Tens of Thousands of Responses to My Arrest at a Romney Event in New Hampshire

Sounds like you are getting the attention you are seeking Matt. You should get a copy of the arrest report and post it so we can see the other side of the story…I mean you are just trying to be honest and impartial, right?

Hi Guest. I appreciate your interest in getting as much info as possible about what happened. Here’s the only other thing I have right now (though I’ll be sure to share everything else I learn): http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/arresting-officer-at-romney-event-says-student-ha

Matt, I am officially fed up with you.

As I posted for all to see in your original arrest posting, your blog story here does not match the one you posted on HuffingtonPost. You gave a reasonable explanation that it was a backend server management issue and you could not change it, AND YOU SAID YOU WOULD. Now I don’t know what your excuse will be now, but clearly the backend is fixed. Maybe you honestly forgot. Which means you at the very least have terrible memory functions which makes your arrest testimony suspect.

You also say above that this has raised civil liberties issues but in our discussion you agreed the arrest was legal and about campaign tactics and ethics instead. So have you changed your mind?

You say you want to promote civil discussion but you are unable to be consistent in your thoughts and actions. I THINK YOU NEED TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER PLAYING ANY PUBLIC ROLE IN POLITICS. If I were Harvard I at least would seriously examine if your behavior is in the fine tradition of the Kennedy School of Government and whether or not there is a way to reform it or decide to give up on you entirely.

Meanwhile, best of luck with the self-promotion. It will get your face out there. And if I were any candidate from any party and recognized you, they should decide whether you are welcome at their events to.

Have a nice day.

I did change each of the first two posts to make them parallel with the HuffPo post. The additional paragraph reads: 

“My reason-seeking brain couldn’t take in what was happening. I had come here to be a part of the primary process, to see it first-hand and to write about it. I had already attended events with Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, and Newt Gingrich (and I would later see Ron Paul and Buddy Roemer). In each of these instances, I had come to understand the candidates and their views better and had developed greater respect for each of them. And I fully expected that the same would happen with Romney.”

Vandoctor, this kind of personal vitriol has no place here.

Re-read the Doug Walton quote I shared about the appropriateness of ad hominem. Then review this, which you wrote:

“I’m currently thinking about how to raise the quality, rigor, honesty, and inclusiveness of public conversations in America.”

I fight for those things. So this is not personal, it’s ethical.

Think through the logical consequence of a world you want to live in. Apply some intellectual rigor, and understand what your actions and the heat it generates could lead to, and that’s aside from just the character-smearing conservatives will engage in to discredit civil libertarians as they would do here. Let’s pose a hypothetical consequence of where misplaced outrage about your case could lead to. Strap in, and welcome to Matt’s World…

Let’s say OWS develops further. Their public marches continue till next January. Fundraising skyrockets. Their General Assemblies are getting so big they just can’t function with mic checks anymore. And there has been a blizzard. They have one choice: move inside to meet, or shut OWS down for a few weeks. There are pressing political issues on the table involving proposed new bank legislation, so organizers decide they have to meet indoors.

Like with all previous GA’s, consensus will be determined when 90% agreement is reached. As with previous gatherings, all are welcome. I am psyched, and I am there.

We’re all at Madison Square Garden, ready to go. 9000 strong. Just as the GA is about to begin 1010 Wall Street bankers show up saying they are there just to learn and observe. Here’s what happens next…

All the bankers can be easily identified because they’ve chosen to wear top hats and monocles. And according to the new laws about public discourse, they are carrying signs that say, “Bankers For Protecting the Status Who, Here to Learn and Observe.” The GA tolerates their presence at their private party, and begins to vote on the issues by raising hands. Again, 90% of those present have to agree. But then each time a vote is attempted, 9000 hands are for, 1010 are against.

“Wait”, the assembled wonder, “why are the bankers voting? They said they were just going to observe.” The bankers say that is entirely their intention, but like all participants invited to a private gathering open to the public, they observed until they were asked a question about their opinion. They didn’t see any harm in answering a question. They don’t understand what all the fuss is about. And being asked to leave? Why, what are they doing wrong, they wonder?

The meeting organizers look at each other. They look at the police they were required by local city law to hire for a large public gathering (to everyone’s surprise many, many police support them, as they are human after all). They can’t get any movement on their voting. Each time they kindly ask the bankers to only observe the gathering as their protest signs promised, they stay passive. The only movement they make is to raise their hands when a vote is called. They say they showed up and intended just to observe, but then once each moment hits where there vote is asked for, they answer. They’re just trying to be polite. Clearly they are being obtuse, but boy, the OWS folks give them credit cuz these bankers are sure behaving in a friendly decent manner (which, this time should not have surpised anyone, as they had already learned with the police support, they are only human too.)

In your world, the police now begin to apply the lengthy training received on the practices of mediation and arbitration, a skill now mandated for them to practice by a sub-article of the new Matt Bieber Constitutional amendment legally known as the “Protect All Certified Observers at Private Functions Open to the Public Being Held on Private Property Amendment.” This Amendment was inspired by the website that had hosted the Matt Bieber Case (you of course know that one of the sites you link to above mentions your case as raising Constitutional issues, right?).

