Idaho woman forcibly dragged from local Republican town hall

[dukeman92]

Amerikkka

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

Bend the knee or else. This is MAGA porn.

 

[SnoopRob]

Eh, not to take up too much for the folks who did this, but it seems like they're legally in the right.

It was not a government event, it was sponsored by the local Republican Party, which ultimately makes it a private event. It seems that there were warnings given (in general) not to disrupt the event before any other action was taken. She apparently was given fair warning that she was being asked to leave and refused. And then fought being removed, which led her to being physically removed from the event, which doesn't seem to be overly forceful from the video shown.

It's another example of folks not really knowing what the 1A says if they think that her rights were violated from being removed from the event for causing a disturbance.

It's a sucky situation, but I don't think one person should get to delay or ruin an event by disrupting it with their behavior without action being able to be taken.

ETA: The guy with the microphone is an idiot, as well. It seems like there was a lack of common sense at this meeting altogether.

 

[Calheel]

Eh, not to take up too much for the folks who did this, but it seems like they're legally in the right.

It was not a government event, it was sponsored by the local Republican Party, which ultimately makes it a private event. It seems that there were warnings given (in general) not to disrupt the event before any other action was taken. She apparently was given fair warning that she was being asked to leave and refused. And then fought being removed, which led her to being physically removed from the event, which doesn't seem to be overly forceful from the video shown.

It's another example of folks not really knowing what the 1A says if they think that her rights were violated from being removed from the event for causing a disturbance.

It's a sucky situation, but I don't think one person should get to delay or ruin an event by disrupting it with their behavior without action being able to be taken.

I am not sure I agree with that First Amendment analysis. The Supreme Court ruled last term on the ability of politicians to block voters on Facebook. When the speaker is acting as a public official and communicating matters of public interest -- which a town hall clearly is -- the politician cannot block the voter under the First Amendment. I don't think security could defend its actions on the ground that it works for a private company anymore than the politician could claim that Facebook is a private company.

 

[theel4life]

This is bad. This is not America.

 

[dukeman92]

Eh, not to take up too much for the folks who did this, but it seems like they're legally in the right.

Respectfully. I'll disagree.

Ignore the fact that she has every right to express her opinion. Security (If that's what these gentlemen were) Are required to visibly identify themselves (uniforms, badges, markings of some sort) and they had none of that.

And I got that from a video I watched on CBS. There was nothing "right" about the way this woman was treated.

 

[SnoopRob]

I am not sure I agree with that First Amendment analysis. The Supreme Court ruled last term on the ability of politicians to block voters on Facebook. When the speaker is acting as a public official and communicating matters of public interest -- which a town hall clearly is -- the politician cannot block the voter under the First Amendment. I don't think security could defend its actions on the ground that it works for a private company anymore than the politician could claim that Facebook is a private company.

The politicians weren't the ones who had her removed, it was the local sheriff and the folks running the event. Security operated at the direction of the sheriff after proper warnings were given.

But let's look at the opposite view...should she and others have the right to attend such an event and make enough of a disturbance that the event can't proceed in an orderly fashion? IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the 1A doesn't allow for that under free speech.

Obviously, we don't have all the information here, but I don't see anything particularly egregious about removing a protestor from an event if they are continually disruptive to the extent that it disrupts the event, especially after they have received and actively ignored previous warnings.

 

[SnoopRob]

Respectfully. I'll disagree.

Ignore the fact that she has every right to express her opinion. Security (If that's what these gentlemen were) Are required to visibly identify themselves (uniforms, badges, markings of some sort) and they had none of that.

And I got that from a video I watched on CBS. There was nothing "right" about the way this woman was treated.

She does not necessarily "have every right to express her opinion" in any venue and in any way she wants. If she is disturbing the event to the extent that she is materially preventing the planned proceedings from occurring, then I'm not convinced she has a "right" to that speech.

I agree that there are failures there on the part of the security folks, but that's a minimal part of the issue here.

 

[theel4life]

Saw where these guys lost there jobs.

 

[Calheel]

The politicians weren't the ones who had her removed, it was the local sheriff and the folks running the event. Security operated at the direction of the sheriff after proper warnings were given.

But let's look at the opposite view...should she and others have the right to attend such an event and make enough of a disturbance that the event can't proceed in an orderly fashion? IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the 1A doesn't allow for that under free speech.

Obviously, we don't have all the information here, but I don't see anything particularly egregious about removing a protestor from an event if they are continually disruptive to the extent that it disrupts the event, especially after they have received and actively ignored previous warnings.

But that is a separate issue. There are always time, place and manner limits on speech. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded theater. If she were using a heckler's veto, security had the right to limit the manner of her speech.

But that is a different argument than your claim that it was a private event conducted by the Republican party and therefore no First Amendment concerns were implicated. That was the part I took issue with -- not the actual removal of the speaker.

