Arrested for failing to identify himself and photography

[philip964]

I just can't go there. For the last 50 years, the Government has continually eroded the rights of citizens by justifying actions based on "potential dangers" that we need to be protected from. That phrase "future harm" is ridiculous and borders on the edge of "thought police". You cannot justify violating individual's rights based on what "might happen" at some point in the future. Anyone has the right to stand on public property and look around, take pictures, etc... as long as THEY are not infringing on someone else's rights. The fact that he was taking pictures through a gate has no bearing on that. If the police don't like it they can put up a gate that blocks the view. Justice Louis Brandeis stated it well: "The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the Government, the right of the individual to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men."

I agree with you. However, I'd point out that it's not just the last 50 years. We were doing it well before that. We locked up Asians - taking away their property during WWII and demanded that they indicate allegiance to the United States. Kept them in prison. During the 1960s, we went on a witch hunt against "communists" and were willing to bend (stating it nicely) the rules left and right. All that was required was someone report that you might be one to get the ball rolling.

Now it's ISIS/ISIL, national security, drug war, blah blah - keywords used to throw the rules out the door.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/universi ... ul-speech/

Now report speech you don't like to the police at the University of Missouri.

[talltex]

I just can't go there. For the last 50 years, the Government has continually eroded the rights of citizens by justifying actions based on "potential dangers" that we need to be protected from. That phrase "future harm" is ridiculous and borders on the edge of "thought police". You cannot justify violating individual's rights based on what "might happen" at some point in the future. Anyone has the right to stand on public property and look around, take pictures, etc... as long as THEY are not infringing on someone else's rights. The fact that he was taking pictures through a gate has no bearing on that. If the police don't like it they can put up a gate that blocks the view. Justice Louis Brandeis stated it well: "The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the Government, the right of the individual to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men."

I agree with you. However, I'd point out that it's not just the last 50 years. We were doing it well before that. We locked up Asians - taking away their property during WWII and demanded that they indicate allegiance to the United States. Kept them in prison. During the 1960s, we went on a witch hunt against "communists" and were willing to bend (stating it nicely) the rules left and right. All that was required was someone report that you might be one to get the ball rolling.

Now it's ISIS/ISIL, national security, drug war, blah blah - keywords used to throw the rules out the door.

Exactly ! The government figured out a long time ago that scaring the citizenry about a particular group or situation would result in the opportunity to expand their power and authority to "keep us safe". Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."

[Pariah3j]

I agree with you. However, I'd point out that it's not just the last 50 years. We were doing it well before that. We locked up Asians - taking away their property during WWII and demanded that they indicate allegiance to the United States. Kept them in prison. During the 1960s, we went on a witch hunt against "communists" and were willing to bend (stating it nicely) the rules left and right. All that was required was someone report that you might be one to get the ball rolling.

Now it's ISIS/ISIL, national security, drug war, blah blah - keywords used to throw the rules out the door.

Exactly ! The government figured out a long time ago that scaring the citizenry about a particular group or situation would result in the opportunity to expand their power and authority to "keep us safe". Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."[/quote]