Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
from the and-that's-how-it-goes dept
The First Amendment protects unsympathetic plaintiffs just as much as it does those able to obtain mass support for their arguments. This case, originating from Bloomington, Minnesota, involves someone whose motives seem bigoted but whose actions were clearly covered by the Constitution.
When a new school catering to immigrants moved into the neighborhood, Sally Ness took action. An agreement between the city and the Dar Al-Farooq School allowed students of the school to use a nearby park for recreation. Ness felt the school and its students were violating the terms of the agreement and took to filming students at the park, as well as the traffic flowing to the school to pick up students.
This resulted in harassment accusations from parents of these students, which the Bloomington PD investigated, visiting Ness at her home and, later, telling her to stop filming students because parents and school administrators might be feeling "intimidated" by her actions. The officers told her to "take her pictures" and "move on."
Ness also frequently attended city council meetings to voice her displeasure with the school and its apparent abuse of the public park. After a few meetings, the council amended its harassment law to include something that very specifically targeted Ness' actions.
(24) No person shall intentionally take a photograph or otherwise record a child without the consent of the child's parent or guardian.
Hello, First Amendment violations. This not only outlawed Ness' documentation of park use by school students, but also more "acceptable" recordings of children, like journalistic efforts or capturing evidence of criminal activity by minors.
Ness sued. And the claims she advanced were rebuffed by the federal court handling the case. The court said she had no standing to challenge the amended law, despite the fact the amendment was obviously added to target her documentation of the park. It said the DA had refused to prosecute previous allegations and, apparently, felt this would always be the case, even with the addition of the amendment.
It also said the new law was "content neutral" because it did not target photographers, but rather what they recorded (???).
Here, the City Ordinance makes no distinction based on who is the photographer or recorder, what use will be made of the photograph or recording, or what message will ultimately be conveyed. Because the limitation on its face does not draw distinctions based on a speaker’s message or viewpoint, it is content neutral.
But it very obviously targeted the content of Ness' recordings. It forbade her from photographing children, which were always the subject of her recordings, which were supposed to show the school was violating its agreement with the city to provide limited, exclusive use to students for recreation.
As the district court saw it, the ends could not have been achieved without this law, which made it a good law.
As discussed above, the City Ordinance promotes the important government interest in regulating the competing uses of City parks and protecting children’s privacy and sense of safety and freedom from intimidation while playing in a City park. This interest would be achieved less effectively without the City Ordinance. The City Ordinance is narrowly tailored.
Ness appealed. And the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court says [PDF] the lower court is wrong about the ordinance, the First Amendment, and its definition of the legal term "content neutral." (h/t Volokh Conspiracy)
The court says of course this is protected speech. It is information gathering about issues of public interest: the possible violation of agreements with the city by a local school. That the information gatherer appears to be motivated more by bigotry than actual concern about violated contracts (something only aggravated by Ness' decision to bring the American Freedom Law Center on board as her representation) doesn't matter.
Applying the distinction between speech and conduct to this case, we conclude that Ness’s photography and video recording is speech. Ness wants to photograph and record the asserted “non-compliant and overuse of Smith Park” by the Center and Success Academy, and she wants to post those photographs and videos to an internet blog and a Facebook page “in order to inform the public” about the controversy. Thus, her photography and recording is analogous to news gathering. The acts of taking photographs and recording videos are entitled to First Amendment protection because they are an important stage of the speech process that ends with the dissemination of information about a public controversy.
Since this is protected speech, the court needs to determine whether it's narrowly tailored enough to serve the public's interest while still protecting their constitutional rights. The court says this ordinance fails to pass that test.
We may assume that a narrowly tailored ordinance aimed at protecting children from intimidation and exploitation could pass strict scrutiny. The present ordinance, however, is not narrowly tailored to that end as applied to Ness. Ness seeks to photograph and video record a matter of public interest—purported violations of permits issued by the City—and does not intend to harass, intimidate, or exploit children. Ness also advised the City that it was her practice to “block” out the identities of juveniles when she posts images online, and the City produced no evidence to the contrary. Yet her photography and recording is nonetheless proscribed by the ordinance.
The strict scrutiny test fails and so does the city's law, which was clearly written to discourage Ness from engaging in documentation of perceived violations by the school and its students.
We therefore conclude that the ordinance, as applied to Ness’s activity that forms the basis for this lawsuit, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
That makes it pretty much unconstitutional for everyone. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for recording children in a park: journalists with kid/park-related stories to cover, suspicion of criminal activity in the park committed by minors, the inadvertent capture of this area by homeowners' security cameras, etc.
