Police Arrest Man For Refusing To Tweet

RichZellich writes "Police arrested a senior vice president from Island Def Jam Records, saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating. The crowd at a mall where Justin Bieber was appearing got out of control, and police wanted the man to send a tweet asking for calm; he refused and they arrested him on a felony assault charge 'for putting people in danger.'"

Comments

Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[John Hasler]

n/t

Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[JStegmaier]

Subject is spot on!

Unless you actual read anything at all about the event. The guy was tweeting about the event still being on, even after it was canceled (in order to draw even more people in to an already bad situation), so the officers asked him tweet again to tell those who had seen his tweets before that it was actually canceled... That's not the main reason he was arrested, but it contributed.

By the way, anyone who actually think the headlines or summaries on Slashdot are even remotely accurate, as you and the GP seem to, is definitely new here.

Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[Anonymous Coward]

so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse

1) Freedom of speech applies as much to what you say as to what you don't say
2) Whilst yelling 'fire' in a public place (eg a theater) is endangering the public, not yelling fire when their isn't a fire is not. It is a long held doctrine that the police DO NOT have to protect you. If those charged 'to serve and protect' are not legally obligated to do so, how can a non-police person be expected to do something for the public safety?

If the police can show that he was deliberately egging the crowd on, they can pin incitement to riot on him. Otherwise all they can accuse him of is being a jackass who doesn't care about other's safety. This is not a crime.

Or to put on your terms:
Good Samaritan laws don't protect you when you purposefully hurt an injured person, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to give an injured person medical care when an incompetent is already doing it.

Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[Romancer]

From the article:

Slightly confusing, because Bieber's Twitter account-presumably the one the cops wanted Roppo to use-does indeed show that he asked his fans to leave

at 4:30 pm Eastern:
"They are not allowing me to come into the mall. If you don't leave I and my fans will be arrested the police just told us.

And then:
"The event at Roosevelt Mall is canceled. Please go home. The police have already arrested one person from my camp. I don't want anyone hurt.

Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[DJRumpy]

This is a good point, but I think that right may apply only after you've been arrested (can someone with a legal background verify?). That said, I think the cops were in the wrong with the arrest. If he was actively tweeting, to incite the crowd into malicious behavior, they would have something, but unless they could prove that someone in the crowd was in imminent harm, they have no case. They can't compel you to say something. That goes against the very basic principals of the 1st amendment. If anything, the mall was responsible for proper security, as would the local city, assuming they require permits for this very reason. Failure to plan by the Mall and the police does not make this man a criminal.

Here are the exceptions to free speech:

Special exceptions

Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)

Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like nigger, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.

Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.

Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).

Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.

The Government Speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.

No where in here does it say they can compel you to say anything. In all of these cases, they can only compel silence.

Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[commodore64_love]

>>>(the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public

Too bad the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. You can say anything upto the point of riot, but if the crowd is not rioting then your innate, natural, and inalienable right to free speech will be protected by the government. It's how people like MLK Junior were able to give speeches in the open, instead of from a jail, even though he was often falsely-accused of spreading violence everywhere he went. His right of free speech protected him.

Also it's not as if this was the first case of police acting like tyrants, instead of taxpayer employees:
- there's the famous Professor Gates where he was arrested in his own house; okay he acted like a loud-mouthed jerk but that is right (free speech)
- there's the fellow that was barred from traveling from St.Louis to Arlington Virginia because he had $4000 cash (not illegal)
- there's the guy who was stopped in the middle of Arizona, forced to open his trunk, he refused, so they drug him out and beat him
- and then there's case-after-case-after-case where people were arrested for using a camera in a public sidewalk

Anyway I'll let you do your own google search, but here's just some quick links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc [youtube.com] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM [youtube.com] http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=arrested+for+taping+police&search_type=&aq=f [youtube.com] The U.S. Police are turning into a modern variant of the Roman Legionnaire that spread terror throughout the empire.
--

Ahh Slashdot

[George Beech]

He was not arrested for "felony assault" he was arrested for, and i quote TFA:

He was in custody Friday night, pending charges that could include criminal nuisance, endangering the welfare of a minor and obstructing government administration, Smith said.

And no i'm not new here.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Reckless Visionary]

Your point would make sense if it were at all true that the common description of the law had any legal weight outside of the actual text of the law and the applicable case law. That you can call something the "Was Being Bad" law doesn't mean that's what legal standard is applied by judge or jury. Presumably this description is applicable in New York:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0195.05_195.05.html

A reasonable person may disagree with the law or it's exact wording (we are "free" to do so), but don't imply that the title of the law somehow proves a vague catch-all conspiracy.

