Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Blog #1 100207 - “Don’t tase me, bro!”

On September 17th, 2007, University of Florida student Andrew Meyer was subdued, tasered, and arrested by police at a question and answer session featuring Senator John Kerry. He was later charged with inciting a riot, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest. Following the incident, controversy erupted as to the validity of the arrest and whether Meyer’s free speech was violated. Here, I will offer the background facts concerning the incident, present both sides of the ongoing issue, and then issue my final judgment.

To maintain objectivity, rather than recount the incident here, I will provide the following websites from reputable news outlets that contain coverage of the event. Also, I will provide links to several videos of the event.

CNN: http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered/index.html
It should be noted with this article that video evidence shows that Meyer did in fact not say "You will take my question because I have been listening to your crap for two hours." Instead, the quote was “I'll ask my question. I'm going to preface it. He's been talking for two hours, I think I can have two minutes.”

CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/18/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3272316.shtml?source=search_story

Video One (begins at Meyer’s words to Kerry and ends with Meyer being escorted out of the room by police): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

Video Two: (begins as police begin to apprehend Meyer, shows the interactions between Meyer and the police officers outside the auditorium, and ends with Meyer being escorted out of the building): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8ndctwAJmU

The argument for Meyer incorporates much common sense and decency but very little Constitutional evidence. Some contend that Meyer was merely elaborating on his question before ultimately posing it to Senator Kerry. Even though the demeanor by which he addressed Kerry was undoubtedly not tranquil, his actions do not constitute that of inciting a riot. He was addressing Kerry and Kerry alone (not the student body), and video evidence also shows that the students were in fact not even the least riled until the actual altercation took place between Meyer and the officers.

The main point of contention the Meyer supporters have is the manner by which the police officers subdued the student. There have been a plethora of precedents set in the courts concerning unlawful arrest [see footnote #1]. Two that hold significance here are those of State v. Mobley and Jones v. State. The first case states that “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” It is evident in the video footage that Meyer clearly is befuddled as to why he is being arrested (although some claim this was all part of his grand scheme – a topic I will address later) and would therefore be justified in resisting. The latter of the above cases states that “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” This approach appeals to the “excessive force angle” that Meyer’s lawyers are planning to utilize in court. That is, Meyer many times throughout the ordeal said that he was planning to make his point to Kerry then peacefully leave the premises. The tasering, therefore, was completely unnecessary and an instance of brutality.

At the same time, there exists Constitutional evidence working against Meyer. Those who contend that his speech was indeed inciteful would refer to the case of Feiner v. New York (1951) [footnote #2], where it was ruled that inciteful speech is not protected under the First Amendment. Or one could even make a claim for obscenity (i.e. Meyer’s reference to the fact that “[former President Bill] Clinton was impeached for…a blowjob.”), citing the definition given to obscenity in Miller v. California [footnote #3].

However, with all this concrete evidence being presented, one may nearly examine the character of Andrew Meyer as a person to get the true picture of his motivations. Meyer is a columnist for The Independent Florida Alligator, the school’s campus newspaper. He self-describes his work as “[trying] to write mostly whimsical nonsense columns about nothing in particular, yet occasionally finds himself angry enough to rain down fire and brimstone on an unsuspecting politician or celebrity.” [footnote #4]. Does that last part sound familiar? In addition to his journalistic duties with The Independent Florida Alligator, Meyer also operates his own website, www.theandrewmeyer.com. Here, one can find videos of previous practical jokes that Meyer has participated in, as well as criticism of the Iraq War and the media’s tendency to focus on celebrity gossip rather than the war. Again, sound familiar? According to police reports [footnote #5], Meyer instructed a female companion to videotape his interaction with Kerry. And what to me is the most damning evidence against Meyer’s claims of free speech violation, officers also reported that "as [Meyer] was escorted down stairs with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again." Once Meyer was in the police vehicle and out of the public eye, he was described as "laughing and being lighthearted in the car. His demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight." Meyer is also quoted as stating "I am not mad at you guys [the officers], you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job."