Ness' motivations may have been limited to finding literally any reason to NIMBY a school catering to foreign students and their Islamic faith, but that still doesn't justify the city crafting an unconstitutional law to specifically target her protected speech. Protecting speech doesn't mean only protecting speech you like. And now the city knows it can't target Ness in this way without violating the First Amendment. Maybe it will do the smart thing and let Ness tire herself out attempting to prove the non-whites in her neighborhood are violating the terms of their agreement with the city.
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: 1st amendment, bloomington, free speech, minnesota, sally ness
Companies: dar al-farooq
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sally Ness has apparently been at this shit for 5 years now. The Muslims there have been targeted constantly, and there was a fucking bombing there.
Sally Ness is a bigoted individual who knows exactly what she’s doing and doesn’t seem like she’s gonna tire out any time soon. Telling the city and the Muslim community to just deal with it and wait for Ness and her bigoted pals to get tired shows a ludicrous and gross lack of research on Tim’s part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thanks for letting us all know you have "flexible" morals. Or maybe just simply don't believe in the fundamental limits on the government the constitution places.
On the other hand civilized people would go about finding a way to deal with a bigot that doesn't involve ditching their believes or trying to be a monster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or criminal activity committed against minors by non-minors. Or non-criminal, but nevertheless questionable actions committed against minors by non-minors. This includes actions committed by these minors' parents or legal guardians.
Kind of "interesting" how these parts of the story don't highlight nearly as much that minors are often victims of problematic conduct. And therefore, a law that says "no filming minors" can easily cause or aggravate harm to minors by making it much harder to draw attention to their issues legally.
Also, in this case the law says that "no person" may film a minor without parental consent. I'm not sure about the specifics, but this sounds like it can also include other minors. Which means high school students filming friendly videos of each other suddenly become "harassers" of each other; in other terms, such a provision says that minors do not have the right to consent to a recording themselves.
Also, I wonder if such a law could be used as an excuse by bad-faith police actors to turn off their cameras because they may accidentally capture minors...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The First Amendment doesn’t care. Her speech, abhorrent and distasteful though it may be, still deserves (and receives) the same legal protection as yours. Free speech laws must protect unpopular speech or else such laws are worthless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ok, so, Sally Ness using her unpopular speech over the course of five years to foment continued mistrust and attacks against a marginalized community is something that needs to be protected under the First Amendment, and the city and its Muslim community just need to suck it up and grow thicker skin. You believe it’s fine for bigots to use their First Amendment rights to help deprive others of the ability to feel safe, to actually be safe, and accepted in this country. Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I do agree with you that the 1st is king but... When does it turn into stalking? I mean, your kids are there doing their stuff, weirdo comes and films because kids are breaking some rule. Cool story but then the weirdo proceeds to filming your kids for 5 years? Honest doubt here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, it's like... in the Sahan Journal article, it talks about how Ness has been doing this for a long, long while.:
This long-running behavior isn't something that deserves to be protected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's why I asked. I'm fairly sure there are laws in place for abusive behavior like hers. She may have some point (ie: minors violating the rules) but ostensibly recording the kids for years seems to violate other rights to me. Where is the line drawn? I'd be freaked out if my kids were in that school with some freak recording them so frequently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, I don’t. I think what Ness does is some sick sociopathic shit, and I wouldn’t feel the least bit bad for her if someone popped her in the mouth Richard Spencer–style for doing what she does. (I neither endorse nor condone such behavior, but I sure as shit won’t condemn it.) But legally, she has the right to say and do what she does. I’ll condemn her speech and hope those who oppose her find a way to stop her that doesn’t piss all over the First Amendment. But I won’t agree that she deserves to have her right to speak freely stripped from her only because I disagree with what she says and does with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ah MN, where the open minded white people got Wakefield to come and speak at an event to make sure their new Somali neighbors wouldn't get their children vaccinated against measles.
She sounds like a horrible person, but she has rights too.
One can only hope that the immigrant neighbors are aware of their rights and know when she actually crosses the line.
This type of person knows her rights, but often has a problem understanding other people have the same rights & likes to trample on them.
Huh, I wonder how she would feel if kids & parents started photographing her & recording what she was yelling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
When someone uses their right to speak freely to, over the course of years, intimidate a marginalized community and foment mistrust and hatred toward them, then that looks very much like they’ve abused that right in order to hurt others. When people abuse their rights to cause other people harm, that’s when they need to face actual legal consequences. So far, Ness seems to have faced none. Would it really “piss all over the First Amendment” if some bigoted slimeball who has engaged in this lengthy targeted fear-stoking campaign against the local Muslim community faced legal punishment? Or is that the Slippery-Slope-Fallacy that you’ve internalized and keep treating as an incontrovertible truth? My guess is that it’s the latter.
