Wisconsin Activist Arrested For Silently Holding A Sign Saying “Stephen Colbert”

Originally posted by DrNotforhire

No, my problem is this.... People assuming that stories about colbert are automatically true... Like in this case, wheres the evidence???? You asked for it yourself.. I was doing the same thing... It's something called subtlety to see how people are going to act... I know people who will respond to this thread are leftists therefore I won't even try to get my point across right away... I'm building a case, People will take things he says seriously (example being that Wiki thing) NOT everyone is as smart as you

remember that...

But that goes both ways
While the left has colbert report and daily show...the right has hannity and beck. equally as satirical and trying to paint a view, and pretty much equal in credibility.
Just one is funny, the other is..well, pitiful..both drawing on base emotions of their viewing audience.
Anyone whom takes either sides satire without checking a bit deeper is in trouble anyhow...but short of banning radio and television, there is little we can do

Yes, actually, anything that backs up a liberal claim I probably check more often than conservative claims..mostly because I want to be backing the issue that is fully researched...nothing like screaming the indignities that are found out to be untrue later on. (pity everyone doesn't research the hell out of what they stand for...but oh well)

reply to post by DrNotforhire

m able to debate anyone (in person) who watches that show.. and send them off in an anger due to their lack of ACTUAL knowledge

Man I'd love to see that debate, especially with Saturn FX! Do a debate thread, I'll get some popcorn ready.
If you think Stewart is not intelligent and aware of the details of various policies and their effect then I think you have not watched enough of his interviews.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
Im able to debate anyone (in person) who watches that show.. and send them off in an anger due to their lack of ACTUAL knowledge

One can do the same with anyone in the 18-24 generation, regardless of who they get their news from. The majority of them are idiots; the ones who watch Colbert and Stewart just think they're informed.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by DrNotforhire

No, my problem is this.... People assuming that stories about colbert are automatically true... Like in this case, wheres the evidence???? You asked for it yourself.. I was doing the same thing... It's something called subtlety to see how people are going to act... I know people who will respond to this thread are leftists therefore I won't even try to get my point across right away... I'm building a case, People will take things he says seriously (example being that Wiki thing) NOT everyone is as smart as you

remember that...

But that goes both ways
While the left has colbert report and daily show...the right has hannity and beck. equally as satirical and trying to paint a view, and pretty much equal in credibility.
Just one is funny, the other is..well, pitiful..both drawing on base emotions of their viewing audience.
Anyone whom takes either sides satire without checking a bit deeper is in trouble anyhow...but short of banning radio and television, there is little we can do

Yes, actually, anything that backs up a liberal claim I probably check more often than conservative claims..mostly because I want to be backing the issue that is fully researched...nothing like screaming the indignities that are found out to be untrue later on. (pity everyone doesn't research the hell out of what they stand for...but oh well)

Oh it absolutely does... In fact I agree with you, that Hannity, Beck and O'reily are just sad sad people.. Yeah, you have to do your research... Im just trying to show that there are a LOT of individuals (and yes I was incorrect by pointing to one side of the aisle) who take these peoples words as gospel.
HOWEVER
18-24 year olds think they KNOW EVERYTHING, come on we were both there are one point, and every year you think you know everything there is to know... They are impressionable, their opinions are hard to change and they speak out more than the older generations about this stuff... Which means incorrect and false information gets spread faster through forms of social media (this being one of them)....

this article basically said.... "we have a right to refuse service to anyone" and you holding a sign in the corner are part of that anyone...

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


You say "arrested for silently holding a sign" and then later in the post "arrested for Disorderly Conduct".

Which is it? I'm guessing the Disorderly Conduct, which clearly the "minute or two" of questioning the officer implies.

PROTIP: Don't admit to a crime and then ask for sympathy.

People love the state.

It doesn't matter if the State kills their entire family, they will still sing its praises.

I suppose I should rephrase that: People love being the beneficiaries of violent theft.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
People love the state.

It doesn't matter if the State kills their entire family, they will still sing its praises.

I suppose I should rephrase that: People love being the beneficiaries of violent theft.

People enjoy comprehensive structure to form society that ensures personal liberties.
Anarchy does not secure personal liberties...it if anything allows for localized tyranny.

incidentally...did you forget your password or something mnemeth1?
(nevermind, you explained it already. Actually, you could have had a mod reset it for you..many of us had to do that)

Originally posted by DrNotforhire

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Colbert Report and the daily show

Satirist news that is not intended to be taken as news is not "media", no matter how many people treat it as such.

Enjoying said satire, does not make one stupid.

Its almost unnerving that some people don't understand what you have stated. But, its a double edged sword mind you. The "dangerous" thing about TDS and CR is that they edge on the truth quite often...always in a funny light of course, but still enough to where they can be taken seriously. Well, serious enough to be considered a lead anyhow.

A recent study showed that the 18-24 generation primarily gets their news from one of these two shows... They have no clue whats going on in the real world. No idea about politics, no idea about foreign policy, no idea about economics.... That's just my opinion though... Im able to debate anyone (in person) who watches that show.. and send them off in an anger due to their lack of ACTUAL knowledge

Strangely enough, those viewers rated higher in world events awareness than Fox viewers... figure that one out.

The poll focused partly on popular uprisings in Egypt and Syria. Asked whether the people of Egypt successfully topped Hosni Mubarak's regime, 49 percent of Fox News viewers answered "yes"—the lowest on the scale—while 68 percent of NPR listeners answered in the affirmative, the highest on the scale. Those who watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart performed well on the questions. Sixty percent of Daily Show viewers correctly answered that opposition forces in Syria have not yet toppled the government, second only to NPR. Forty-five percent of Fox News viewers answered "no."