The cops begin the process. The event organizers provide their testimony to the police, the bankers give theirs. Arguments are made that there is a clear difference between voting and observing. Arguments are made that a GA is not the kind of private event open to the public that the Amendment was meant to cover. But, the bankers argue, prior practice by OWS shows that while they were in a purely public space, their behavior was no different. The cops don’t know what to do: let the bankers vote, kick them out, shut down the convention? This wasn’t in the training manual.

So, Matt, your original post said you were arrested and still trying to figure out why. The Amendment I describe would have covered your ethical sensibilties, and as you know, laws are nothing if not an enshrinement of ethics. So now that you have had time to think about it, what exact new law do you want to govern such private functions in the future where they are stated as open to the public for observers and participants, just as my OWS example was? Yes, it was an absurd piece of fiction, but what it begs you to consider is that once you try and construct a system to govern political practices on private property I have no doubt someone will game it, intentionally or not (like I said, the bankers were without question obtuse, but incredibly respectful and behaved).

So I guess, to your professed love for rigor, I ask you, how do you want your personal experience to change the world? Should campaigns have to give footnotes on promotions for private events saying they have the right to remove anyone for any reason including mistaken identity? Fine, I will support that 100%. I am not joking. At this point I will donate my next modest paycheck to make sure I never have to hear about this issue again and can nip it in the bud before it leads to my hypothetical.

So, my question stands, how EXACTLY should the world change? You’ve had more than enough time to think about, you’ve read all the comments (one which strongly agrees with me, so at least two of us are curious), so what do you want? That footnote on ads and press releases seems like a pretty measely accomplishment.

We clearly disagree on what “raises the quality of public conversations in America.” You’ve started a conversation, and while you may or may not want to be the leader of a cause, it is leading somewhere. If you had a vote on the matter, where do you want it to lead?

Thanks so much for this, Vandoctor.

I’m not a legal expert, so I’m not sure it makes a ton of sense for me to weigh in (at least just yet) about how I’d like to see the law look.

More than anything, my experience has reinforced the idea that campaigns are often way too timid. I want to be part of a public that responds vocally when campaigns try to pre-screen citizens from participating in political events. I want to help establish a new norm according to which campaigns encourage all citizens to attend and participate in their events, rather than trying to ferret out the ones that might not agree with their candidate on everything. 

If we had that kind of attitude governing our political campaigns – a bravery, an openness, a readiness to engage in real dialogue – that would be a pretty big win.

Stay courageous, Matt.  I’m sorry for what you went through, but I am glad you have gotten the support and attention you have.

Hang in there!
Mollie

I’m sorry, Grand Guignol, but I don’t!

I ask you Matt, are you trying to have open and unbiased political events so voices can be heard? Ironic because your participation in another sector (the media) is just as much a problem of not putting the complete truth out there…I wonder what the Romney Campaign, private business or police blogs would look like if they addressed your experience from their side or through their eyes…

Thank you, Vandoctor.

I do. You paint this picture like you are a victim. What are the facts and how even your headline reads, you aren’t being forthcoming. Were you asked to leave? How many times? Under what grounds did you feel the need to question a uniformed officer about his authority and what capacity he is employed? Do you think he would make an arrest if he felt it was unlawful? HPD is a nationally accredited agency. See what history they have with the public and how they operate before making them sound like the Gestapo. The only beef you could have is that you were removed by the wishes of the Romney Campaign for their own reasons. The officer was doing his job and unfortunately for you, it didn’t inlcude having a discussion about the wishes of the campaign. Because his job is to keep order. Had you been assaulted, I’m more than sure the officer would have acted in manner appropriate to protect you and make a necessary arrest on your victimization. What would you have done if the officer instead escorted you to the end of the company’s driveway? Would you have made a scene about him lawfully escorting you off the property? They made their decision and had you removed. You were advised several times to leave and finally after being told you would be arrested (He could have arrested you after your first refusal to leave). He tried to explain his role there to you and have you leave. But you refused. After fair warning. And you mention being fearful about the officer’s reaction…what were you fearful off? Were you manhandled? Did they yell and beat you down? Yet the police have violated your rights on PRIVATE property. You had no rights in someone else’s house. And have you contacted the officer after the fact to see if he would discuss the situation from his end? I’d love to see you answer all the questions I pose…

What did they charge you with?

How did the arraignment go Matt???

So the case is going to trial??? I hope you make the department look foolish for arresting you for no reason!

The reason I’m asking this is my daughter was just arrested for criminal trespass for being in a car with a friend, drinking coffee, 15 min after sundown! The friend was arrested and handcuffed before ID was asked for! The whole situation was crazy…… Now she has to go and be fingerprinted and have a mug shot taken! There are sections of fence in the park but they are not “designed to exclude intruders” but apparently the arresting officer needs to carry a dictionary. Thus, she was charged with a criminal offense instead of a violation. Her attorney is suggesting an ADA, but for a year she will have this on her record, she may have to do community service and …..she was planning to apply to law school in September. All, because the officer did not know/understand the law he was enforcing! In NYS once you have been arrested it is never completly sealed and can be seen by certain agencies. Unfortunately in the court of public opinion if you have been arrested you are often presumed guilty and the question often is how did he/she get off. Oh, and the arrest will be published in the newspaper.