Skip to content

SNAFU: The University of Florida hosts John Kerry (and special agent Andrew Meyer)

August 21, 2013

Sleeping minds get yet another cause to be wary. “If it looks too good to be true, it probably were.” Not that there were anything good about being tased or exploiting the wishes of a guest and verifiable servant of the public by explicit intention. If no one defends John Kerry then how do we know that Mr. Kerry were serving the public interest and critique general rather than specifically that “interest of one”?

Initially in viewing the tape-and-comments (“hoax”), the only explanation seemed to be that these police were ganging up on a guy for free speech. If they had any reason to arrest him, then what were they waiting for?

What the tape doesn’t show was apparently all there was to the case.

The facts of the case suggest severe repercussions for the Web in general. Anyone already should know that video should not be admissible as evidence. This incident at the University of Florida should drive one densely metallic nail firmly into the dossier of Why.

In something of a twist on the 90’s film Rising Sun, we can be lab rats for the cause of discovering that the implicit rebuke and unpopularity of Andrew Meyer as displayed in the non-fiction film popularly known “Don’t Tase Me Bro” was fictive in the sense that the prelude was withheld and called into question by this alleged police report. This important albeit restricted adult film relates to using video to establish facts of a case (see the infamous “Don’t Tase Me Bro” discovery).

Well, of course it was unpopular — and possibly violation of the school rules or code of conduct (haven’t confirmed that much 4u, r-u-there!?)

The key was reportedly that the tasered U press reporter, Andrew Meyer, has been cited with a history of refusing a cue by the acting U authority. The message appears to be that reporters can pursue the story aggressively, but you gotta be sure of that pursuit being without viable legal contest. The amazing thing about this abduction event was that it did not concern acceptance or rejection by  J. Kerry as function of University of Florida forum hostings, but rather about the acting University of Florida authority telling Mr. Meyer in so many ways to be arrested. They in fact let him speak and ask his questions but protected Mr. Kerry by arresting Mr. Meyer immediately after completing Meyer’s promised inquiry of “two more questions.” (touch meaning arrest, so their acting in official capacity to subdue or prevent free exercise). Clearly Andrew Meyer was not in a “free speech zone.”

In effect, the media has absolute power to manipulate the facts and control crowd of behavior, and law recognizes this fact in “free speech zones.” So long as no one were being hounded by a reporter, then, the police perceive no legal grounds to arrest or detain.

But the Twilight Zone moment was rather something to the effect of why there was no designated authority with control of the microphone who could had turned off journalist Andrew Meyer and explained to the group that his action was improper — other than by way of arrest. Seeing sights such as these should make one extremely wary of uncontrolled microphones … and especially of unmoderated, or poorly moderated, public forums.

See page eight of this pamphlet of California State University for a section about Free Speech Zones. The general idea of setting refers to the grander idea of significance. Although certainly a different state law, the passage it is not unqualified material.

This helps establish or affirm any form of paranoia (“Unidentified Flying Contest”) over the concept of “free speech” being nothing other than words coming out of a person’s mouth.  And what social movement do you identify the cause of nothing other than words coming out of a person’s mouth as being something other than the fact in question? The only possible or likely answer would be when the person so engaged were a guest whom were at coordinates THC that stand for , tribunal, hosted, code — a location that were sanctioned legitimately under legally qualified administration (tribunal), hosted by legitimate authority (Congress), and pertaining to legitimate institutional code (code of conduct). The translation means that anywhere on federal territory, the Bill of Rights although binding is not the law of the land’s administration but rather only the law as such pertains to being handled consistent with the idea of effective method-of-expulsion. As such, federal land or possession does not give anyone any right to be accepted there by federal officials. One may attempt to practice any rightful thing, but the greater effect were that the federal authority or its employees have the greater power to expulse in accordance with due process.

The twisted idea of “defending free speech” or free expression by imposing restrictions upon anyone else resorting to such rather transfers the burden of critique from the crowd or witnesses to the person so engaged. But just because pledges to uphold and defend the constitution occur does not, evidently, certify and establish that such shall be the sole priority of enforcement.

The idea here were that one is not going to be free to practice constitutionism on federal soil. And when the constitution mentions such freedom under right, it implies the freedom to petition Congress for redress of any grievance outstanding.

That means that we have manifest reason to fear our federal government, but because our rights evidently are not regarded as first-priorities by the federal government; and for apparently sound legal and practical reasons of regard. This fact seems significant, but because the thrust of democratic activity has focused on many freedoms, even referred to their basis. But the idea that one’s rights are not federal priority rather suggests legal “need to know” as imperative before rushing into any organized cause … for any intention whatsoever.

Imagine waiting there in the theater when all of a sudden one of the thespians on the stage comes to a particularly provocative verse of the performance. Police jump out of the audience and then seize the speaker … well, because it is not a free speech zone. This idea should be absurd — unless the performance so happened to be on federal land or possession.

And so, the idea that Free Speech Zones that have been daintied up were originally some sort of affirmation of federal jurisdiction as such regard the principle of THC indicated above. (THC — is no joke, incidentally, but rather parallel of speculative valence if understood as entirely clear otherwise than as-related in this article.)

So in sum, the nighmarish episode of Andrew Meyer was the sort of dream sequence that any could expect if the legal role of video footage in displaying evidence has never been drilled with correct boundaries into applicable legal clarity. And the idea of Free Speech Zone was the sort of dream sequence that anyone would get for wandering off beyond the thrust of democracy into the idea of freedom and ideal that protection and objection must somehow be incompatible. It is no different than what happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 … except for the power of the flower.


From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. An interesting discussion may be worth comment. I do believe that you should compose more on this topic, may possibly not be a taboo subject but typically people are too few to speak about such subject areas. To the next. Cheers

Stamp a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: