4 ms·

He was not arrested for speaking too long. He was arrested for trespassing after being asked to leave. This occurred after speaking too long, but the speaking t

He was not arrested for speaking too long. He was arrested for trespassing after being asked to leave. This occurred after speaking too long, but the speaking too long is not the reason for the arrest.

NoMoreNicksLeft 7mo ago
[flagged]
happytoexplain 7mo ago
[flagged]
- wat10000 7mo ago
  It means that facts matter and the headline is a lie. He was not arrested for speaking too long. He was asked to leave, refused, asked again, refused, and was arrested. Asking him to leave may have been an abuse, but it's a pretty minor one compared to what the headline says.
LightBug1 7mo ago
[flagged]
RIMR 7mo ago
Look, the article is right there, and what it says doesn't match what you're saying. Sure, they arrested him for "trespassing", but their definition of trespassing was going over his allotted time by a matter of seconds. They did not ask him to leave, and he refused. They counted down the seconds he had the floor, and ordered his arrest the moment he went over the allotted time. I don't know if you've ever been to a Town Hall before, but this is absolutely ridiculous. When you go over your time, you can either ask for more time or be told that you are done. You shouldn't be arrested unless you intentionally refuse to conclude your time, or if you create a disruption. He did neither. They arrested him because they didn't like what he had to say, and they want to send a harsh message to anyone else who dares speak out against Datacenters. This is an egregious violation of First Amendment rights.
- IncreasePosts 7mo ago
  You're taking the article as gospel. Is there any video for the lead up to the arrest? There was a reddit post with this video, and the poster claimed that he refused to leave the podium after his time was up. Not saying that is true, but it sounds different than "spoke a few seconds too long" https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscurePatentDangers/comments/1shsu8q/people_are_being_arrested_for_speaking_out/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscurePatentDangers/comments/1shsu...
  - RIMR 7mo ago
    Even if that's the case, why not just cut the mic and have security escort him away? Why jump straight to sending the cops to arrest and jail him? It's abundantly clear that these things happen not because people were so disruptive that it was necessary. It is that they are saying things the government doesn't like, so they use the only tool they have as strictly as they are allowed to in an attempt to discourage people from speaking out in the first place. At least this is triggering the Streisand Effect, and now this farmer is getting interviews on the news, not only about the Datacenter, but how the local government treats those who speak out against it.
    - newaiera 7mo ago
      In the video - 1h58m mark roughly - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPF3rTT0mY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPF3rTT0mY It shows the full context. Yes, he went over his time, he talked over requests to stop, and then approached the front area. He was asked to leave the area, did not, and so the behavior was halted in favor of pre-established rules. Yes, I’m in favor of free speech, and think more time should be allotted, but does his direct use of extra time impact those who will then not get to speak? It’s the lines in the sand that are the hardest to draw.
  - jibal 7mo ago
    You're lying about what your own link says. The poster did not claim that Blanchard refused to leave the podium; the poster wrote "with *officials* claiming he refused to leave the podium after his three-minute speaking time ended". The poster is sympathetic to Blanchard, which no one would know just by reading your grossly dishonest comment.
solid_fuel 7mo ago
Sure man. Nothing says "hacker ethos" like arresting a citizen for going 3 seconds over their allotted free speech time. There are so many bootlickers here on HN these days. A sign of the times, I suppose. But of course, what else can we expect? This is the natural consequence of putting ethics and morality after money. Money always wins. And once you start seeing the world like that, through the lens of "success makes right", you have to bend your view of reality to make it square. And then you wind up here, defending actions like this.
- wat10000 7mo ago
  Again, that is not what happened. He went over time. He left the podium. He stopped and talked to the council. He was asked to leave. He refused. The police asked him to leave. At that point he made the decision to leave in handcuffs rather than in the normal fashion. Asking him to leave sounds likely to be an abuse, but it's a far cry from "arresting a citizen for going 3 seconds over their allotted free speech time."
- foobarchu 7mo ago
  Where's the bootlicking? I'd the article chooses to lie about why he was arrested for no reason (and try to paint him as "a farmer" rather than a known activist), then people are going to focus on the untruths and wonder what else the article lies about. There was no need for this article to lie. The actual events were already worth being upset about. It only serves to distract.