The Muslim community’s First Amendment freedom to exercise their religion and their general freedom to go about their daily lives without fear seems to matter less to you than some racist turd’s ability to constantly surveil and record them and write a paranoid blog to spread mistrust of said community. Government surveillance of Muslim Americans is bad and has always been bad. But if a private citizen decides to constantly blog and photograph and record the daily goings-on of a Muslim American community over the course of years? Guess that’s something that deserves to be protected to the death in Stephen T. Stone Sage Freehaven’s book!
You really ought to change your fursona to a worm, Freehaven. It would go a lot better with how fucking spineless you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think it's better to have fools making asses of themselves in full public view so that everyone can partake of the totally acceptable ridiculing of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Either we all have the same first amendment rights, or we don't. And if we don't, who decides where the line is drawn?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We have talk show hosts, comedians and more who made fun of Trump for years. It did nothing to stop him and his ilk from trashing what they wanted to trash. They were constantly treated like a joke rather than the legitimate threat that they were. I remember Jon Stewart on The Daily Show jokingly twiddling his nipples at the idea of Trump running for President in 2016, all the juicy ratings it would rake in. I sometimes wonder if Jon feels any shame or regret for acting like he did and not taking Trump seriously. But he’s probably too busy being a rich white neoliberal douche to actually care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
We could start by thinking about our rights more as things that need reconciling. Jamal Greene was on the Techdirt podcast earlier this year discussing his book and the case he presented for the idea of rights reconciliation was rather good, in my opinion. A Muslim community’s right to exercise their freedom of religion and go about their daily lives without fear should outweigh the right for bigoted people or individuals to engage in a years-long fear-stoking campaign that involves recording and surveilling them constantly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
sounds to me like this is the start of a years long fear campaign against those people who actually value peoples right to speak freely.
So you're saying that your opinion is bad and needs to (either now, or in the future when you have had the chance to "torment" people for years) silence.
Well ironically those of us who disagree with you, also don't think you should be silenced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t want a fear campaign. I don’t want to “torment” people for years. I think the status-quo is busted, and that this situation where Sally Ness and her local allies being able to legally stoke fears & paranoia as well as constantly surveil the Muslim Americans in Bloomington for years points to how busted that status-quo is. I think that Jamal Greene’s work is useful for figuring out how to fix that busted status-quo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It doesn't need to be protected by the First Amendment. This isn't a la carte decision choices. It is protected by the First Amendment. Full stop.
Now, if someone can legit get her for harassment, so be it, but apparently no one has a case.
Yes, she's an asshole. Maybe someone retired or such can sit in the park all day and record her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Good question. Has anyone attempted to report stalking or harassment that will hold up as valid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FSM help me I read her 'blog'.
There are complaints about parking, headlights shining on homes, a complaint she saw a car that kind of looked like a car that had an accident later, when the "real" religious school used the building they were much better neighbors.
Making lots of assumptions, filing FOIA requests based on an assumption, then being pissed off when the assumption was wrong so there were no secret records about how the city secretly funneled money into repairing the driveway of the property & didn't make the school pay but she KNOWS that they did & should have billed the school.
I could see an argument that the parking situation is unacceptable, with some people parking poorly on the street, but in her mind its the fault of the property not the idiots who parked like idiots.
Shes set her course to permanently pissed off, the property is at fault for all the bad, & the city is helping them do it... which means even if she has a legit gripe the fact she is following kids muttering to herself looking for ways to claim they are up to no good, no one listens to anything she says.
With all of this time into her crusade, I doubt anything could appease her at this point short of driving the mosque out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
uh huh. how would you "take care" of the "threat"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sir this is an Arby's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Has she broken a law that has withstood legal scrutiny? If she has, I agree—consequences all around, spare no expense, she fucked around and needs to find out. But if she hasn’t, she shouldn’t face those consequences. I agree that her behavior is awful; that alone can’t justify violating her civil rights.
Yes. Unless her speech and actions have crossed a line into illegality under a law that is constitutionally sound, she has the same rights under the First Amendment that you and I both share. I don’t have to like that fact to accept it.
I hate that the Muslims in that community can’t feel safe because of Sally Ness. I hate how nothing can apparently be done about it within the confines of the law. Nothing about this situation makes me happy—especially her victory in court.
