Search: Site   Web

Gaston Scoop


Harvard prof handcuffed, free speech muzzled

July 28th, 2009, 3:26 pm by cfriedman

Henry Louis Gates’ civil rights weren’t violated. His constitutional rights, however, were thrashed.

The prominent Harvard professor, an African-American who was confronted by a white police officer after forcing open the door to his own Cambridge, Mass., home, has called the incident — and his subsequent disorderly conduct arrest — racially motivated.

Police acted appropriately in their investigation of a reported burglary, but they trampled Gates’ First Amendment right to free speech when the W.E.B. DuBois scholar was charged with disorderly conduct for loudly criticizing the officers.

Gates was returning home shortly before 1 a.m. on July 16 and used his shoulder to pry open his stubborn front door, according to media reports. A neighbor believed he and another man were breaking into the house and called Cambridge police. Sgt. James Crowley arrived at Gates’ home, questioned him about the reported break-in and asked for identification.

The Cambridge Police Department incident report indicates Gates felt he was being discriminated against from the onset of his encounter with Crowley. When the sergeant asked Gates to step onto the porch and speak with him, Gates replied, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?” according to the report.

Even as Crowley verified that the professor was in his own home, Gates goaded the cop, picking up his home phone and barking for someone to contact the police chief.

“Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home,” Crowley wrote in the report. “Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was ‘messing’ with and that I had not heard the last of it.”

Satisfied that Gates had committed no crime, Crowley left the home. But the professor was on his soapbox, and his front yard was his lecture hall. He followed Crowley into the yard, shouted down the police for their alleged racial profiling and unleashed a frothy tirade against Crowley.

“Gates again asked for my name, which I began to provide,” Crowley wrote in the police report. “Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn’t someone to mess with.”

Crowley warned Gates twice that he was becoming disorderly, the report states. Police officers and neighbors “appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst,” the sergeant wrote.

“For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department-issued handcuffs from their carrying case,” Crowley said in the report. “Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest.”

Meant to quell riots and diffuse disturbances, disorderly conduct is often a catchall charge misused to punish constitutionally protected speech. State statutes are vague and overbroad, leaving it largely to individual law enforcement officers to determine when speech or conduct becomes disorderly.

New York law professor Eugene O’Donnell told Time magazine that disorderly conduct is “probably the most abused statute in America.” Officers sometimes charge their caustic critics with this dubious crime when they are personally offended — a phenomenon that another professor calls “contempt of cop.”

“With contempt of cop, you get loud and nasty and show scorn for a law enforcement officer, but a police officer can’t go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them,” Jon Shane, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told Time.

 “The First Amendment allows you to say pretty much anything to the police,” the magazine notes.

Criticizing a law enforcement officer for perceived racial prejudice falls well within the realm of important political speech that enjoys the Constitution’s strongest protection. Though Gates raised his voice, he did so not to create a public disturbance, but to broadcast his protest of police treatment.

It’s the difference between a car horn — a noisy nuisance deserving little legal protection — and a bullhorn — a tool of substantive speech deserving much.

The frivolous charge against Henry Gates was quickly dropped, but President Obama’s remark that Cambridge police acted “stupidly” in arresting Gates, an old pal of the president’s, has raised ire among police and their supporters.

Obama has invited Crowley and Gates to the White House for a “beer summit” — a candid discussion of law enforcement and race relations. A frosty brew may chill this brouhaha, but police nationwide would do well to remember that they can’t put free speech on ice just because they find it offensive.

Corey Friedman covers public safety for The Gazette. You can reach him at 704-869-1828 or cfriedman@gastongazette.com.

14-year-old accused of impersonating Chicago cop

January 28th, 2009, 7:29 am by cfriedman

A Chicago teen reported for duty at a police precinct and patrolled the city with a partner for five hours before officers realized he was a counterfeit cop, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The 14-year-old had an affinity for police work and had been booted from the Chicago Police Explorers program, which lets teens learn about law enforcement, go on ride-alongs and perform some non-sworn duties. He had allegedly impersonated an officer before.

He showed up in a Chicago Police uniform on Saturday, checked out a ticket book and police radio and told dispatchers at the precinct that he was from another part of town, police say. He pleaded not guilty to the charges in juvenile court.

Most “blue-light bandits,” or those who impersonate officers, seem to lust after authority and wear the badge to boss others around. This eighth-grader has a passion for policing and just wantedto experience the excitement of a routine patrol. It’s unfortunate that he couldn’t wait until he’s old enough to attend police academy and train to become an officer.

The Tribune’s story mentions that the teen may have bought some of his police paraphernalia from a Chicago uniform shop, which requires police identification to sell the duds. This may be part of Illinois law, but I find it bizarre that you need special permission to buy pants with a hem stripe or powder-blue cop shirts. Patches and badges, sure, but regular articles of clothing?

Pseudo-police uniforms are often worn by security guards, watchmen and others who aren’t sworn law enforcement officers. If someone wants to play dress-up, that should be no concern of the state’s. But we can’t have every wannabe with a temper and a tin badge stopping traffic and writing tickets.

