MMACH 5

This is pretty well off topic, but do you have examples of free speech being under assault, or people being prosecuted for secretly recorded utterances?

FBinNY 

Prosecuted? Not offhand, though this case is something of an example. But I said pilloried? Just look around. How many politicians and celebrities have had to do the PC dance because of snippets of private conversations being broadcast? I'm waiting for someone who'll say "Yes, I said that, and I meant it. Now let's talk about it in the open".

The concern in free speech isn't prosecutions, though that keeps the ACLU hopping, it's the chilling effect, where all speech becomes guarded because of PC concerns. The problem isn't what is said, it's what isn't.

MMACH 5

You did say free speech is under assault. Free speech is only protected from prosecution. That was why I asked about prosecution. Protection doesn't mean you can't be voted out of office for making asinine comments. We are absolutely permitted to make offensive, dunderhead remarks, but it's a bit ridiculous to then complain that people who hear them think we're dunderheads.
The taping of private conversations is not a free speech issue. That is a privacy issue.

FBinNY 

Yes I said assault, and I stand by that. And this case is a (minor) example, which supports the statement. But there are many direct assault by government which you can find easily enough via the ACLU site, or net search for "free speech prosecution".

I agree that speech rights don't protect one from reaction, nor are they intended to. But public attitudes about what is or isn't, or should or shouldn't be protected speech are an important part of the social fabric. We live in a society not only of laws, but of mores and expectations. Though government isn't involved directly in campus censorship, it' doing little to prevent it or protect victims and nobody cares because those being gagged are unsympathetic.

Also, when there are prosecutions, general public expectations and attitudes are as important as law, since a jury will be deciding the first round. ortuantely -- so far -- appellate judges tend to be very strong defenders of the 1st amendment.

Coal Buster

How is the gov't. indirectly involved in campus censorship whatever that is?

CB HI

Back on topic of the arrest of reckless endangerment, using the third video showing the cyclist road position, a measurement of the road, the width of the truck and the most left position of the truck as it begins and continues the pass can show just how close the driver passed the cyclist. With his statement showing his intent and judgement implying that he in fact scared them, can get him convicted. Icing on the top is getting the cyclist to testify against asshat.

Translated: I do not give a dam about the cyclist, I am just sorry my dumb ass got caught and arrested. Please let me go.

Grillparzer

I policed in Alabama and the standard for prosecuting a driver for Reckless Endangerment is whether another person or vehicle had to make any maneuver to avoid an accident. Swerving, hitting the brakes, any type of action at all would count. I used the charge a number of times when drivers tried to run from me and we went through traffic. In those cases, it was prosecuted with me as the complaitant. The video in the article doesn't show any maneuvers on the part of the cyclists to avoid this driver, but the video, if used in conjunction with a complaint or a statement from one of the cyclists, would make for a very good case to take to court. As someone brought the video to the attention of the police to begin with, I'm assuming there is a complaint to accompany it.

dougmc

Really, a more accurate translation would be :

FBinNY 

Visit the ACLU site and search for campus free speech. Note that many colleges are government owned, while many others are dependent on direct and indirect government support.

In any case, we've moved far afield from the OP and specific issue here. While I feel that this is a 1st amendment case, others don't, and the general issue of the 1st amendment in the 21st century is best take elsewhere. Let's not cause the mods to move this thread to P&R over it.

mr_bill

Royal we? That would be "Let us not..."

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

No. Intended to refer specifically to those, who along with me took this in an off topic direction.

buzzman

I agree.

And I can't believe no one has brought up the fact that the guy is holding a cell phone as he makes these passes and is videotaping- that alone warrants reckless endangerment in my book. What are the laws in AL regarding cell phone use while driving?

Also, his speedometer is clearly visible and readable in several shots. I didn't see any speed limit signs but according to another article they took some time to determine whether to prosecute based on establishing the location in which the videotaping occurred. I am sure once they figured that out they had the speed limits on those roads.