That said: I can’t justify a legal punishment against her if she didn’t break a law that withstands legal scrutiny. Maybe Bloomington officials can come up with a law/statute that withstands that scrutiny and lets the city punish Ness for her bullshit. I hope they do. But until then, she isn’t flagrantly breaking any laws, and they can’t punish her only for being a shitty human being.
If she has broken a law, I say punish her. If the law she is accused of breaking doesn’t withstand legal scrutiny, the government shouldn’t get to say “who cares” and punish her anyway. Trampling on everyone else’s rights to get at her throat will only cause more problems than it solves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Other than the cars, what are her allegation against the school supposedly violating its agreement with the city? The city said the school can use the park, the school is using the park. Where's the violation? And if the kids/parents are visiting the park after school hours, aren't they allowed to do so as residents of the community?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sally Ness
You're highly verbose response only reinforces your obvious lack of respect of a persons human rights.
Point out to me where the muslim faith (despite you quoting it relentlessly) supports human rights, womens rights, gay rights, religious freedom!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Funny you should mention that...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-donald-trump-got-wrong_n_6142dd31e4b08f5f38ac7a0b
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Working off the above response about filming her, that's just the first step.
2) Find someone with a shotgun mic and record her mutterings at the same time. Who knows, she may be mouthing actionable threats.
3) As a group, the parents and their kids should walk together towards her as they leave the park, potentially "forcing" her to move aside, or to retreat in some fashion. If/when the cops might question some of those group members, "Officer, we were just taking a stroll with our children, showing them some of the sights of the neighborhood". Always being peaceful while going about their lawful occasions, you understand.
4) Compliment her yard and house, unless they are an absolute dump.
5) Best scenario: Start including her. Invite her to come to activities, albeit with both parents and kids. Keep it up, see if she relents. From the sound of it, I have to wonder if she's lonely, and being asked to act in a grandmotherly fashion might be all that's needed. But document everything, don't assume that she won't misinterpret a good will gesture, and try to take it to some kind of authorities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Separate from just above.....
Will someone kindly point me to the appropriate section of the Constitution that says one is guaranteed the right to live without fear, of anything or anyone? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not in the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence’s “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” would apply with regards to “Their general freedom to go about their daily lives without fear” that I said farther up. The Muslim community of Bloomington being able to live their lives without daily surveillance and threat by others who have actively sought to do them harm and caused them harm is what I mean by “go about their daily lives without fear”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While what Sally Ness has done is nothing more than actual harassment, you still have to prove that she was actually harassing these people.
While she has a right to "voice her opinion", so does the community, just not by violat8ng 1A.
Maybe it's time to take the fight to her, her cronies, and whoever is funding this clear harassment campaign.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The Declaration of Independence is not law.
If someone has fear at someone else’s exercise of rights under the law, that is the fearful party’s problem. Rights are there to protect freedoms from governmental interference, not to keep other citizens free of fear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sally Ness
Mainstream Muslims like Mainstream Christians respect other people rights. Try reading Malala Yousafzai's Story, and note that her parents have supported her through her education and political activites despite her being shot, and forcing the family into exile in Britain.
Extremist Muslims, like extremist Christian like to trample over people rights to enforce their theocratic views on everybody, like Texas and its abortion laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Her speech, abhorrent and distasteful though it may be, still receives the same legal protection as yours.
There, fixed that for you.
Her speech deserves denunciation, negative flattery, and perhaps shunning of the speaker. But it receives legal protection, same as the Illinois Nazis in Skokie, because if it did not receive such protection then the speech which deserves it might also not receive it.
Who gets to decide? Well, I get to decide for myself that her speech is unworthy of protection. But the First Amendment authors got to decide that it receives protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IDTTMWYTIM
Wait… Isn’t that completely backwards?
Granted, I’m pretty sure that only targeting photographers or something would also be unconstitutional, but I’m fairly sure that if the law targets the content of speech, that’s not exactly “content-neutral”. It’s kinda in the name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That’s not what the court said. It said that the specified ordinance is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored and is not content-neutral.
Insofar as the city is interested in protecting privacy, having a requirement to blur faces of children whose parents did not give consent before publicizing the material should be sufficient.
Insofar as the city is interested in stopping harassment, having a limitation in the ordinance that requires the city to prove intent to harass or something might work.