Easley’s last-minute public records pardon

January 13th, 2009, 11:39 am by cfriedman

An e-mail from a state employee and a printed letter from the same worker are both public records under an executive order that Gov. Mike Easley signed on his last day in office.

A number of news organizations had sued Easley for allowing state officials to delete e-mail messages, arguing that the e-mails are public records under state law and should be preserved. Beverly Perdue, the new governor, pledged to open the e-mails and stop their deletion.

Why should electronic correspondence be treated differently from the same words on paper? In the increasingly tech-savvy Tar Heel State, more and more official business is being done by e-mail. State residents should have the same right to read e-mails from their elected officials and public servants as they do letters, meeting minutes and other official documents.

It’s anyone’s guess why Easley waited until the last minute. The shopworn maxim “Better late than never” certainly applies.

But, with or without the former governor’s lame-duck executive order, the forecast for public information is bright. Perdue should build on her predecessor’s last-minute nod to open government, strengthen public records laws and settle the lawsuit over those deleted e-mails amicably.

Oh, and Bev? Pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, would you? Newspapers are in a tight spot and shouldn’t have to spend money to prod the state into doing the right thing.

Court rules cussing at cop was free speech

January 2nd, 2009, 2:37 pm by cfriedman

The thin blue line provides no protection from a blue streak.

The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that a man’s vulgar tirade against a Brookings, S.D. police officer was protected speech under the First Amendment. The man was charged with disorderly conduct after he shouted profanities at a passing patrol car.

Justices found that Marcus J. Suhn’s foulmouthed jeering didn’t cross the threshold of “fighting words,” which are not protected by the Constitution.

Late last year, Gastonia Police charged a man with disorderly conduct by abusive language after he said “This is (B.S.)” when he and his friends were ordered to get on their knees. Police were investigating a noise complaint at the man’s friend’s house.

While it’s never advisable to cuss out a cop, using a vulgar word to express disagreement is — in most cases — protected by the Constitution, legal experts at the First Amendment Center and American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina told The Gazette.

We should mind our tempers and watch our mouths, but salty language should never be enough to land you in the pokey.

College codes cripple student speech

December 19th, 2008, 1:47 pm by cfriedman

Students at three-fourths of U.S. colleges and universities could face punishment for controversial — but constitutionally protected — speech and expression.

About 74 percent of 364 American educational institutions studied have “speech codes” that violate students’ and faculty’s First Amendment right to free speech, according to a Dec. 15 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Public colleges are extensions of state government and are legally bound to uphold constitutional rights.

Many schools prohibit conduct and speech that’s vulgar, sexist, racist or otherwise offensive. Mild innuendoes and dirty jokes have been mislabeled as sexual harassment.

While proponents of the speech codes argue that they cultivate kinder campuses, it’s both illegal and unconscionable to compel civility. As free American adults, college students enjoy full expressive rights — though some administrators haven’t gotten the message.

UNC-Charlotte defines racial harassment as “any verbal or physical behavior that occurs on the University campus or on premises under University control, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, or ancestry…”

Well, a white supremacist group’s racist invective would certainly “stigmatize” many people, but such speech — no matter how hateful, vicious or misinformed — is protected.

At UNC-Greensboro, the student code of conduct states that the university “will not tolerate any harassment of, discrimination against, or disrespect for persons.”

Disrespect? Even the most innocuous dismissive statement or college kid putdown could run afoul of this frightening policy.

Colleges have a reputation for promoting vigorous inquiry and providing a forum for the free exchange of ideas. Speech codes such as these are an insult to both academia and America’s constitutional conscience.

‘X’ marks the spot for Christ

December 11th, 2008, 10:31 am by cfriedman

“Merry Xmas” — I write it without a hint of shame. It’s properly pronounced “Chirstmas,” and the abbreviation has nothing whatsoever to do with secularizing the holiday by subtracting Christ.

The “X” in Xmas stands for the Greek letter chi, the first letter of the word Xristos — which is the Greek word for Messiah that’s been Anglicized to “Christ.”  Christians producing costly books and pamphlets on the early Gutenberg printing press began using the letter X as an abbreviation for Christ to reduce typesetting costs, according to Dennis Bratcher of the Christian Resource Institute.

“It is not a modern invention to try to convert Christmas into a secular day, nor is it a device to promote the commercialism of the holiday season,” Bratcher writes. “Its origin is thoroughly rooted in the heritage of the Church.”

Given the letter’s use as a placeholder for the Greek word for Christ, Xmas should be pronounced “Christmas,” instead of “exmas,” Bratcher explains.

Many Christians believe society is trying to de-emphasize the holiday’s spiritual meaning, and while we’ll certainly find some examples among the shop till you drop sales and the strained political correctness of “Happy Holidays,” there’s no fault to be found with this popular alternate spelling.

It’s time to exonerate Xmas.

Minimum purchase? Don’t buy it

December 9th, 2008, 12:25 pm by cfriedman

I saw the sign yesterday at the Westfield Eastridge mall. Maybe you’ve seen it, too, pinned prominently to a cash register at a store checkout.