Source

Sucks that facts have a liberal bias to them. Even when it's satire.

He wasn't arrested for "Silently Holding A Sign Saying “Stephen Colbert". He was arrested for disorderly conduct.:

A typical definition of disorderly conduct defines the offense in these ways:
A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

Source

We don't know how reasonable he was (or wasn't), or how politely he refused to put the sign down, but it certainly wouldn't be a surprise if there were a little "sugar coating" envolved. Also, I can understand how his sign could have been disruptive to this "lawful assembly".

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


The most troubling aspect is this:

the officers informed me I was being arrested for Disorderly Conduct for refusing the order of an officer.

Refusing the order of an officer.

I said jump. Did you refuse? Makes me want to seriously curse, the authoritative BS we are being slowly forced to accept with little recourse because the judicial system works for money: whoever can spend the most or aford the best. People like us rarely can.

It has nothing to do with your actions, the taking of rights granted under the First Amendment is taking a terrifying new turn. Since these rights are largely guaranteed, the new justification for silencing is "refusing an order" or a lawful command, even when said order or command is "protected" under and existing law or policy that happens to be overtly unconstitutional.

This is frightening.

However, is an order of an officer lawful when it infringes on guaranteed rights? I think not. The fact of an ordr being lawful is that it is inside of law. Since this order is backed by the ridiculous ban, it just might be "lawful," although not exactly constitutional.

It would seem that his rights DO extend to the building, but for the convenience of failure to obey.

. . . Kramer stands by his assault. He has banned signs and videotaping from the gallery. He has also made the decision to allow concealed firearms. Every single time an individual has held a sign or silently taped in the Assembly Gallery the result was an arrest. People have been arrested for holding signs with pictures of Jesus, pie, and even copies of the Constitution. Despite this, today marked a first in the suppression of rights.

Sounds like a blatant violation of right to me too.

Also sounds like a loony, when guns are allowed but not signs. Reminds me of the permission of violence on TV (and Youtube) but not sex. Why do we accept violence but so readily suppress sex? It makes little sense to me.

This country is getting more ridiculous, insane, and bassackwards every day.

*shakes head*

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Also the man wasn't silent, the story says that he tied someone up for a minute or so with questions after being asked to leave. So it seems to me that after being asked to put down the sign he refused and then he ended up disrupting the whole thing by tying someone up with questions.

The person he 'tied up for a minute or so' was the cop sent up to the balcony (where he was) to arrest him. So he wasn't disrupting anything until they sent the cops over to him.


reply to post by DaTroof

You say "arrested for silently holding a sign" and then later in the post "arrested for Disorderly Conduct".

Which is it? I'm guessing the Disorderly Conduct, which clearly the "minute or two" of questioning the officer implies.

Obviously they arrested him for 'disorderly conduct', but his behavior didn't warrant that arrest. He was attending a public hearing at the Wisconsin Assembly and was sitting - very quietly - in the balcony, not saying anything or speaking to anyone, or making any outward disruption - other than to hold up a small sign reading 'Stephan Colbert'. He didn't wave the sign or hold it up high, in fact you could barely see the sign through the railing of the seating area.

As he states, he's also been arrested for filming these public meetings.

Here is the video of the arrest:

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Cheers
Ya, seems a pretty calm dude. I don't know if he was offically arrested still, but frankly, the cops should have simply said nothing. There was nothing disruptive about the sign, nor was he bullhorning or anything.

Sad state of affairs.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

I didn't see an arrest in that video. I did however see what appeared to be someone disobey a "lawful order" by refusing to put his sign away. Then the authorities escorted him out of the balcony area.

Just so you know:
A "lawful order" is ANY order given by a proper authority (in this case the police) that does not require one to break the law.

I'm not even sure there was an arrest made. It certainly didn't look like it. It didn't even look like they escorted out of the building.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Just so you know:
A "lawful order" is ANY order given by a proper authority (in this case the police) that does not require one to break the law.

You have a citation for that information? Because you are suggesting that should a cop tell you not to blow your nose, and you blew your nose... he could arrest you for disorderly conduct.

reply to post by BenReclused


So there goes all rights to protest out the window??? I can see if his protest obstructed traffic and a cop ordered him off a sidewalk or such - but to issue a 'lawful order' that in effect gags him and prohibits his constitutional right of free speech - how is that a 'lawful order'?

We really have moved into a police state when cops are tasked with shutting down even the most quiet of protests, as in this example.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

We really have moved into a police state when cops are tasked with shutting down even the most quiet of protests, as in this example.

No we haven't! It's been that way for a long, long time. Look at it this way, he went into their "home", didn't comply with the host's wishes, and was removed. That's how I see it anyway. If the "perp." feels there was an "abuse of power", he still has the right to file a lawsuit in civil court. I doubt he would win, but it's still his right.

This fellow was looking for "the line in the sand". He found it. It really is as simple as that.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused

Not we haven't! It's been that way for a long, long time.

I'll grant you that, let me amend that to say this is one more incremental step in the long jack-booted goose-stepping march to the police state. That I think we can both agree on.

Look at it this way, he went into their "home", didn't comply with the host's wishes, and was removed. That's how I see it anyway. If the "perp." feels there was an "abuse of power", he still has the right to file a lawsuit in civil court. I doubt he would win, but it's still his right.

This fellow was looking for "the line in the sand". He found it. It really is as simple as that.

He did obviously intend to protest in the general assembly, but keep in mind it's not "their" home, but the publics It's OUR home more than it is theirs.There's no point in protesting in your basement, it only counts when it is done before the public or those you are protesting against.