However, the city ordinance as it was had no such things in them. Anyone recording a child without their parent’s permission regardless of intent and regardless of any attempts to conceal the identities of any subjects would be in violation of the ordinance. That simply is not narrowly tailored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
“Fine” =/= “legal”
Not everything that is immoral is or should be illegal or unlawful, and not everything that is or should be legal and lawful is necessarily moral.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Start going after her in the same way
Someone in the Muslim community should begin filming HER. Every step she takes outside her home should be posted on a "blog". And as someone else pointed out, get a parabolic mic and record these "mumblings" of hers and post them, too. Fire with fire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Going to a public park every day and documenting what you see there might be many flavors of disrespectful depending on what you decide to document, but it's not stalking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you concentrate your efforts on a particular group or people it may well be stalking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Indeed, LC has it correct - the Declaration wasn't much more than a "memo" to King George III, telling him in no uncertain terms to fuck right off. The "pursuit of happiness" was a middle finger to George in that the colonists were extremely unhappy with his policies, his taxes, his "occupying forces", and so on. Consider it the Founder's way of saying "get off my lawn!", because it had nothing to do with how the newly independent citizens were to conduct their daily business with each other.
In those days, an armed citizen did not live in fear so much as he lived in a state of preparedness, ready for anything that life might throw his way. And instead of whining about shit, he simply dealt with it as appropriate. What I wanna know is, where in the fsck did this country go wrong?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unfortunately, Texas might be showing the way around this. The city could merely outlaw the picture taking and create a right of private action where anyone doing it can be sued while no city employees would take any action.
blech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This.
Occasionally I wonder if this really actually such an extremely hard thing for people to grasp, or if they are just being dishonest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it depends. I believe it may be possible that this woman’s behavior could be considered unlawful stalking and/or harassment under some hypothetical law that would pass constitutional muster, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with that being the case.
I’m not going to pretend to know what that law would be or if such a law exists somewhere in the US, though. That is beyond what a non-expert like myself would know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Start going after her in the same way
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If she singles out one particular private school because it's Muslim, she is not really concerned about it possibly violating the terms of their agreement they have with the city - she's looking for anything to pin on them because they are Muslim.
If she where even one bit concerned about other private schools violating any agreements she would also spend time documenting their activity too, but by the evidence available she don't thus we can conclude she is a bigot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now you set up a mechanism where one group can say "those bad people are making us afraid", and the government shuts down the other group's speech. Hopefully you can see how ripe for abuse that would be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's definitely not stalking under Minnesota law, but could possibly be harassment.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.749
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Correct. But that doesn't mean she's wrong. I have no idea if she is right or wrong (it seems more likely she is wrong if she's been doing this for years and the school continues to operate), but her motivations don't make her accusations any less correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"...and the city and its Muslim community just need to suck it up and grow thicker skin."
In america? Yes.
more civilized nations have realized that the Paradox of Tolerance is real and that opinions purely rooted in bigotry and racism cause actual harm and are to be treated like any other malicious call for harm.
But the US has become the textbook example of why tolerating the intolerant leads to the breakdown of a formerly tolerant society when an ever increasing amount of people starts believing that they are entitled to act like utter shits unto others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Free speech laws must protect unpopular speech or else such laws are worthless."
Unpopular speech is one thing. This type of behavior goes far beyond that. Sorry, Stephen, but this is a clear example of the slippery slope going the other direction, towards stalking and harrassment.
Most countries in europe have some form of restriction on speech used to attack and/or marginalize minorities. And those countries are all, today, far more healthy examples of liberal democracies than the US. At some point I think we need to let empirical evidence have its day - the US version of Free speech is harmful to democracy, not beneficial. Everything has limits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Minnesota has stalking and harassment laws, so either she's not violating them, or the problem is with law enforcement refusing to do anything about it. Since the city went as far as creating a new law to stop what she was doing, the former seems more likely. Is it possible the state law is inadequate? Sure, but this ordinance is clearly not the right solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Sally Ness
"Extremist Muslims, like extremist Christian like to trample over people rights to enforce their theocratic views on everybody, like Texas and its abortion laws."
There is an unfortunate case to be made that "mainstream" religious people only become tolerant by giving several of their core teachings a pass. This is true for any of the abrahamic religions rooted in times less forgiving of the other.
