While we mourn those murdered in Paris on Wednesday, it's worth noting two things about the satire that Charlie Hebdo created. First, a hell of a lot of it was truly objectionable stuff. I'm particularly offended by this cover:
 |
| Translation -- "The Pope Goes Too Far!" |
Having said that, I have no problem with the cartoon, because I was in no way forced to see it. I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo before Wednesday and even if I'd ever seen the image before, I would have been free to turn my head away and reject it. Stephane Charbonnier would not have cared what I thought, so we'd have been even.
I'm willing to entertain nearly any viewpoint as long as I'm free to choose how I entertain it. Which brings us to Star Tribune metro columnist Jon Tevlin, who is concerned about what the City of Bloomington is doing to some local organizers of Black Lives Matter:
When hundreds of protesters descended on the Mall of America on Dec. 20 to protest the police killing of young black men, there is little doubt the protesters broke the law, albeit a bad law in my view, by trespassing.So far, so good. As is his wont, however, Tevlin starts moving the goalposts:
It was an intentional act of civil disobedience, and I agree with Bloomington City Attorney Sandra Johnson on at least one thing: If you are going to engage in civil disobedience, you should expect to be punished. It goes with the territory.
I happen to think that punishment for a peaceful protest should be light, such as a short probation and community service.This is nonsense. From the outset -- does the Mall of America pay taxes to the city of Bloomington? Why yes, yes it does. As such, it is a constituent of the city of Bloomington and is entitled to police protection. Moreover, there's no dispute that having hundreds of protesters clogging up your place of business is a problem.
But Johnson is going much further, saying she wants protesters to pay for police presence at the event and potential income lost by store owners at the mall.
If I wanted to be sarcastic and ask a Stephen Colbert question, it would be: Why do you hate the First Amendment, and do you work for the city of Bloomington or the Mall of America?
I'm actually amenable to the message that Black Lives Matter is sending -- I agree that police often use excessive force and that the case of Eric Garner is particularly troubling. That does not mean that the messengers should have the right to obstruct the normal activities taking place at the MOA, especially during the height of the Christmas season. The staff of Charlie Hebdo relied on the support of its readership and its friends to publish their often odious viewpoints. The Black Lives Matter people are seeking rent to promulgate their viewpoints, and they are willing to use force to make people listen to them. While I understand Tevlin's concerns about the obvious force involved in a city attorney seeking monetary damages, it's worth remembering that the Black Lives Matter group had other options for getting their message across, options that would not have forced people to listen. I think people ought to listen to the message of Black Lives Matter. I don't think they are required to do so.
6 comments:
Jail time, community service, nominal fines, the hassle of going to court - all sound like reasonable consequences for the crimes - and still gives the defendants a martyr card.
Assessing them monetary fines based on security costs and business losses, makes me uncomfortable because it's a pretty slimy hammer and, as such, it could easily slip out of one's grip.
This approach by Bloomington sound to me to be very similar to what the State of MN did to those trying to stop the building of the Taj MaBakk senate office building. "Oh sure, you have the right to sue and challenge the constitutionality of the funding - as long as you first put up a bond indemnifying us and the businesses for losses that might come from the delays caused by the suit." It's another version of "too much money in politics"; only deep pockets need apply for justice.
(P.S. - this version of captcha is execrable. I'm already up to seven attempts; if you see this comment it means I made it on the 8th. If you don't see it, it means I said "screw it.")
I'm sorry about the captcha, Crankbait. This seems to be the new standard for Blogger, because I see it on other blogs as well. I will try to take a look at that this weekend and see if there's another way to deal with the issue.
As for your main point, I understand your concern; there's a difference between what's happening with the MOA situation and the protests of the SLOB. The Black Lives Matter protesters were given another option for a place to stage their protest that was outside the mall. I certainly understand why they were less than excited about protesting out in the cold, but because they had the option I don't have as much sympathy for their position. I also imagine the judge will throw that out.
As for the SLOB, the demands for an indemnity bond are outrageous, doubly so since you could demand the same thing from the NIMBYs who are trying to block the SW Rail line. Of course, those people are members of the proper caste.
There is a big difference between the MOA and TajMaBakk; civil penalties for losses incurred are a normal feature of tort law in the MOA case.
In the TajMaBakk case, however, what was at issue was whether the state had the right to do what it had done--more or less, the building was made law without a real estimate of the cost, and was an unrelated topic on a bill, which violates the state Constitution.
So the MOA is simple tort law, TajMaBakk is "pay to play", IMO.
And as I've said elsewhere, the best way of cracking the Brown/Garner nut is to do what the families of the Duke lacrosse players did; hire lawyers and detectives and go over the evidence to see if there is a blue wall of silence.
While still near the topic... a coworker just pointed out to me that the french outlawed the hijab a couple years back. Whats going there is not about free expression, or cartoons.
While still near the topic... a coworker just pointed out to me that the french outlawed the hijab a couple years back. Whats going there is not about free expression, or cartoons.
Don't disagree with you on that, Gino.
I should note that a while an event can be a crime and a tort, and it's possible that what happened at the MOA was both, criminal law and tort law are different things. This article provides a quick explanation of the differences.
The city will request criminal sanctions for trespassing and the cost of policing, and the MOA will go after them in civil court, I'm sure. You don't close down a good portion of the mall at Christmastime without seriously hurting sales. So it's a crime and a tort both, and the organizers are probably going to learn the hard way that protesting people who haven't hurt you is a bad idea.
Post a Comment