Crap

[wkurzius]

According to police, the crowd was broken up after safety concerns were raised, but Bieber's record exec, James Roppo, Tweeted that the singer was still signing. This caused fans to go berzerk and rush forward, breaking down barriers.

http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Fans-of-Tween-King-Justin-Bieber-Cause-Mall-Riot/26650.html

Roppo continued to tweet about the autograph signing even after it was canceled and ended up being arrested for reckless endangerment among other crimes.

http://military.rightpundits.com/2009/11/24/james-roppo-man-arrested-for-not-tweeting-cancellation-of-justin-bieber-event-photos/

Crappy summary linking to crappy reporting.

Re:Crap

[clone53421]

All of the sources seem to link back to this NY Daily News article, and specifically, this paragraph:

James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

If somebody can find a link to those tweets, this accusation has some merit.

Re:Not about twitter

[DavidTC]

I suspect the 'twitter' thing was the police telling him to ask more people not show up, via twitter.

That said, his refusing was not illegal, the police can't make people say things. Which is why he wasn't charged for anything like that.

But failing to try to migrate the danger during a mob (By directing people elsewhere) will almost certainly adversely affect his defense on the actual charges in court.

If there's a dangerous situation that you created and are in charge of, and the police are taking control and ask you to do something, well, often, they don't have legal grounds to make you do that thing, and you can refuse if you want.

And then you'll stand in front of the jury as the police recount that, while the danger's creation might have been unknowing, even after you were apprised of the danger of the situation, you knowingly refused to do things to migrate the danger. And, well, welcome to jail for creating that danger in the first place.

Whereas if, when you were told the crowd was turning into a mob, you made every effort to fix the situation, you often won't be charged at all, or just given a small fine.

Re:How would that work

[canajin56]

That's the singer. The record exec was told by police to break it up, and they started putting up barricades to keep the crowds out of the mall. That's why the singer wasn't allowed in, and had to leave, and that's why he tweeted that. Meanwhile, the exec was still tweeting telling people no no no, it's still on, bring your friends! The police told him to stop, and he said no, it's a free country, etc, so they arrested his ass. At one point, he tweeted that the singer was there now, signing as we speak, causing the crowds to surge forward bowling over police and barricades trying to get in. So yeah, also, to all the idiots saying the crowds wouldn't have brought their fucking phones...brilliant guys, brilliant, but apparently they did, because within seconds they went from mostly contained to riot mode...

Re:Riotous rumor

[canajin56]

Yeah, previous posters, there's a legitimate source of information. You could read the god damn article, but that's way too hard, just read the comments and assume the ones you like were in the article. If you read TFA, the crowds were contained by police, who errected barricades to try and hold them back. The singer tweeted them all that it was off, and not to show up. They started dispursing without a story on the national news, so the record exec tweeted and told them it was still on, mixup, he's inside RIGHT NOW RUN HURRY! And they rioted, smashing through barricades. Yeah, you're totally right, teenagers don't bring cellphones when they go outside, and those few that do don't fucking use twitter. Idiot, every last one was subscribed, that's why they showed up in the first place, twitter flashcrowd. So the guy got arrested because, instead of doing what he was asked, telling them it was canceled, because it was, he told them it's still on, and urged them to break through police barricades.

Re:They got it backwards

[canajin56]

There's a difference between just refusing to text people that an appearance has been canceled, and texting to tell them to ignore the singer's twitter account, because the appearance has NOT been canceled after all, and to hurry inside! He was arrested for the latter. Slashdot wants you filled with blind rage at THE MAN, so they put up a fictional summary and hoped that, as expected, nobody would read TFA and find nothing in the summary was in there.

According to police, the crowd was broken up after safety concerns were raised, but Bieber's record exec, James Roppo, Tweeted that the singer was still signing. This caused fans to go berzerk and rush forward, breaking down barriers.

Roppo continued to tweet about the autograph signing even after it was canceled and ended up being arrested for reckless endangerment among other crimes.

He was already in trouble for planning an event without any form of crowd control, but when he defied police attempts to break it up, then he got arrested. He himself says its for blatently unconstitutional bs about being coerced into texting against his will. But it's reasonable. If you shout on the bullhorn "FREE CANDY EVERYBODY RUSH INSIDE" the police are within their rights to ask you to use it to say "SORRY I WAS LYING" to calm them down. Especially since a police officer can just use the bullhorn themselves, but nobody but the exec could push the retraction to his twitter account...

Re:How would that work

[Anonymous Coward]

>> one apple could spoil the whole bunch.

That's what I have been saying, but keep getting modded to oblivion by Apple fanbois.

Police Responsibility

[WED Fan]

Wrong. First, speak to the article:

He did tweet. He tweeted twice.

Had he not tweeted, it still wasn't his responsibility. If the crowd needs to be dispersed, it is the responsibility of the police to notify people.

Oh, for the record:

IAAFLEO