That above all means religion has always been the safe haven of subdued yet confirmed bigots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
She may be correct, but it's the dishonest version of correct that assholes, bigots and rules-lawyers love.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legalities notwithstanding
Pretty sure that if I, a chap, were out there filming other peoples kids in a park, I'd end up on a register somewhere...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sally Ness
There is also an association between political tolerance and religious tolerance especially when the two become coupled. The US having problems in those areas, especially when compared to Europe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Legalities notwithstanding
I believe you can only be put on the sex offender registry if you are found (or plead) guilty to a sex crime. So you would first have to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted. The police or city cannot just decide you need to be on a list without due process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re
why not put up billboards near her work that say she likes to photograph other people's kids in the park
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re
Why not come up with solutions that actually punish her for what she’s done instead of “They should just record her right back! That would be epic and for the win!” shit? Stuff like that makes for a good news story, something that’d hit the front page of Reddit and so forth, but never actually solve anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. Just because there is no recourse using the legal system doesn’t mean there’s no recourse.
Also, I’m not convinced that there is no recourse using the legal system in this particular case. The specific ordinance being challenged here was unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be—or isn’t—some other law that is or would be constitutional that would punish her behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But here’s the thing: is this woman’s behavior or speech demonstrably doing any of that? If not, then all we have is their unverifiable assertion that it does, and the distinction you draw is without difference.
Also, for the millionth time, immoral is not and should not be necessarily illegal or unlawful. There are plenty of things I don’t want the government to outlaw that I think are abhorrent and/or dangerous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re
Not everything that’s immoral should be illegal. Fight back with more speech. Make her a pariah in society.
Also, recording her could get evidence to support a harassment charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I strongly disagree, in part because you fail to understand the issue.
This is about one particular ordinance. Whether or not it’s meant to punish this particular woman for her behavior, this ordinance is still unconstitutional. Period.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t be punishable under some other, constitutional law or ordinance. There likely are some stalking and/or harassment laws in the US that would punish her behavior without running afoul of the Constitution. However, those laws aren’t at issue here. The law was about taking photos of children without their parent’s permission, period, and that is unconstitutional no matter how you slice it.
That’s why we protect unpopular speech. Better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person gets punished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No. Just because there is no recourse using the legal system doesn’t mean there’s no recourse."
Recalling your prior commentary on these boards I doubt we're talking about the second amendment - which is usually the shoe-in argument I keep hearing from all too many. I honestly fail to see any recourse unrooted in the government violence monopoly which could either shut that lady up or keep her away from being a total douchebag bringing the joys of stalker victim syndrome to a minority community.
"...that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be—or isn’t—some other law that is or would be constitutional that would punish her behavior."
I find it unlikely, on the face of it. You can't very well issue a restraining order protecting an entire community, and you can't even invoke such an order without a threat assessment a few orders of magnitude beyond "persistent bullying".
In most countries in europe it'd be pretty clear-cut. If your behavior in public is found to be deliberately malicious and/or rooted in racism/bigotry, legal sanction can usually be applied.
The US, on the contrary, appears to take quiet pride in the fact that everyone's entitled to be a malicious douchebag, no matter how much direct harm that actually causes. And that's just taking freedom to the point where the Paradox of Tolerance comes in and a community of civilized people are made to suffer because they are not the same sort of assholes as the stalker making their lives miserable and the law remains solidly on the side of the abuser rather than the victims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand the EU's take on it, but my concern is "if the government can declare certain types of speech illegal, what happens when the government decides that it's YOUR speech it doesn't like?" I don't like where that goes.
All the First Amendment really says with regard to speech is that the government can't punish you for your speech. There are alternatives. Public shunning and humiliation can work wonders. We've seen people lose their jobs over racist and bigoted behavior caught on camera. Some will call it "cancel culture" but others will say "being a malicious douchebag has consequences."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Social consequences. Name them and shame them. Record them to potentially gather evidence of legal wrongdoing; if they have a problem with that, then they’re a hypocrite. That’s the whole thing about the 1A.
Monetary sanctions are also in play, you know. Possibly jail time. But I’m not arguing about the severity or effectiveness of the legal punishment. You said there is no recourse, not that the recourse is insufficient.
I firmly disagree with that assessment. For one thing, where direct harm is provable, there is usually some recourse. More importantly, we prefer to have the consequences be social rather than legal outside of certain bounds. That I agree people should have the legal right to be a douchebag doesn’t mean I think they should be able to be a douchebag without consequences.
Again: legal =/= moral or consequence-free, nor should it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The right of individuals to photograph street scenes and document their ideas is one thing. And yet, Amazon is using its cameras, installed at the doors of willing dupes, to make a database of everything that happens on every street in town, which I assume they can search with high quality facial recognition. Is there some point where you object that constant surveillance of every public place is too much?