And yes, there are several causal steps between what happened in Idaho and blocking someone on Facebook. It is possible that the congressman was completely unaware of what was happening and took no role in directing it. But I bet discovery would show that there were discussions at the outset as to how to handle organized protests from democrats.

 

[SnoopRob]

But that is a separate issue. There are always time, place and manner limits on speech. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded theater. If she were using a heckler's veto, security had the right to limit the manner of her speech.

But that is a different argument than your claim that it was a private event conducted by the Republican party and therefore no First Amendment concerns were implicated. That was the part I took issue with -- not the actual removal of the speaker.

And yes, there are several causal steps between what happened in Idaho and blocking someone on Facebook. It is possible that the congressman was completely unaware of what was happening and took no role in directing it. But I bet discovery would show that there were discussions at the outset as to how to handle organized protests from democrats.

You're likely correct regarding the fact that since it was elected officials in an open-to-the-public meeting that there is a greater leeway for "free speech" to provide an opposing view to that of the speakers. I'll concede the point that the Republican Party being the sponsors of the event likely isn't terribly relevant to the greater point.

As far as pre-planning what to do if there are organized protests, that should be part of any kind of planning for this kind of event. And as long as the event didn't have different plans for how to handle organized protests from Dems as opposed to other political groups, i don't think there would be any issue with planning for how to handle protestors from a security standpoint.

 

[dukeman92]

She does not necessarily "have every right to express her opinion" in any venue and in any way she wants. If she is disturbing the event to the extent that she is materially preventing the planned proceedings from occurring, then I'm not convinced she has a "right" to that speech.

I agree that there are failures there on the part of the security folks, but that's a minimal part of the issue here.

As far as I could tell, she was not doing that. And I would offer that the way she was physically removed provided way more of a disruption than anything she said. I would also offer that level of disruption is highly subjective.

 

[Calheel]

And as long as the event didn't have different plans for how to handle organized protests from Dems as opposed to other political groups, i don't think there would be any issue with planning for how to handle protestors from a security standpoint.

Do you want to take odds as to whether they had a different game plan for democrats than republicans?

 

[SnoopRob]

As far as I could tell, she was not doing that. And I would offer that the way she was physically removed provided way more of a disruption than anything she said. I would also offer that level of disruption is highly subjective.

We don't have video evidence from the entire proceedings, but you can hear someone (who I think is the woman removed) yelling over an actual speaker before the last warnings started and then she was removed.

I'm sure her removal was more disruptive for a temporary period while occurring, but probably less disruptive over the remainder of the event. That's why you remove someone rather than let them stay.

 

[SnoopRob]

Do you want to take odds as to whether they had a different game plan for democrats than republicans?

I would guess they had a plan for dealing with protestors and they knew that it was highly likely those protestors would be democrats.

But if they were stupid enough to have written copies of different plans, then I'd say they would get everything that would then come to them upon discovery.

Either way, showing up to heckle at this type of event shouldn't inherently be tolerated if it reaches the level of disrupting the ability of the event to proceed...and I'd stand by that whether the speakers are Dems or Pubs and whether the protestors are Dems or Pubs.

 

[finesse]

Really haven't paid any attention to either issue, so this is a shallow and uninformed take. How is this and the anti-abortion protesters greatly different? Seems like we're getting some differing views? Why is this?

 

[dukeman92]

Either way, showing up to heckle at this type of event shouldn't inherently be tolerated if it reaches the level of disrupting the ability of the event to proceed.

You see this and assume she went with the intent to heckle.

 

[SnoopRob]

You see this and assume she went with the intent to heckle.

I don't care if it was premeditated or spontaneous.

 

[dukeman92]

We don't have video evidence from the entire proceedings.

Yet you assume she went with the intent to heckle and the “security” who failed MULTIPLE times to identify themselves were justified in their actions. Even if she was being belligerently disrespectful (and there is no evidence of that) , it was handled poorly. They already admitted that it should have been handled differently.

 

[Purple Nurple]

Yet you assume she went with the intent to heckle and the “security” who failed MULTIPLE times to identify themselves were justified in their actions. Even if she was being belligerently disrespectful (and there is no evidence of that) , it was handled poorly. They already admitted that it should have been handled differently.

The video showed a man with a sheriff's hat tell the woman to leave or be arrested. The man identified himself as Kootenai County Sheriff Robert Norris.
"We're asking you to leave on video, please get up or be escorted out," Norris said in the video.

Brent Regan, chairman of the committee, said that Borrenpohl was removed by "licensed and bonded professional security" after interrupting the town hall at least seven times. He accused her of having a history of disrupting meetings.

I assume when a Sheriff instructs me to leave a location, if I don't, I'm being forcibly removed.