I would agree, but I believe the police were being used as security for the event, so that was the role the organizers gave them. If they just showed up on their own and started to interfere I’d be outraged at that…

You wrote:

“In any case though, the worst they should have done was ask him to wrap it up, and shut off his mic if necessary.”

This is precisely where we agree. That’s about as far as it should have ever gone. But furthermore, it’s important to note what “they” we are referring to.

For me, “they” should not have been a group of police officers. The “they” who should have asked him to leave, and potentially cut off his mic, should have been the organizers of the event. If the organizers felt that Meyers was disturbing their gathering, violating its rules, offending others, inciting a riot, what have you, then and only then should the police have gotten involved.

What I described above may have been what happened (I don’t know enough of the context prior to when the videos online start), but if it is, then it should have stopped “at diplomacy.” A cop should never have pulled Meyers off the mic by hand, especially when it seemed he was finally done asking his question anyway, no matter how long-winded it might have been.

Now, responding to Eric K.:

“Last, tasering the guy seemed excessive, but again, I was not there. The guy was resisting the cops.”

Many people point to this distinction. Let me remind you that resisting the cops when they violate your rights is a natural response. If I were walking down the street one day and a cop came up to me and said, “You’re coming with me”, I’d resist the arrest too. Remember that from the video we can clearly see that the police officers did not make his charges clear. They did not say, “Adam Meyers, we are placing you under arrest for disturbing the peace of this event, and for not complying with our request to leave.” Instead, they just grabbed him. Resistance should be expected.

“What if on the other hand, Andrew Meyers was asking his ‘difficult questions’ and someone else who didn’t like the questions got up and attempted to yell at Meyers, get in his face, drown Meyers out, and refuse to allow Meyers to ask his questions, or, dare I say, express his own right to freedom of speech. Aren’t the cops required to ask this person to stop, ask this person to leave? Aren’t the cops supposed to use force to ensure that Meyers can ask his question? What if the person refuses to leave, do the cops use force to trample this person’s first amendment rights? Or do they allow him to continue, thereby trampling the first amendment rights of Meyers.”

I think I addressed this particular issue in my latest post. The short answer: the cops are not required to ask any person to stop or leave if they are being loud or obnoxious. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing so, no matter what good intentions they may have.

The First Amendment is clear in that it only says what things government may not do. It may not make laws infringing speech or assembly. It may not therefore interfere, through law enforcement officers, with free speech or assembly. In other words, the government doesn’t get to pick what speech is worth hearing, when people are speaking for too long, and what people aren’t being polite enough for its standards.

The First Amendment doesn’t say that the government has to ensure each of our voices get heard fairly in every forum. In fact, if this were government’s responsibility, could I not complain that my free speech rights are being violated because every night, people listen to Bill O’Reilly’s opinions on Fox News for one hour, instead of having pixelmonkey.org posts read to them?

Meyers may have been loud, obnoxious, and his opinions might have been complete shit. He might have drowned out the voices of two or three students at that rally. But just think of how loud and obnoxious Bill O’Reilly is, how big his audience is, and how you’ll never get to be on his show to debate him unless he decides you’re a liberal worth assassinating. So yes, the First Amendment can be unfair — it can let people speak longer and louder than others. But life is unfair. The key thing here is that the government stays out of it. If the government tells me what I can or can’t say, it’s fascism. Freedom of speech does not guarantee maximum durations, minimum qualities, or anything like that.

The First Amendment just says the government can’t interfere. When these cops stepped in, they acted as government agents, and interfered. It’s a tough situation alright, but IMO the rights violation is clear. The taser’ing just takes it to a whole other level, and turns what was a free speech issue into a police brutality issue.

First, I believe the student has a right to say what he feels and ask whatever questions he wants. It is his freedom to do so. But if in the act of executing his first amendment rights, he denied the first amendment rights of everyone else in that room by not giving them the opportunity to speak, then he is at fault also.

I feel like the issue that is at the heart of a lot of this, is that elected officials do not answer, or just sidestep the “hard questions.” And thats 100% correct. Who is to blame, is it the elected official who doesn’t want to answer them or is it the general public who does not expect them to be answered. Before you blame the stupid Americans who care more about Paris Hilton than Congress, think about the last time you laughed at George Bush when he misspoke, or when other members of Congress or members of the Administration say something dumb and it gets shown on TV or the Daily Show and you think they’re dumb and don’t deserve to be in office. There are reasons why elected officials have canned answers, two of which are because the general public does not demand them to have anything else and because one little mistake, one innocent mistake, can ruin a career.

Last, tasering the guy seemed excessive, but again, I was not there. The guy was resisting the cops. What if on the other hand, Andrew Meyers was asking his “difficult questions” and someone else who didn’t like the questions got up and attempted to yell at Meyers, get in his face, drown Meyers out, and refuse to allow Meyers to ask his questions, or, dare I say, express his own right to freedom of speech. Aren’t the cops required to ask this person to stop, ask this person to leave? Aren’t the cops supposed to use force to ensure that Meyers can ask his question? What if the person refuses to leave, do the cops use force to trample this person’s first amendment rights? Or do they allow him to continue, thereby trampling the first amendment rights of Meyers.

It is indeed a tough situation. I do not like to see someone not allowed to ask a difficult question. And I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. These were just some things that came to my mind that I don’t think were addressed in your post.

This guy seems rude and was probably taking more time than he was allowed. I don’t know the rules for this particular talk, but there was probably some guidelines people were supposed to follow when they asked questions. You don’t want the same guy up there rambling on for five minutes if there’s a 15 minutes Q and A session and a whole line of people waiting. In any case though, the worst they should have done was ask him to wrap it up, and shut off his mic if necessary.