My thinking about it is that free speech doesn't misguide, and if the powers of Amazon disturb us, it's because no company should be that large period, and perhaps more fundamentally, companies should have fewer roles in society so that they can't abuse personal information the way they do now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A summary
A lot of negative and inaccurate comments which I understand because there is limited information written in the media about what happened. I hope some of you will consider reading information from the following links and if you have any questions, I will answer them and provide the needed data to support my answers.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/summary-of-detectives-at-my-house-incident-r eport-request-for-prosecution-and-civil-rights-action-complaint
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebl y.com/blog/42-us-code-1983-civil-action-for-deprivation-of-rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: crime in Smith Park neighborhood
This link provides data on the crime in the neighborhood which increased with the intense use of Dar Al Farooq that includes use through the night.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/city-comment-compare-the-crime-in-smith-park-t o-other-parks-note-to-city-it-should-not-matter-if-another-park-is-less-safe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: one 6 second video
In 2018 Success Academy Nonprofit Corporation (Domestic) and Dar Al-Farooq Center (DFC) Assumed Name located at 8201 Park owned by Al Jazari Institute Property LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, requested a conditional use permit that would increase the student population of Success Academy. The City of Bloomington, Minnesota, Council approved the conditional use permit request and chose to ignore a recommendation of the Planning Commission requiring the applicants to provide their own playground. This conditional use permit was approved regardless that there is documentation that the building is overused and noncompliant.
That same year, I was approached by four children while at the Smith Park public playground with my grandchildren. One of the children said my name, and I spoke with the children as neighbors do. This resulted in an incident report and detectives at my home. After telling the officers they said my name, an officer says, it does not give you a right to talk to them. An officer also informed me they have an obligation to follow-up on felony reports, and that they don't just get general misdemeanor cases.
The next year, I documented the use of the playground by Success Academy with one six second video, and about a month later an attorney also documented the use before he approached the City later that day to ask when the public can use the park. This resulted in detectives at my house again, and a request for prosecution under Mn Statute 609.749 Harassment; Stalking was submitted to the County regardless that there was not a violation of law. It also resulted in the City creating an unconstitutional City Code banning photography of those 18 and under without parent permission.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/42-us-code-1983-civil-action-for-deprivat ion-of-rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The title of the article, The cost of worshiping at one Minnesota mosque? A firebombing, a Confederate flag, an assault, and a blogger who films Muslim children.
The Confederate flag, I saw the picture, I have no idea who it was, but he looked homeless, and the flag looked new. There has been an increase in the homeless in the area.
The assault. After the assault, a woman's house, the assault victim's neighbor, was burglarized. The burglar used the card at Target but unfortunately the city did not act fast enough, they requested the video after 30 days and it had been erased by then. The Police said the burglars likely monitored her house, something neighbors have been concerned about since the Dar Al Farooq building is allowed to be used through the night which was not proposed. Again, the link about crime in the Smith Park neighborhood.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/city-comment-compare-the-crime-in-smith-park-to-othe r-parks-note-to-city-it-should-not-matter-if-another-park-is-less-safe
I took one 6 second video.
In 2018 Success Academy Nonprofit Corporation (Domestic) and Dar Al-Farooq Center (DFC) Assumed Name located at 8201 Park owned by Al Jazari Institute Property LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, requested a conditional use permit that would increase the student population of Success Academy. The City of Bloomington, Minnesota, Council approved the conditional use permit request and chose to ignore a recommendation of the Planning Commission requiring the applicants to provide their own playground. This conditional use permit was approved regardless that there is documentation that the building is overused and noncompliant.
That same year, I was approached by four children while at the Smith Park public playground with my grandchildren. One of the children said my name, and I spoke with the children as neighbors do. This resulted in an incident report and detectives at my home. After telling the officers they said my name, an officer says, it does not give you a right to talk to them. An officer also informed me they have an obligation to follow-up on felony reports, and that they don't just get general misdemeanor cases.
The next year, I documented the use of the playground by Success Academy with one six second video, and about a month later an attorney also documented the use before he approached the City later that day to ask when the public can use the park. This resulted in detectives at my house again, and a request for prosecution under Mn Statute 609.749 Harassment; Stalking was submitted to the County regardless that there was not a violation of law. It also resulted in the City creating an unconstitutional City Code banning photography of those 18 and under without parent permission.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/42-us-code-1983-civil-action-for-deprivat ion-of-rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: one 6 second video
I took one 6 second video and I did not yell.
Unfortunately, I have documented people taking pictures/video of my home and so has others in the neighborhood.
