Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
71 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: A 1st Amendment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve e^(iπ)+1=0
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After hearing several folks being asked/required to give their names before speaking at the Cobb Commissioner's meeting, an acquaintance of mine got up to talk and refused to give his name. Without even being asked to leave or sit down, two cops handcuffed him, escorted him to the parking garage, put him in the police car, and threatened to book him. See the offense here: http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSLMQ.aspx?indexS... go to 1:18:55.

1 I would have never thought just to refuse to give my name in the first place. How many of you would have thought to do this or have done something similar?

2 Is this police harassment, and should the kid get a lawyer?

3 Is the Commissioner a bully?

4 Since politics is more about bluster and charisma than facts and solutions, for anyone wanting to actually make a difference, what strategies are necessary to actually get anything done or to maneuver around intimidation? (Bonus points if you can relate this to a board game.)

Edit: title sp.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
He should have just said, "Last name Hue, First name Falk"
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
From what little was in the article it seems that the police certainly over-reacted. That said, I don't see how it's a violation of the first amendment for a government to require that people who wish to speak at a public hearing identify themselves by name first.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve e^(iπ)+1=0
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
Chad_Ellis wrote:
From what little was in the article it seems that the police certainly over-reacted. That said, I don't see how it's a violation of the first amendment for a government to require that people who wish to speak at a public hearing identify themselves by name first.


That's why I gave the video link. If you blink, you'd miss it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
It needs software I don't have installed. But again, what is the violation? Arresting him? That seems like a wrongful action, but the First Amendment refers to laws, not individual actions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
Chad_Ellis wrote:
From what little was in the article it seems that the police certainly over-reacted. That said, I don't see how it's a violation of the first amendment for a government to require that people who wish to speak at a public hearing identify themselves by name first.
As I understand it it guarantees the freedom to say what you like, not to anonymity.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve e^(iπ)+1=0
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
slatersteven wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
From what little was in the article it seems that the police certainly over-reacted. That said, I don't see how it's a violation of the first amendment for a government to require that people who wish to speak at a public hearing identify themselves by name first.
As I understand it it guarantees the freedom to say what you like, not to anonymity.

Nope anonymity is a form of speech that is protected. Precedent: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Quote:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
chicken torturers will be chicken torturers
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
JesterKnot wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
From what little was in the article it seems that the police certainly over-reacted. That said, I don't see how it's a violation of the first amendment for a government to require that people who wish to speak at a public hearing identify themselves by name first.
As I understand it it guarantees the freedom to say what you like, not to anonymity.

Nope anonymity is a form of speech that is protected. Precedent: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Quote:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
Does this ruling not apply to political speech, and written speech at that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
I'm not willing to install Microsoft Silverlight to watch the video. Flash is bad enough.

Requiring people to identify themselves for public comment is not only constitutional but a good policy.

I find it hard to believe he could be successfully prosecuted for attempting to speak but refusing to give his name. However, if he was told to leave and wouldn't do so, that seems like a prosecutable offense.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve e^(iπ)+1=0
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
McIntyre v Ohio is particularly directed at political speech and as used as a precedent applied to both written or oral.

Sorry bout installation of software - I'll give you the 5 sec version. The commissioner actually knew Banks' name. Banks started by saying he has a couple of things to say, Lee asked for his name to which Banks replied he would not give it as a matter of free speech. Lee asked for it again and did not ask him to leave or even step down from the mike. The officers came and grabbed him seconds after he said he wouldn't give his name.

Concerning law versus rules is a sticky wicket. I've been participating in the Republican party, and they are governed by Robert's Rules and their own sets of standards. In GA state law, there are specific laws that basically say these rules have to abide by the law, and state and federal constitutions. I had assumed for a county commission meeting a similar structure is in place. He did nothing illegal, so this slides into police harassment at least. In the other linked article you can see how the Commissioner carefully chose his words to avoid direct responsibility (as he never actually asked Banks to do anything).

So if it's not a law, then the police have no authority to evict the speaker. If it is by executive rule, that authority derives from constitutions and laws and is subject to them.

This is the third instance I've seen of political bulling, typically using 'rules'. Aside from the constitutional bit, any advice for strategies against it? I figured this is the perfect sub-forum of the perfect site to figure this out.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
DaviddesJ wrote:


Requiring people to identify themselves for public comment is not only constitutional but a good policy.



Putting aside whether or not it's constitutional, why would it be a good policy?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
The Message wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:


Requiring people to identify themselves for public comment is not only constitutional but a good policy.



