I'm not arguing what the guy was protesting. If 9/11 was an inside job or not is not the question for debate. My point was to show a miscarriage of justice to our first amendment rights. Some people seem to imply this guy had it coming for speaking out on 9/11. I hope you're not intending to put a spin on this thread by implying that the arrest is my attempt at proving 9/11 was an inside job. I have a feeling that's where you're going here, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
Given that this was exactly the take on this in the second video you linked
, you'll have to forgive me for assuming that you are selectively applying the concept of freedom of speech.
However, I do think that police are more inclined to arrest a troublemaker than deal with the aftermath of said troublemaker if trouble ensues.
Yes. As they should. If they believe he's specifically and deliberately "causing trouble", then they should step in. I'll repeat my statement that freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to make someone else pay for your microphone Any event (even a public one) has a purpose and a cost. The people attending are there for a given reason. Regardless of what we think of those reasons, they also have a right to attend and participate without undue disruption. They "paid" for the event. A troublemaker is basically taking more than his fair share. Everyone else is being polite and respectful while he's shouting and making a scene. I don't really care why he's doing it, but if he's causing a disruption, he can be arrested.
He's perfectly free to make that same speech on a normal public street at any time. But he's *not* free to do so inside an organized event. When he does so, he's using a microphone he didn't pay for.
That's not the same thing as the conspiracy as some people will attempt to imply. I also feel it's wrong for those that have bashed this guy just because they don't agree with his speech.
Who did this? I think that most of the posters here have gone out of their way to avoid taking the bait and turning this into a debate about whether there was some conspiracy around 9/11. I may have missed a post or two, but the overwhelming response here has been that he was treated the same as anyone else screaming at people in the middle of an event would be and that it wasn't what he was saying, but how he was saying it that got him in trouble. Several people have further mentioned that if the police did over react that he had plenty of legal options available to him.
You seem to be the only person making a case about him based on what he was trying to say.
You should be supportive of his rights of freedom of speech regardless if you agree or not. Any less than that is un-American.
So should you. Would you have raised the same argument if this guy had been shouting something different? Would you even have heard about him? How many other people do you think were arrested that day for unruly/disruptive behavior? I just can't get past the assumption present in your post that this guy was singled out somehow for his views. I know you claim repeatedly that you aren't doing that, but it kinda rings hollow given the selective nature of the case you randomly choose to highlight as an infringement of free speech.
What's funny is that I fully accept the idea that groups of people can and should focus most on defending speech that they care about. It's normal and natural in fact. It's your kind of obvious attempt to pretend that this isn't what you're doing that I find a bit dishonest.