Dear Government Employees: Asking Questions - Even Dumb Ones - Is Not A Criminal Offense
from the a-story-in-three-acts dept
What is it with federal government officials and their weird belief that being questioned by the public -- even with dumb questions -- is a criminal offense? Does it take three stories to make a trend? Perhaps. Let's do these one at a time.
Scene One: Guy faces criminal charges for asking Senator if his daughter was kidnapped
I'm sure that in some recesses of Simon Radecki's mind, the following stunt was a good idea. I'm sure, when he came up with it, it seemed like a clever way to create a feeling of panic within a Senator's mind that might -- just maybe -- make him reconsider the panic his policies might be causing millions of people. And yet, still... this seems like a really dumb stunt:
After thanking Mr. Toomey for appearing, Mr. Radecki said, “We’ve been here for a while. You probably haven’t seen the news. Can you confirm whether or not your daughter Bridget has been kidnapped?”
The ensuing four-second pause was punctuated by Mr. Toomey uttering “uhhhh,” before Mr. Radecki added, “The reason I ask is because that’s the reality of families that suffer deportation …”
See? You can totally see the thought process that would lead to such questioning, even if most of us would also quickly realize what a dumb line of questioning it was and would never let it out of our heads. But dumb questions aren't illegal. But... that hasn't stopped the police from going after Radecki and charging him with "disorderly conduct." Toomey's staffers didn't help matters by saying that the question was "inherently threatening." Except, that's not even remotely true under the law. And there's a fair bit of First Amendment law on what counts as a "true threat." And a hypothetical to make a point is not considered a true threat.
Scene 2: Charges dropped against reporter for asking Health Secretary questions too loudly
The questioning in this case happened back in May and got some attention. West Virginia reporter Dan Heyman, a reporter for the Public News Service, was arrested and charged with "willful disruption of governmental process" for the truly audacious act of yelling questions at Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Of course, that's kind of his job as a reporter. For the past four months Heyman has been dealing with a set of completely bogus charges because he was doing his job, asking questions of public officials.
Thankfully, now, common sense has prevailed, as prosecutors have dropped all charges and admitted that Heyman was just doing "aggressive journalism" that "was not unlawful and did not violate the law with which he was charged." It's just unfortunate that he still had to be arrested and have criminal charges hanging over his head for four months.
Scene 3: White House lawyer promises to send the Secret Service after aggressive questioner
Sensing a pattern yet? The recently hired lawyer in the White House, Ty Cobb (note: not the dead baseball player) appeared to threaten a questioner with a Secret Service visit for asking pointed questions. Here's the exchange, as posted over at Business Insider:
"How are you sleeping at night? You’re a monster," Jetton wrote to Cobb's White House email account on Tuesday night.
"Like a baby ... " wrote Cobb, who was brought in to the White House to oversee Trump's legal and media response to the ongoing Russia investigation.
The conversation escalated quickly, with Jetton attacking "the havoc" Cobb and his "ilk are causing."
"I, like many others, lay awake, restless, my mind dissecting countless scenarios of how bad this could get, what new thing you have dreamt up to pull us down a pathway to hell," Jetton wrote. "You remind me less of a grumpy baseball player and more of that horrid clown from the Stephen King novel."
Cobb replied: "Enjoy talking to the Secret Service. Hope you are you less than nine years old as you seem to be ... "
As an aside: Cobb appears to have difficulty not responding to any random email that comes his way -- having also been completely and totally fooled by a guy who literally used the domain emailprankster.co.uk to send emails pretending to be other White House officials, eventually leading Cobb to threaten the prankster with possible felony charges.
Either way, absolutely nothing in the exchange above deserves (or is likely to get) a Secret Service visit.
Look, this isn't that hard. Being a government official -- whether elected or appointed -- is not a fun gig. You have lots of people questioning you and second guessing you all the time. And some of those people are mean. Possibly really mean. But, that's kinda part of the territory when you live and work in a mostly open democracy, rather than an authoritarian dictatorship. People get to ask questions -- even stupid, annoying or scary ones. And we don't arrest them and throw them in jail.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dan heyman, free speech, pat toomey, questions, reporters, simon radecki, tom price, ty cobb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is one of these things not like the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
The Secret Service is not law enforcement. They act on prospective threats to the country rather than crimes in actual planning or execution.
A referral to the Secret Service would not be wrong if Cobb infers a mind disturbed enough to run amok or commit crimes.