I don't think the prosecution of this crime has anything to do with what he says in the videotapes it has to do with his actions, which he recorded. I think those posters making it about what he says are running down the wrong road.

mr_bill

30 mph speed limit. He buzzed them at 45+ mph in the last shot.

(The bike path that some folks in Alabama think the cyclists should be on? 20 miles away.)

But that's OK, after 19 minutes "investigation", FBinNY determined this was a first amendment case, or maybe a fifth amendment case.

-mr. bill

buzzman

Yeah, my thought exactly.

This isn't about free speech it's about an idiot recording his own reckless driving.

CB HI

You are correct that the charges rest with his actions. His willing statements provide intent. He was allowed to fully exercise his free speech rights, no one even attempted to stop him from speaking out. Cops like it when suspects exercise free speech rather than their 5th amendment rights.

Some seem to think there should be a free pass, right to privacy when someone post their law breaking on public internet.

dougmc

Well, maybe.

His statements indicate what he'd like to do if he could get away with it, but does he actually do it? You can't tell how closely he passes the cyclists in the video, and I read somewhere that one of the cyclists in the videos was found and asked about it and he doesn't remember anything special about this guy passing him.

Personally, I'm surprised that the DA/police went after him. I'd have guessed that a "we don't have enough evidence to show that he was actually being a danger beyond a reasonable doubt" would have been a much more likely outcome from them than actually arresting him. That said, I'm glad they did it, just surprised. Normally we'd have to wait until he actually hit or assaulted somebody before something would happen, and *then* the videos would come out.

That said, maybe the DA/police got him for *filming* while driving, especially while doing so near a road user that's not surrounded by a steel cage. It's kind of roundabout, but I wouldn't say that's not reckless endangerment, and they do have evidence to support that.

CB HI

Not his ditch comments, but his comments about scaring the cyclists are what I specifically am speaking of.

dougmc

I was talking about all of his comments.

Did he actually scare a cyclist on the road? Maybe the intent of his videos was to scare somebody, and if so, maybe that would be illegal ... but that would be a different charge, not a traffic violation.

As far as I can tell from the video, he talked a lot of trash to his camera, but I can't tell if he did anything to endanger the cyclists beyond passing in a no passing zone, exceeding the speed limit (doing 35-40 in a 30 mph, you can see the sign and his speedometer) and playing with his camera while driving.

Now, if the cyclist came forward and talked about being passed at 6" ... then maybe. But I don't think that's happened.

That said, even if the DA dismissed all the charges, his idiotic comments are still all over the interwebs, waiting for anybody who googles for his name. And this pleases me.

kickstart

The guy is obviously an idiot verbalizing from his posterior, but other than speeding and passing at a grade crossing I don't see anything that calls for legal action unless he has a prior assault conviction, or there's been a complaint filed against him.

Chris516

He is not the only 'rotten apple in the barrel'. These types of videos' can be found by many more people than just him. I found a bunch, on 'both sides of the pond'(referring to Atlantic Ocean between North American continent, and England)

KonAaron Snake 

+1

I hope this redneck dumbass gets eaten by a bear, or that his grits lodge in his throat. However our rules around free speech are not just there when convenient...there is a cost. This boss Hogg impersonator is the price. If we don't tolerate ******** like this, all of our rights are endangered. I am all for a deputy stopping by to defuse the situation, to remind him of his duties and to tell him that he's on notice...but none of those passes were dangerous and what he said doesn't rise to the extremity needed to override free speech.

If we arrested every idiotic schmuck who said something stupid and/or offensive we'd run out of handcuffs in 5 minutes.

spectastic

one of the reasons I want to move to Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle or one of the more friendlier bicycle cities. I'm tired of people like these who have no clue and no compassion

dougmc

Zip-ties work well in a pinch, and you ought to have some in your bike's tool bag for emergency repairs already.

FBinNY 

The clueless are everywhere. They're just better hidden in some places.

Metal Man

I posted this on the FB page of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Office. A lot of bike haters there.

If his weapon of choice was a g*u*n would some of you see this differently? Can you imagine the same audio with a g*u*n in his hand walking down the street "saying I hate.......", or maybe the mall, a school or a movie theater?