It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Hampshire Police Charged and Arrested a Man for Criticizing Them on the Internet

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

On May 23, a police officer arrested Robert W. Frese in Exeter, New Hampshire and took him to the station for booking. Frese is no stranger to law enforcement; in the past, he has been convicted of fraud, criminal trespassing, and a hit-and-run. (His vehicle was easy to track because of its notable vanity plate: TRUMP1.) But this latest arrest, Frese learned, had nothing to do with those earlier mishaps. Instead, he had been apprehended for insulting a police officer on the internet.

The facts of the case, laid out by the Seacoast Online and the criminal complaint against Frese, are straightforward. On May 3, Frese wrote a comment on a Seacoast Online article about recently retiring police officer Dan D’Amato. He believed that D’Amato had treated him unfairly and harshly criticized his alleged misconduct. He then tore into Exeter Police Chief William Shupe, declaring that “Chief Shupe covered up for this dirty cop.”

Source: New Hampshire Police Charged and Arrested a Man for Criticizing Them on the Internet

I thought the Sedition Act of 1798 was shot down as unconstitutional? Seems like over 200 years later we have this man being arrested for just that reason. And in a state whose official motto is, "Live Free of Die", it is a total slap in the face of every citizen of that state.



Keep in mind........

The situation in Exeter may seem to be little more than a minor mishap. But as pundits and politicians debate censorship on college campuses, it’s important to remember that law enforcement has vast power to suppress expression it dislikes. Immigration activists have credibly accused federal agents of targeting them on the basis of their speech. Demonstrators protesting police brutality have been subject to violence and wrongful arrests because of their expression. Other police departments have allegedly retaliated against citizens who contribute to negative media coverage of officers and journalists conducting investigations. The Exeter case is a bracing reminder that people with guns and badges often present the most immediate threat to the freedom of speech.

edit on 6/5/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Well, New Hampshire is a part of New England.......... And it sounds like they're taking a play right out of England and their "Thought Police" playbook.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

while I agree, this seems wrong on many levels, I can't help but think of the guy who stripped naked, covered himself with bacon grease and crawled into a badger den, then got upset the badgers attacked him. he had every right to be in that badger den covered in bacon grease.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

Well done.

New Hampshire phffft. Supposed "independent voter state", supposedly all voted for Insane McCain instead of Ron Paul in 2008. That is if we're to beLIEve Diebold. Loved the "Live Free or Diebold" memes of the era.


originally posted by: network dude
he had every right to be in that badger den covered in bacon grease.



edit on 5-6-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

It really doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional or if he can criticize public officials.

All that matters is if the judge wants to punish him. Judges have ultimate power these days.

That's why I think we need to place severe restrictions and powerful punishments on all of these gov't officials.

I'm so sick of this #



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa



It is extremely unusual for the government to prosecute defamation as a crime; the vast majority of defamation claims are civil suits, in which one party seeks redress from the other.


In my view, this is outrageous.

It appears lunacy knows no bounds on either side.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
How in the hell is this even being allowed. I hope Robert sues the city/state for every thing they have. I can tell this is going to be an open and shut case and heads will roll for sure.

Unconstitutional. Live free or Die / Don't Tread on Me.
edit on 5-6-2018 by WarPig1939 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
Well, New Hampshire is a part of New England.......... And it sounds like they're taking a play right out of England and their "Thought Police" playbook.


Yes of course because it's Great Britains fault!!


This is because idiots use social media to vent there disagreements with law enforcement and make libel or threatening statements online, this isn't anything to do with "Thought Police".



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Did he threaten anyone?

it sounds a lot like he was speaking his mind, and the (local) government arrested him for it.

I live not too far from there- and the thought police and lick my boot.


Anyone who was involved in the following events are in violation of freedom of speech, and shouldn't be allowed to keep their jobs:
1) requesting the warrant
2) issuing the warrant
3) Arresting this citizen
4) booking/locking up this prisoner



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
*Patiently waits for knock at the door because of all the police officers I’ve insulted on ATS...



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
*Patiently waits for knock at the door because of all the police officers I’ve insulted on ATS...


They only get to arrest one person with a private screen name before it gets brought up in court that they are spying on you.
They'll not be willing to waste that over petty insults- you'd have to post your name/address first.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I didn't think it possible/probable that the police could aren't you for an opinion. Live and learn :-)

Just an aside, Peter Fonda tried to buy the logo "Live Free Or Die" from the New Hampshire government. I talked to him about this back in 1996 when I dyslexlicaly sent him a fax by typing in the wrong number lol. Bad dog was still pretty cool at the time.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

644:11 Criminal Defamation. – I. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he purposely communicates to any person, orally or in writing, any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.
II. As used in this section "public'' includes any professional or social group of which the victim of the defamation is a member.

They'd have to prove that he knew it was false. What if he was telling the truth?



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I don't really see the parallel your trying to draw... Because he has personal experience with being on the other side of the law?
Regardless no matter if you've been a law abiding citizen or not, you have every right to voice your opinion on public officials.

edit on 5-6-2018 by Somethingsamiss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Somethingsamiss
a reply to: network dude

I don't really see the parallel your trying to draw... Because he has personal experience with being on the other side of the law?
Regardless no matter if you've been a law abiding citizen or not, you have every right to voice your opinion on public officials.


I agree, he has every right to voice his opinion. And legally, he should be able to do so without repercussions. But in the real world, there are always repercussions. And sometimes, the one's percussing you aren't doing so legally, but the lumps hurt just the same.

My point is, just because you can, doesn't mean you should, and if you do, try not to have that surprised look on your face when it comes around just like you thought it would.

I honestly thought the badger reference was really straight forward.
edit on 5-6-2018 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Krakatoa

It really doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional or if he can criticize public officials.

All that matters is if the judge wants to punish him. Judges have ultimate power these days.

That's why I think we need to place severe restrictions and powerful punishments on all of these gov't officials.

I'm so sick of this #


I think we need to water the tree of liberty I'm sick of these a-holes taking money right out of my paycheck then deciding they are going to give it to the worlds richest private corporations for campaign contributions

meanwhile the judicial system is imprisoning people for saying something that hurts their feelings

f**** this



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Under their statute shouldn't they arrest people for saying hateful things about others on Facebook?



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
It is total BS. He says the cops are dirty and it looks like they are.

Doesn't help that the guy has a rap sheet, but one of the charges was for dumpster diving....seriously.

Here is another article with more info. link



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
They didn't arrest him for his criticism. They used his criticism of the PD to cover for the arrest based on his "Trump1" license plate.

#NewHampshirePDGotTriggered




posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean
Under their statute shouldn't they arrest people for saying hateful things about others on Facebook?


That would never fly- people would actually argue for that.

This, though, this is another example of different standards for 'us' vs 'them'

just like the fbi agent who was negligent and shot someone the other day by accident. one of 'us' would be in prison for that- but 'they' are above those laws.
In this case, 'they' can use these laws to protect themselves from 'us', but they only work one way.




top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join