NoMoreNicksLeft 7mo ago

[flagged]

happytoexplain 7mo ago

[flagged]

wat10000 7mo ago
It means that facts matter and the headline is a lie. He was not arrested for speaking too long. He was asked to leave, refused, asked again, refused, and was arrested. Asking him to leave may have been an abuse, but it's a pretty minor one compared to what the headline says.

LightBug1 7mo ago

[flagged]

RIMR 7mo ago

Look, the article is right there, and what it says doesn't match what you're saying. Sure, they arrested him for "trespassing", but their definition of trespassing was going over his allotted time by a matter of seconds. They did not ask him to leave, and he refused. They counted down the seconds he had the floor, and ordered his arrest the moment he went over the allotted time. I don't know if you've ever been to a Town Hall before, but this is absolutely ridiculous. When you go over your time, you can either ask for more time or be told that you are done. You shouldn't be arrested unless you intentionally refuse to conclude your time, or if you create a disruption. He did neither. They arrested him because they didn't like what he had to say, and they want to send a harsh message to anyone else who dares speak out against Datacenters. This is an egregious violation of First Amendment rights.

IncreasePosts 7mo ago
You're taking the article as gospel. Is there any video for the lead up to the arrest? There was a reddit post with this video, and the poster claimed that he refused to leave the podium after his time was up. Not saying that is true, but it sounds different than "spoke a few seconds too long" https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscurePatentDangers/comments/1shsu8q/people_are_being_arrested_for_speaking_out/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscurePatentDangers/comments/1shsu...
- RIMR 7mo ago
  Even if that's the case, why not just cut the mic and have security escort him away? Why jump straight to sending the cops to arrest and jail him? It's abundantly clear that these things happen not because people were so disruptive that it was necessary. It is that they are saying things the government doesn't like, so they use the only tool they have as strictly as they are allowed to in an attempt to discourage people from speaking out in the first place. At least this is triggering the Streisand Effect, and now this farmer is getting interviews on the news, not only about the Datacenter, but how the local government treats those who speak out against it.
  - newaiera 7mo ago
    In the video - 1h58m mark roughly - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPF3rTT0mY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPF3rTT0mY It shows the full context. Yes, he went over his time, he talked over requests to stop, and then approached the front area. He was asked to leave the area, did not, and so the behavior was halted in favor of pre-established rules. Yes, I’m in favor of free speech, and think more time should be allotted, but does his direct use of extra time impact those who will then not get to speak? It’s the lines in the sand that are the hardest to draw.
- jibal 7mo ago
  You're lying about what your own link says. The poster did not claim that Blanchard refused to leave the podium; the poster wrote "with *officials* claiming he refused to leave the podium after his three-minute speaking time ended". The poster is sympathetic to Blanchard, which no one would know just by reading your grossly dishonest comment.

solid_fuel 7mo ago

Sure man. Nothing says "hacker ethos" like arresting a citizen for going 3 seconds over their allotted free speech time. There are so many bootlickers here on HN these days. A sign of the times, I suppose. But of course, what else can we expect? This is the natural consequence of putting ethics and morality after money. Money always wins. And once you start seeing the world like that, through the lens of "success makes right", you have to bend your view of reality to make it square. And then you wind up here, defending actions like this.

wat10000 7mo ago
Again, that is not what happened. He went over time. He left the podium. He stopped and talked to the council. He was asked to leave. He refused. The police asked him to leave. At that point he made the decision to leave in handcuffs rather than in the normal fashion. Asking him to leave sounds likely to be an abuse, but it's a far cry from "arresting a citizen for going 3 seconds over their allotted free speech time."
foobarchu 7mo ago
Where's the bootlicking? I'd the article chooses to lie about why he was arrested for no reason (and try to paint him as "a farmer" rather than a known activist), then people are going to focus on the untruths and wonder what else the article lies about. There was no need for this article to lie. The actual events were already worth being upset about. It only serves to distract.