All of these claims lead this blogger to believe that Andrew Meyer’s display was nothing more than an attempt to create a scene that would further his reputation of a prankster that is critical of the United States Government and give him his fifteen minutes of fame. The manner by which he questioned John Kerry and his subsequent actions were greatly exaggerated. As one of the attending police officers puts it, Meyer was “yelling as loud as he could as to sensationalize his presence.” Even Senator Kerry, who initially tried to diffuse the situation, was disappointed that a healthy question and answer session was derailed by Meyer’s unorthodox actions.

Andrew Meyer’s actions do not exemplify the ideals of free speech under the First Amendment; it is an abuse of those rights for his personal gain.






#1: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
#2: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/feiner.html
#3: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/miller.html
#4: http://www.freewebs.com/newforum/bioandpersonalstories.htm
#5: Police Report, Statement of Officer Pablo De JesusI observed Meyer hand a digital hand-held camera to white female he was present with, and it appeared that he instructed her to film his interaction.

Police Report, Statement of Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo The man at that point turned to his friend and said, "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?" The man was talking to a woman who was there to film him.

3 comments:

Amy S. said...

This action I agree was not a first amendment issue. The first amendment's job is to protect speech,however it is also supposed to protect speech that has merit.This outburst was not a protest it was simply an act of a "prankster".
With this in mind it is also not right for police to treat individuals as brutally as he was treated. They could have simply escorted him out of the event. The police had enough man power to carry him out without having to tase him.
It is clear why some people may see this as a first amendment case. This kid was tased and taken out of this assembly simply for speaking. some may say is this not the point of the first amendment to protect all speech, no matter if the speaker was a "prankster" or not? Is it not the first amendments job to protect the "unorthodox"? It will defiantly be interesting to see how this issue plays out in the weeks to come.

Mark Rivera said...

Tditman, to preface my statement, I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed your blog. The youtube links were especially helpful in allowing me to form my own opinions.

While it is certainly clear from the footage that our friend Andrew was seeking attention in some way- this is evident from his premeditated plans to record his interactions as well as his actual actions at the session- even if the transpired events were only those of a prankster seeking fifteen minutes of fame, I do not believe his speech to be worthless.

If there's one thing that I've learned to appreciate during the course of this class, and somewhat in reference to the previous comment made by Amy S. - "The first amendment's job is to protect speech, however it is also supposed to protect speech that has merit"- it is that the first amendment, by the very fact of its existence, protects not only meritable speech, but speech that may be considered meritless. If all speech was meritable, then by default there would be no need for its express protection from regulation. Even so, the definition of "meritable speech" is totally subjective in its own right- requiring a more fluid and encompassing first amendment protection from the beginning. This is similar to the argument presented in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton in that the definition of merit is similar to the definition of individual tastes, and tastes are hardly reducible to precise definitions (1).

In fact, I do not believe that Meyer's speech was abusive towards the rights the first amendment affords him at all. Through his speech and expression, he has sparked what I can only assume to be a "robust and lively debate", especially within these blogs- one of the principles of a democratic society that the first amendment was instituted to protect. He not only did not abuse his first amendment rights, he championed them.

The aspect of this case that I am actually upset bout is not that Meyer got tasered, but that he got tasered for speaking and framing his question in context.

The most obvious negative consequences of this may certainly be a chilling effect on others who wish to have their speech supported or heard by government and the people. SLAPP lawsuits, an issue that another of our fellow bloggers has covered, can have a similar effect on the general population (2). One main difference between the two examples of SLAPP laws versus, what in my opinion was, the police's use of excessive force against Andrew Meyer, is that a speaker was subdued for, as you so aptly state no substantive reason, by physical force. This may even disseminate an even larger chilling effect throughout the population. It sends a message to all those out there wishing to get their opinions heard that there is a distinct possibility of getting physically repressed for expression. This of course can have a huge impact in the sense of prior restraint, which the constitution protects against at the very least, and self censorship.

We must ask ourselves what kind of message this is sending to the people of the United States- many of which will only see the headlines "Florida Student Tasered for Speaking Out at Rally."

1. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=413&invol=49

2. http://nburnier.blogspot.com/

biszewki said...

The fact that Andrew Meyer's actions may not have been sincere doesn't warrant a group of policeman dragging him to the ground and shooting him with a taser. Clearly, Meyer could have handled himself in a more professional manner, but to me his actions did not warant an arrest. In a free country, it is never good to see a man dragged out of a public debate by force simply for asking a question, no matter what manner he asks it in.