Threatening with a referral to the Secret Service, however, does not make sense in that context as it is not likely to reduce the likelihood of bad actions. The job of the Secret Service is not harrassing people.
But then there is a whole lot of people in the administration engaging in activities where one would want to say "that's not your job".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
Granted, the FBI is mostly too busy these days making dreams come true for paranoid schizophrenics, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
The US Secret Service is most definitely a LEO, regardless under what department they now reside, although that is entirely irrelevant with regards to their name being used by a government dork in a threat, whether it sounds credible or not. Who said this Cobb bloke has to make sense with his unreasonable threats?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
> expanded remit with regard to fraud, counterfeiting and
> other financial crimes compared to when they were founded.
In point of fact, when the Secret Service was created by Lincoln in 1865 (ironically, his last official act as president before leaving for the theater where he was assassinated), it was for the purpose of law enforcement. Specifically, to combat counterfeit currency, which was rampant in the nation at the time. (Approximately 1/3 of all the money in circulation was fake.) There was no presidential protective mission until after the assassination of McKinley in 1901.
The Secret Service got its name from the men from whom Lincoln drew the first agents. They were a loose-knit group of Civil War spies that the Union sent behind Confederate lines to obtain intel regarding troop movement and strength and report back. They called themselves the Secret Service and when they were recruited to become Lincoln's anti-counterfeiting cops, they brought their name along with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
Wrong. USSS agents are federal law enforcement officers who have the same investigatory and arrest powers of FBI agents or any other federal agent.
> They act on prospective threats to the country rather than crimes in actual planning or execution.
Wrong. In addition to its protective mission, the USSS investigates and prosecutes a whole host of federal crimes (counterfeit currency, identity theft, credit card fraud, computer intrusion, sexual exploitation of minors, bank fraud, and access device fraud).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
Of course they will. "Law enforcement" is nothing more than the muscle of the mafia that claims to be our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is one of these things not like the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"was arrested and charged with "willful disruption of governmental process" for the truly audacious act"
Gotta love those subjective things govt has at their disposal to charge people they don't like with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No need to twist laws intended for other purposes (such as disorderly conduct or obstruction of government) either. This one is EXACTLY for these situations. The Department of Justice even says so on their website.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like things flock together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
Get over it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The DEA is a threat to families. It's a brutal jackbooted agency that exists only to enforce laws that aren't even within the government's legitimate scope of legislation in the first place. And, like the rest of the DOJ, it does that in a calculatedly inhuman way.
Next time you might want to pick a better example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Roosevelt High is the topic of discussion, it's a pertinent question. If it's not, how could you NOT take it as a threat?
And no, deportation is NOT kidnapping. Before you go hyperbolic about that, look up the legal definitions of the word. Deportation is legal, Kidnapping is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From oxforddictionaries.com
kidnap
verb
[with object]
Abduct (someone) and hold them captive, typically to obtain a ransom.
‘militants kidnapped the daughter of a minister’
There is no ransom demanded, but there doesn't have to be to make a kidnap a kidnap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So the identity thief that got all of the press an sympathy would have just gone to prison instead. As it was, if she gets deported she will just be back across the border in a few weeks.
That's how that sort of situation tends to play out in real life.
YOU will probably be more traumatized about it than her or even her kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand the desire to enforce immigration law but it's not okay to break up families just because one of the members is undocumented. There needs to be a mechanism to legalise illegal immigrants who haven't broken any other laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ummm, didn't the UK vote to leave the EU in large part because of immigration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hard to forget UKIP's 2014 scare-mongering posters of the white cliffs of Dover with an escalator on it with the words "No border. No control." written on it. Per crossbench peer Karan Bilimoria, Britain doesn’t need to ‘take back control’ of immigration. We already have it.
But the biggest deception is this: we could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves. In this month’s debate on the House of Lords EU subcommittee report on EU migration, I challenged the government on why we were not availing ourselves of this directive – and I got no response. - Britain doesn’t need to ‘take back control’ of immigration. We already have it, by Karan Bilimoria for The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/britain-take-back-control-immigration -eu-directive-brexit
As referenced here: http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/anti-brexit-talking-points.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
abduct
verb
1. take (someone) away illegally by force or deception;
Kidnap is often used as a synonym, but this use fails the 'illegal' part. Using words incorrectly does not strengthen an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ICE
> who deal with deportation
Those people put *themselves* in that bad experience by going to a foreign country and breaking its laws. The government isn't responsible for their fear merely because it enforces its own laws.