Putting aside whether or not it's constitutional, why would it be a good policy?
So that any conflict of interest can be seen and not hidden? So that they cannot claim to be something they are not and not get found out?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
The Message wrote:
Putting aside whether or not it's constitutional, why would it be a good policy?


Because the purpose of public comment is to create a public record. A public record that says, "Some unknown guy thinks XYZ" really doesn't seem useful at all. Just a waste of people's time. If you can attribute the views to a speaker then at least you can decide what weight to give them. Is the person even a constituent? How are they affected by the matter at hand? Those are the most important things.

It might be different if you were discussing some kind of factual argument. But when people are just giving their opinions, I don't see how you can give the opinions of some unidentified speaker any weight at all.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
DaviddesJ wrote:
The Message wrote:
Putting aside whether or not it's constitutional, why would it be a good policy?


Because the purpose of public comment is to create a public record. A public record that says, "Some unknown guy thinks XYZ" really doesn't seem useful at all. Just a waste of people's time. If you can attribute the views to a speaker then at least you can decide what weight to give them. Is the person even a constituent? How are they affected by the matter at hand? Those are the most important things.

It might be different if you were discussing some kind of factual argument. But when people are just giving their opinions, I don't see how you can give the opinions of some unidentified speaker any weight at all.


As previously mentioned, the problem with such a record is that it puts additional pressure on those with controversial minority positions and thus makes it less likely that those positions will be presented at all. One would think we should place more value on a system that encourages a wider range of viewpoints than on a system that let's us know that "David, resident RSPer" was the one providing statement #27. Assuming the two need to be mutually exclusive the former would appear to provide far more utility than the latter.

As an aside, if it doesn't regard factual arguments how do you give any opinions any additional weight at all? My doctor has greater credibility when it comes to medical statements because he's been trained in that field and is thus supposedly more capable of interpreting the hard information. I'm not going to give his opinion that "yellow is a sweet color" any extra weight than I would any other color-based position however. It would seem that either who the person is doesn't really matter because the statements are functionally "immune" to facts or who they are doesn't matter because the statements are bound by facts and can thus be defended anonymously without requiring an appeal to credentials. Could you clarify what you meant by that line?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
The Message wrote:
As previously mentioned, the problem with such a record is that it puts additional pressure on those with controversial minority positions and thus makes it less likely that those positions will be presented at all.


I'm skeptical. Most people with contrarian positions love to be identified with them.

Quote:
As an aside, if it doesn't regard factual arguments how do you give any opinions any additional weight at all?


I don't really understand this sentence. But the main reason for public comment at town councils and the like is to hear community sentiment. In a democracy, the opinions of the people affected by local government policies matter a lot: the people who are serving on the council have been elected to represent the interests of the community, that's why they need to know what those interests are.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve e^(iπ)+1=0
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
While it's hard to get true anonymity, I can conceptualize cases where it might be a good idea. In this forum, providing you name gives weight and witness. The Commissioners can also check to see if you are actually in the county, adding more weight.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
DaviddesJ wrote:
The Message wrote:
As previously mentioned, the problem with such a record is that it puts additional pressure on those with controversial minority positions and thus makes it less likely that those positions will be presented at all.


I'm skeptical. Most people with contrarian positions love to be identified with them.


Do you have any data to back this up or is it just an intuition? It seems like it would be difficult to get a good sense of "the number of people that aren't saying X because it's controversial," since those people aren't saying it. Speaking from personal experience I know I've kept mum in situations where I had a dissenting opinion that was a distinct minority view (obviously not around here, of course), and I'm certainly not the first person to mention this possibility so it isn't like the idea was pulled from thin air.

Quote:

Quote:
As an aside, if it doesn't regard factual arguments how do you give any opinions any additional weight at all?


I don't really understand this sentence. But the main reason for public comment at town councils and the like is to hear community sentiment. In a democracy, the opinions of the people affected by local government policies matter a lot: the people who are serving on the council have been elected to represent the interests of the community, that's why they need to know what those interests are.


If it's just to get a feel for "numbers" in regards to interests then anonymity wouldn't hurt that. If it involves anything with coherent points to be made then anonymity wouldn't hurt that. What exactly do you imagine happening that identification would help?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
The Message wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
The Message wrote:
As previously mentioned, the problem with such a record is that it puts additional pressure on those with controversial minority positions and thus makes it less likely that those positions will be presented at all.


I'm skeptical. Most people with contrarian positions love to be identified with them.


