about what you say being recorded in a public place during a public gathering for the purpose of documentation, then EVERYONE ELSE should be concerned with why you do not want it recorded and what your deceptive intent is. What does he have to hide? The addition of Law Enforcement Muscle being used in the interest of infringing someone’s rights is intimidation at its worst. I’ll buy them both a pair of jack boots and a little red arm band if they would both wear them. At least then you would know what to expect. Lastly, and somewhat on/off topic:
“the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” …
So in normal people terms the government can’t limit information and thus only allow the public to obtain only part of the big picture because it is an extension of the 1A. So why is it that we still do not have access to all documents regarding the John Fitzgerald Kennedy assassination? Why is it that SOME of those documents will not be available for another 18 years? Surly, national security no longer applies to a 48 yer old assassination of the then President of the United States, does it? Or is “National Security” just another way of saying the Government can do what it wants without consequence and hide behind words and internal policy without being accountable to the American People.
Sorry for deviating off topic slightly. I just watched numerous documentaries about the JFK assassination and it always makes me angry.
Bottom line… Your electorate is just that. YOUR ELECTORATE. They answer to you, not the other way around. The police are there to enforce LAW, not POLICY or WHIM. Disgusting and a growing problem in this country. Another blogger knows that all to well, just ask wizardpc about the recent issues in his town.
Tac
Tac…don’t you mean, “you answer to them?” for the electorate?
AntiCitizenOne,
OMG the State of Ohio gets me so riled up I can’t think straight. Thank you for pointing out my horribly placed mistake. Talk about sending the wrong message. I appreciate the correction and hope I didn’t come off as an extreme left fascist liberal. I deserve athlete’s foot and jock itch for that mistake. ugh. My apologies to all. If my head was on fire my ass would be catching.
Correction to my original post. Replace “They answer to you, not the other way around.” with “YOU ANSWER TO THEM, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.”
Tac
@ avidus: Unfortunately, “best choice of a bad lot” has pretty much gotten us to where we are today. I am not entirely sure what the better alternative is to holding our noses and voting for the only people we can vote for with a semi-clean conscience, but it simply is not working any more…
This guy, however, needs to be jettisoned as soon as his seat comes up for re-election.
@ Tac: “National security”, clearances, and classifications have been repeatedly upheld in court, fortunately or unfortunately… Of course, those courts are appointed/hired by the same people issuing the clearances, so it is something of a conflict of interests, but I, for one, do not want the general public knowing ship movement schedules or other things that remain matters of “national security”.
JFK’s assassination? *shrug* No idea.