Presumably by now you've seen the video of Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-Lillington) getting into a physical confrontation with someone purporting to be a student asking questions about Etheridge's positions on the president's political agenda. If not, why don't you watch it right now. I'll wait.
The talking points here ask questions like: why isn't the interviewer willing to identify himself? Is he an RNC operative? Is this an ambush interview designed to discredit Etheridge? Is this part of a plot to score political points?
Let me make this really simple: I don't care.
I don't. I don't care if it's a Republican operative--congressmen shouldn't assault Republican operatives. I don't care if it's an ambush interview--congressmen shouldn't attack ambush interviewers. I don't care if it's the ghost of Richard Nixon, foaming at the mouth rabid and wearing nothing but a placard accusing Etheridge of being of questionable parentage. No matter who this is, Etheridge doesn't have the legal right to put hands on him for asking a question.
Some people are trying to deflect blame by questioning the motives of the would-be interviewer, as if the law of assault was a complicated moral issue. It isn't, by the way. It's a simple moral issue. If someone asks you a question, you don't get to start grabbing him or her. Asking whether the questioner has some political motive is as morally bankrupt as asking what specifically Tina Turner said to Ike before he started hitting her--as if there were any answer that would suddenly make the conduct okay.
And Etheridge should know better. He purports to know better, even as he casts aspersions on the questioner's political motives:
"I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.
I'd like to take Etheridge at his word, but it's hard to accept that he has always worked to promote a civil public discourse, considering he just grabbed someone by the neck for asking if he supported Obama's political goals. So, with all due respect to Etheridge, I'm inclined not to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am inclined to believe the person asking the question is genuinely a student working on a student project until I find out otherwise. (Gee, I can't imagine why the questioner would blur his face, considering people are bending over backwards to blame him for having the audacity to get grabbed.)
But if we do find out otherwise, I hope we can all remember the basic lesson that the conduct is fundamentally wrong. I want to believe our politics are not so partisan that we will excuse physical attacks if we think the victim had an ideological motive for being at the scene of the event.
Follow Adam Goldstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AdGo
Ok, now lets take a look at what's really happening here. A photographer by the name of Carlos Miller is on a personal rampage because he was arrested twice in the past for photographing and/or videotaping police at work, was asked not to, resisted, was arrested, beat both charges he claims, and now is on this rampage about his and all photographers First Amendment rights, as witnessed on his webpage blog "Photography Is Not A Crime. I have differed in opinion with the shenanigans these photographers pull as stunts to embellish their positions and have even challenged them to take it to court and see what the Supreme Court has to say but all they do is keep on slamming anyone that disagrees with them and... they pull stunts like this one. You can see all that bru-ha-ha at www.carlosmiller.com and related links. People that are reading this news item are so badly misled here it isn't funny and Mr. Miller and his cohorts are laughing their tails off at all this. This is one of the worst insurrections I have ever seen.
No one had the vantage point watching the video that the Congressman had when he was facing the "students." It is my belief that if we knew what the Congressman saw that caused him to react in that manner, then these "students" and engineers of this videotaping escapade would be in for some real questions.
Respectfully,
...Joe Piervincenti...
You and I don't have any right not to be photographed on the street, either, for what it's worth--it's just that nobody is interested in me, because I'm not using state authority when I walk down the street and I'm not that interesting-looking of a person. That might be a moral issue, but not a legal one. The moral issues of videotaping a private person, though, aren't really the same when videotaping someone wearing a state-issued uniform, carrying a state-issued badge, and using the power of the state to detain/question/move people. As long as the cops are able to do whatever job they're there to do, I just don't see that there's an argument they should be allowed to do it in secret.
We don't have any right NOT to be photographed? If you point your camera at me and I say, please don't take a picture of me, and you do, I just have to swallow it Adam?
If a majority of people say they don't want it shot, which the average person would surely respond with given that the shooter is a stranger, the shooter has the right to shoot it anyway? Is that what you're saying Adam?
The commenters on Carlos Miller's webpage come out and say that they would have struck the Congressman for grabbing them but the Congressman didn't have the right to grab the student presuming that it may have been them out there? Is that what we're saying Adam?
Law as printed and published stands one way and then reasoning is applied in court to "interpret" that law. Is that correct? Based on circumstances and what the judge and/or jury perceives as intent, motivation, etc? In other words, what was really going on? Reasonably. So, the right of a shooter prevails regardless of reason?
Commenters on Millers webpage have published words of hate and possible intent toward the Congressman. If one of those individuals actually did something where would responsibility lie if one of them actually went out there and did something in trhe name of their First Amendment rights?
So someone can wait outside your office and photograph you too?
I seriously doubt it.
There are many reasons why "owning up"is very difficult for these kids, and that part requires the healing. That said, however, the current mindset of so many youth is about the fact that verbal and physical violence is justified in any case at all.
Why would the motivation of the presumptive interviewer of any concern? The only reason could be that the Left media wants to divert the story from the true attitude of the angry Left politicians... could be, no?
If someone asks if you support the President's agenda, say, "Yes I do, and here's why..." or, "No I don't, and here's why..." or even, "Some of it, it's complicated, why don't you come back to my office and we'll talk about it."
You don't demand to know who they work for and then grab them when they don't feel like talking about it. And you know, I wouldn't take the sign that they didn't feel like talking about it as an indication of a sinister motive. Sometimes you don't reveal your identity because you fear retribution (like Thomas Paine did when he published Common Sense), and sometimes you don't reveal your identity because you want people to focus on your words and ideas (like Hamilton, Madison and Jay did in the Federalist Papers). Either way, it's an American right.
If the congressman didn't like it, he could've kept walking. But grabbing the guy? It's just un-American. Turning it into a political thing and trying to justify it is a kind of moral equivalence that leads to a political system more like North Korea's than our own.