Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Group Waging War on Meter Maids Tests Free Speech Limits
Forgetful residents of the New Hampshire city of Keene have found an ally with a group of activists who call themselves Free Keene.
These self-styled “Robin Hooders” run ahead of meter officers, and slip nickels into expired meters.
Free Keene members leave cards informing vehicle owners that they have been “Saved from the King’s Tariff!”
Yes, most would appreciate it if someone did this for them.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
This, however, is not the end of the story.
While expressing their distaste for the “unfair tariff” by dropping nickels in meters, some of the more zealous “Free Keene” members took to sharing their distaste of meter-keepers, too.
Reports show that some Free Keene members harassed meter officers by following and videotaping them. “How do you live with yourself?” one Free Keane member demanded of a weary meter-keeper.
Unsurprisingly—but unfortunately—the members of Free Keene became defendants in a case exploring the boundaries of free expression.
While the city allegedly took no issue with their practice of feeding expired meters, it is concerned about employee safety and work-related stress.
Citing allegations of physical contact and reports of meter officers who have quit under the activists’ spite—most notably an Army veteran who was told that he “condoned the drowning of brown babies”—the city sought damages for costs of therapy sessions and asked the courts to impose a protective 50 foot “buffer zone” around the meter officers.
This June, however, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unreservedly defended Free Keene’s right to free speech—even if that involves, as Justice Robert J. Lynn noted, saying “nasty things to parking-meter people.”
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Some people believe that they should be able to park wherever they want at no cost to them; they are parasites !
While the city allegedly took no issue with their practice of feeding expired meters, it is concerned about employee safety and work-related stress.
An entirely appropriate balance of speech. You can make your case, but harassment crosses the line.
On the other hand, this is not appropriate:
asked the courts to impose a protective 50 foot “buffer zone” around the meter officers.
Courts don't create law, they apply it. Such a "buffer zone" is something for the town's equivalent of a legislative branch to put into law.
the New Hampshire Supreme Court unreservedly defended Free Keene’s right to free speech—even if that involves, as Justice Robert J. Lynn noted, saying “nasty things to parking-meter people.”
I have to wonder how those judges would react to people coming to their place of employment and treating them exactly as those meter enforcement people are treated. Based on what I've seen in the news, the kind of judges that make these rulings tend to be more thin-skinned than most when someone does not respect their "authorit'a", freely responding with "contempt of court."
More of these good goody two shoes wanting to appear on some liberal yammer yammer show or leftists news program TWATS
Expressing an opinion is a right; repeating it ad nauseum in an attempt to harass is not. I can think of a better place to plug those nickels.
Luke
With a bit of tweaking I think you make a good point.
Obviously no-one has the right to intrude into judge's chambers and harass them, but if a judge is walking down the street would it be ok for me to walk behind him yelling that he frees murderers and rapists?
It would be interesting to see how strong their commitment to free speech would be then.
7:09,
I stated it that way because the street is where the meter officers actually do their work. My goal is to make the parallels as close as possible. Judges also work in the more public setting of the courtroom, and even there most judges wouldn't tolerate the "Free Keene" behaviors.
Your "public streets" example is a different parallel and valid in that on the streets is where the harassment occurred. But someone could argue that if you don't have to be on those streets, use a car, or travel a different path, etc. When that's where you work, you don't have that option.
Either way, it seems we agree that the problem is harassment and judges' ruling makes no sense in relation to that.
Post a Comment