The Niemöller Test -- The UF Student Tasering Meets Voltaire

Much ado has been made around the 'blagosphere' as the author of the webcomic, XKCD likes to call it, and in the mainstream media, of a certain ranting prankster who committed the heinous act of jumping the line and ranting three questions at John Kerry during a Q&A session. For this, he was forcibly removed, 'resisted arrest', and was subdued using multiple pain-compliance techniques, not the least of which was the now-infamous tasering.

Many people seem to be of the impression that this fellow "got what he deserved" -- after all, if he didn't want to be tasered, he shouldn't have created a ruckus, right? And it would seem that he wanted to get arrested; that he wanted the police to arrest him. Why else would he have handed off his own video camera to a student he didn't know and ask her to film him -- asking very poignantly, "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?"

This of course is from the report by the New York Time's blog, "The Lede":

Moreover, one of the widely circulated videos of the incident was filmed with his own camera. As he pushed his way toward the microphone to put his questions to Senator Kerry, he handed his camera to Clarissa Jessup, a student he didn’t know, and asked her to record him.

Then, just as his diatribe was heating up, he turned to Ms. Jessup and said, “Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?,” according to the police report.

A very poignant response to this item was made by one "Kristina" in the comments section of that blog, which definitely and powerfully needs to be heard elsewhere: "Saying that he was a prankster so he deserved to get tasered is like saying that a woman who has had several sexual partners deserved to get raped." I'm going to let that stand on its own.

However, there is something which is somewhat under-reported as of just yet: what were the charges the police laid upon the young man? Turns out -- according to a longer-length youtube video which showed his being placed in handcuffs (If you haven't seen it already, google it; you'll find it quickly enough), that he was arrested for inciting a riot. And this, specifically, means that he was falsely arrested. Why? Well, take a lawyer's opinion on the matter. What is are the legal qualifications to be considered "inciting a riot"? Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence. Nowhere, notice, did the young man request or intimate that others should get up out of their seats, nor was there a reaction greater than laughter or applause from the audience. Hence, no riot nor incitation therein... that is, until the police themselves acted. Should, then, the police be charged with inciting a riot? Sadly, this will never happen.

However, much could also be made of the circumstances under which this young man was acting; certainly the ethical burden of fault is on him for his instigation, yes? Well -- if you believe that, you are wrong. To explain why, I reference a previous article by myself: Identity: "Google" Sousveillance vs. REAL ID:

All of this of course basically means that whether we like it or not, there will be a (nearly) universal, comprehensive identification system replete with individual histories; we are already contributing to its existence, right now. This adds to the development of what is coming to be called sousveillance:

(IPA: [suːˈveɪləns], French [suvɛjɑ̃s]) [...] the recording of an activity from the perspective of a participant in the activity (i.e. personal experience capture).

Whether or not this is necessarily a good thing, is certainly up to debate. But it definitely allows for something of which there is far too little of these days; "Sunlight", or "transparency", in government actions on all levels. One sterling example of the dangers, however, of employing such technology against government agents can be found in online archive of The Daily Tribune of Bartow County, Georgia.

Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son.

The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking.

What did this young man do, really, save create a legal scene and ensure that it was on film? Kerry wanted to answer the question; the students were all calm and in their seats when the police interfered. This means this Andrew Meyers was, effectively, exercising his Constitutionally-protected 1st Amendment right in the most fundamental way. In that sense in particular, to be the annoying sand-chigger in the heel of government is, thusly, every American's Patriotic duty. This is historical truth; does anyone think that the Boston Tea Party was really about anything other than symbols? Yet the participants in that "prank" are today seen as heroes. It would seem that in spirit this Mr. Meyers shares much more in common with our Founding Fathers than is comfortable to admit in these days. Or, at the very least, that he was channelling them in this instance.

We have had demonstrations, as a result of "the police"'s actions -- that wouldn't have happened if this Andrew had been given his head and allowed to move on quietly. But that didn't happen. Which of course draws historically resonant echoes of other instances of -- admittedly much, much more grievous and aggravated -- police abuse of force, such as the Kent State Massacre. It is worth mentioning here that no one of a 'procedural' responsibility level was held responsible then, either.

At the end of the day, however, it is people like Andrew Meyer that determine precisely how free as a nation we are. The "freedom to be normal" is not freedom. The freedom to be obnoxious is absolutely the fundamental underpinning of the 1st Freedom. If you doubt that, I suggest you go have a long talk with one Reverend Martin Niemöller. If you don't like him, try Voltaire.