When a guy robs a bank, gets caught, and is sentenced to prison, we don't say the government is breaking up his family by sending him to prison. No, we say the guy broke up his own family by knowingly doing something illegal, the consequence of which is separation from his wife and kids.
The same principle applies to illegal immigrants. If their families are being disrupted, it's not the government's fault. It's *their* fault for doing something illegal, the consequence of which is deportation.
> ICE actually poses a threat to families.
No, ICE is just enforcing validly passed, perfectly constitutional and rational laws that are necessary for any nation's security and existence.
If anyone poses a threat to those families with regard to the possibility of deportation, it's the adults in those families that chose to travel to a foreign country and break its laws, knowing the consequence for doing so is deportation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The use of "willful disruption of government process" has of late become disgustingly twisted to appease officials trying to hide from questions they don't have the guts or answers to face.
Disruption of what process? Was he made late for a bribe?
Yeah, it may be a difficult job, but if they can't handle the stress they should do everyone a favor and pack up their cartoon loot bags with the dollar signs on them, and just get the hell out of politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like the 1700-1800s when the politicians may have been equally thin skinned, but they would at least actually grant you the courtesy of engaging them in fisticuffs to clear their dubious honor... This modern crop of fragile losers use law enforcement to rough up reporters and protesters, twist the law to quell the voice of dissent and hide behind the privileges of office to weasel away from any uncomfortable situation. The use of "willful disruption of government process" has of late become disgustingly twisted to appease officials trying to hide from questions they don't have the guts or answers to face. Disruption of what process? Was he made late for a bribe? Yeah, it may be a difficult job, but if they can't handle the stress they should do everyone a favor and pack up their cartoon loot bags with the dollar signs on them, and just get the hell out of politics.
Bravo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline.
Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”
The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions.
“In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable,” said the subhead in the Outline article, written by Brian Merchant.
Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pointing that out is NOT WRONG!!
I know you are joking, but there are many clambering for power who honestly believe that people who don't agree with their political philosophy should be jailed.
Thankfully they don't have the power to do that. But lacking that power there are some of them beating up people saying things they don't agree with....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So should making up silly nonsense words like "whataboutism" to magically discount an opposing viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me. I imagine the Wikipedia article on the word, which I've seen linked several times but never actually visited, might clear up that question.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I understand what both what it supposedly means and how it's disingenuously used to shut down a valid point in a debate.
> it attempts to distract from that argument, by pointing
> out something else.
And often, that "something else" is something entirely relevant to the debate, like an illuminating hypocrisy on the part of the original speaker, for example.
> Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me.
I never said he coined it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the instant case, the poster was not saying "The viewpoint presented here is wrong", but "X other, similar thing is also wrong". To consider that "an opposing viewpoint" seems like a stretch, to me.
>> Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me.
>
>I never said he coined it.
He responded to one person by saying "Doing X should be a crime." (albeit clearly in sarcasm mode), with the implication that the person being responded to had just done that.
You responded to him by saying "So should doing Y", which - if only because of that juxtaposition - naturally carries the same implication.
The "doing Y" in question was "making up silly nonsense words like "whataboutism"".
Therefore, in the context, what you wrote you clearly implied that he had made up - or, in other words, coined - the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> made up - or, in other words, coined - the word.
No, you may have erroneously inferred it based on an inaccurate understanding of what was written but I made no such implication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret Service visit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Golfing was Obama's pasttime. Trump prefers to spend Secret Service budget on visits to Trump owned properties, rather than the government owned properties that the Secret Service is more comfortable declaring secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The back 9 at Fort Bragg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The back 9 at Fort Bragg.
Please note I've got issues with Obama over surveillance and the persecution of whistleblowers but that's where they stay; he's not "my guy."
Trump has continued the worst of Obama's neocon policies while lining his pockets with the nation's money. Is he your guy? Is that why you're shouting, "Look over there?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adjust title
New title suggestion:
"Dear Government Employees: Being Asked Questions - Even Dumb Ones - Is Not A Criminal Offense"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please can we make it a crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you stopped beating your wife...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cobb
> deserves (or is likely to get) a Secret Service visit.
If for no other reason than the USSS doesn't take marching orders from White House lawyers with regard to whom to investigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]