Do you have any data to back this up or is it just an intuition? It seems like it would be difficult to get a good sense of "the number of people that aren't saying X because it's controversial," since those people aren't saying it. Speaking from personal experience I know I've kept mum in situations where I had a dissenting opinion that was a distinct minority view (obviously not around here, of course), and I'm certainly not the first person to mention this possibility so it isn't like the idea was pulled from thin air.

Quote:

Quote:
As an aside, if it doesn't regard factual arguments how do you give any opinions any additional weight at all?


I don't really understand this sentence. But the main reason for public comment at town councils and the like is to hear community sentiment. In a democracy, the opinions of the people affected by local government policies matter a lot: the people who are serving on the council have been elected to represent the interests of the community, that's why they need to know what those interests are.


If it's just to get a feel for "numbers" in regards to interests then anonymity wouldn't hurt that. If it involves anything with coherent points to be made then anonymity wouldn't hurt that. What exactly do you imagine happening that identification would help?
It's also hard to judge how popular a view is if people do not identify themselves, but maybe that's the point?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
This certainly seems like an overreation and possibly illegal arrest, but I don't see a free speech issue. You are allowed to say what you want, and anonymously if you wish, but I don't think the government is required to give you a platform to do it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
Unless you are in disguise, if you are giving public comment in person you are already not anonymous.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
The Message wrote:
If it's just to get a feel for "numbers" in regards to interests then anonymity wouldn't hurt that. If it involves anything with coherent points to be made then anonymity wouldn't hurt that. What exactly do you imagine happening that identification would help?


I already gave two specific examples:

1. Is the speaker actually a constituent of the jurisdiction in question?
2. Is the speaker impartial or do they have a conflict of interest?

If ten people show up to speak in favor of a proposed development, and they all work for the developer and live outside the community in question then that's a lot different than ten people showing up to speak about the impact, all of whom are disinterested community members.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
DaviddesJ wrote:
The Message wrote:
Putting aside whether or not it's constitutional, why would it be a good policy?


Because the purpose of public comment is to create a public record. A public record that says, "Some unknown guy thinks XYZ" really doesn't seem useful at all. Just a waste of people's time. If you can attribute the views to a speaker then at least you can decide what weight to give them. Is the person even a constituent? How are they affected by the matter at hand? Those are the most important things.

It might be different if you were discussing some kind of factual argument. But when people are just giving their opinions, I don't see how you can give the opinions of some unidentified speaker any weight at all.


This argument cuts both ways. On the one hand, yes, having a public record of who said what can be useful for gauging actual community sentiment, and not knowing if Some Guy is a constituent or has a potential ulterior motive or whatever can impair that function.

But the answer to that is not necessarily to prohibit anonymity by force of law (or by force). As you note, anonymous comments have less weight - why shouldn't that be a sufficient penalty for anonymity? You can speak your piece, but if you don't identify yourself, we're not really going to give your views much (if any) consideration. The only downside would be if the anonymous speakers were so numerous that non-anonymous speakers were prevented from having their say.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
Golux13 wrote:
As you note, anonymous comments have less weight - why shouldn't that be a sufficient penalty for anonymity? You can speak your piece, but if you don't identify yourself, we're not really going to give your views much (if any) consideration. The only downside would be if the anonymous speakers were so numerous that non-anonymous speakers were prevented from having their say.
\

It's not just "prevented from having their say". Public comment takes up the time of many people, including those who are being paid to be there and those who have an obligation to be there. It serves an important function, but at a high cost as well. I think it's reasonable to expect a lot of those who participate.

I wouldn't have any problem with people submitting anonymous written comments, although I would also expect them to be completely ignored for the most part.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty
msg tools
Avatar
Re: A 1st Amemndment Violation - All for the Love of Chickens
DaviddesJ wrote:
The Message wrote:
Putting aside whether or not it's constitutional, why would it be a good policy?

Because the purpose of public comment is to create a public record. A public record that says, "Some unknown guy thinks XYZ" really doesn't seem useful at all. Just a waste of people's time. If you can attribute the views to a speaker then at least you can decide what weight to give them. Is the person even a constituent? How are they affected by the matter at hand? Those are the most important things.

Yes, and good thing people always give their real names!

(This reminds me--there is absolutely no cause for concern if you see your name in the local paper regarding a disturbance at a recent city council meeting, and it includes something like, "Mr. desJardins then made his escape by leaping through a nearby window. Although he left his pants draped over the podium, investigators found no additional identifying information in his pockets. Multiple eyewitnesses described him as tall, long-haired, and circumcised.")
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.