“Credit and debit card minimum purchase $3.00.”

Maybe it’s $3, maybe it’s $5, maybe it’s $10 or more. The store only accepts credit or debit if your purchase meets a certain threshold.

What few consumers know is that minimum and maximum transaction limits are a violation of stores’ merchant agreements with Visa, MasterCard and Discover. Credit and debit should be treated like any other form of payment.

“Always honor valid Visa cards in your acceptance category, regardless of the dollar amount of the purchase,” declares the Card Acceptance and Chargeback Management Guidelines for Visa Merchants manual. “Imposing minimum or maximum purchase amounts in order to accept a Visa card transaction is a violation of the Visa rules.”

Stores aren’t necessarily setting these policies out of customer contempt. They pay a surcharge every time we swipe our credit and debit cards, and on inexpensive purchases with lower profit margins, the surcharge could cancel out whatever money the merchant would make from the sale.

That still doesn’t excuse the practice, however. Accepting credit cards is a convenience that stores have to pay for. Call it the cost of doing business.

What can you do when an arcane minimum transaction limit is keeping you from buying your cola or pack of gum with your check card? Ask to speak to a manager and calmly and politely explain that the limit is a violation of your credit card company’s terms of service.

If store management won’t budge, you can call the number on the back of your credit/debit card to report the merchant. Don’t expect immediate action; while stores can face penalties for violating the merchant agreements, it may take a number of complaints to jolt the credit card companies to action.

When managers turn a blind eye to the rules and Visa, MasterCard or Discover won’t swoop in to save the day, your best bet is to vote with your wallet. Spend your money in stores that don’t set minimum or maximum transaction fees.

Have you spotted any credit/debit card fees in the Gaston County area? Comment on this entry or e-mail me at cfriedman@gastongazette.com to report where you’ve seen the sign.

First in flight, and in police openness

December 4th, 2008, 3:29 pm by cfriedman

We know more about crime in our communities than our neighbors to the south, a recent story on law enforcement openness in the Palmetto State suggests.

Media groups are criticizing some South Carolina police and sheriff’s offices for refusing to provide the locations of burglaries and names of crime victims and witnesses, according to an Associated Press story. Sheriff’s deputies in Beaufort County, S.C., no longer provide incident reports on weekends or holidays, the AP reports.

The law enforcement agencies say they’re trying to protect privacy, but as the South Carolina Press Association points out, knowing how frequently crimes happen in your neighborhood and on your street are matters of vital public interest.

Attorney Jay Bender, representing the AP and other media outlets, says it best: “The police are in the business of protecting people, not protecting privacy. If the information needs to be private, don’t put it in a public record.”

While some South Carolina cops may be stingy with public information, local law enforcement agencies are helpful and prompt when it comes to providing incident and arrest reports, mug shots, arrest warrants and other public documents.

On our Web site, The Gazette features a daily list of everyone arrested by the Gastonia and Gaston County police departments and the Gaston County Sheriff’s Office. Reporters review warrants every day at the Gaston County Magistrates’ Office. And the folks who work in booking at the county jail are glad to help us put a face with the names, e-mailing us arrestee mug shots whenever we ask.

Police work never stops because of some notation on a calendar, and neither does news reporting. Police, emergency dispatchers and paramedics provide us information as quickly as they can when severe car crashes, crimes or other emergencies happen on holidays and weekends.

When it comes to openness, South Carolina police could learn a great deal from their Tar Heel cop counterparts.

Want to kick your cell phone to the curb?

December 2nd, 2008, 10:59 am by cfriedman

Breaking up is hard to do, as the song goes, especially when you’re parting ways with your cell phone company.

If you’ve lost that lovin’ feeling for your wireless carrier but don’t want to pay steep early termination fees, watch for rate increases. When the company changes its terms of service, you can cancel without paying a cent.

All phone contracts allow customers to cancel if “materially adverse changes” are introduced. Also, basic contract law stipulates that one party can’t abruptly change the terms without the other’s permission.

Just yesterday, I used this knowledge to cancel my family plan with a cell phone company I will only refer to by the affectionate antonym “Hobble.” Effective Jan. 1, the company’s monthly administrative fee would jump from $0.75 to $0.99. So, effective Jan. 1, I’ll be switching carriers.

I went to Hobble’s Web site and cancelled my service via an instant message chat. I recommend this option because you’re able to save a transcript of the online conversation — your company can’t later go back on its word and claim its reps never promised to waive the cancellation fees.

First, I told the customer service rep I’d like to cancel effective Jan. 1. He told me the contract wasn’t up until April, so my family would have to pay a total of $600 — a $200 termination fee for each line.

I responded that the administrative fee increase represents a materially adverse change to my contract and I wanted the ETFs waived. After researching it for a few moments, he agreed without further prodding to cancel our service for free.

So, if you want that new BlackBerry or iPhone for Christmas, check your cell phone company’s Web site for any slight change to your service agreement.

ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site