From the link:
In 2018 Success Academy Nonprofit Corporation (Domestic) and Dar Al-Farooq Center (DFC) Assumed Name located at 8201 Park owned by Al Jazari Institute Property LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, requested a conditional use permit that would increase the student population of Success Academy. The City of Bloomington, Minnesota, Council approved the conditional use permit request and chose to ignore a recommendation of the Planning Commission requiring the applicants to provide their own playground. This conditional use permit was approved regardless that there is documentation that the building is overused and noncompliant.
That same year, I was approached by four children while at the Smith Park public playground with my grandchildren. One of the children said my name, and I spoke with the children as neighbors do. This resulted in an incident report and detectives at my home. After telling the officers they said my name, an officer says, it does not give you a right to talk to them. An officer also informed me they have an obligation to follow-up on felony reports, and that they don't just get general misdemeanor cases.
The next year, I documented the use of the playground by Success Academy with one six second video, and about a month later an attorney also documented the use before he approached the City later that day to ask when the public can use the park. This resulted in detectives at my house again, and a request for prosecution under Mn Statute 609.749 Harassment; Stalking was submitted to the County regardless that there was not a violation of law. It also resulted in the City creating an unconstitutional City Code banning photography of those 18 and under without parent permission.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/42-us-code-1983-civil-action-for-deprivat ion-of-rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: City should not have paid for driveway
Thanks for reading the blog.
About the driveway. Success Academy leases from Dar Al Farooq and wanted to expand the school. The planning staff determined that a new entrance was needed and decided it was best to have a new entrance at the public park. The city did not need a new entrance for the public park, the school needed it to expand. Additionally, as noted in the second link below it states, the Request for Council Action, item Approve Special Assessment and Waiver Agreement with Al Jazari Institute Property, LLC, dated December 17, 2018, states, that the driveway "increases the fair market value and is a special benefit to the DAF Property." It is a benefit to the DAF Property and yet the city paid for it and should not have. And the City's Park Development fund provided $ 41,804.57.
From the link:
The driveway cost $ 51,804.57 (DAF will pay 10,000), so the total cost to the City is $41,804.57. The bump-out and median cost $ 85,000.66 (DAF will pay 30,000) and so the total cost to the City is $55,000.66. The total cost to the City, is $ 96,805.23.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/city-pays-9680523-for-the-driveway-median- and-bump-out-required-for-dar-al-farooqs-expansion
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/ci ty-pays-2814750-for-driveway-it-does-not-need-and-council-member-incorrectly-states-dar-al-farooq-wo uld-be-under-no-obligation-to-help-pay-for-any-of-the-driveway-normally
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is it fraud?
The building proposed a max of 200 for Friday prayer. They had hundreds more before they opened.
There is data from the City to DAF. It is dated March 21, 2011, which is before DAF obtained the first Conditional Use Permit, before DAF purchased the property, and before the property had a certificate of occupancy.
FYI - I was not the person who called the City.
The data states:
We have a problem ... I have received parking complaints and use complaints expressing alleged violations at 8201 Park Ave this past Saturday early evening. The person said the school open, busy and people were circling the neighborhood and lost. They stated they wanted to take their kids to the playground and there was not parking at Smith Park at all. Another said they went to walk the dog and there was so much disruption in the park that they left? They claim your group is already moved into the building.
I am not sure of the validity of this being your group or not, but I wanted to discuss this with you and try to reduce the impact off potentially angry at the Planning Commission hearing.
They had 800-1000 at the building on March 21, 2011 and during the conditional use permit hearing said this number would not be attending. The conditional use permit process was based on the proposed use of 200 and a private school of 60 students.
Later a council member "asked if it's fraud when someone makes representations to entice someone to make a contract and then they don't follow through with what they promised."
The "City Attorney explained Mr. Aziz probably didn't have the legal authority," the data indicates differently.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/is-it-fraud
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Inaccurate report
This is another report stated to be me and note that it is inaccurate.
The blog link below is about a 2019 report that includes a report that I was walking a dog and thin build, I do not have a dog and I am not thin. This is not the only inaccurate report.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/2019-report-includes-walking-a-dog-and-thin-b uild-i-do-not-have-a-dog-and-i-am-not-thin
The link below is another report Sophia made.
https://biker-news.com/2020/06/29/stillwater-investigating-harassment-complaint-involving-arya n-cowboy-mc.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Inaccurate report
This is another report stated to be me and note that it is inaccurate.
The blog link below is about a 2019 report that includes a report that I was walking a dog and thin build, I do not have a dog and I am not thin. This is not the only inaccurate report.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/2019-report-includes-walking-a-dog-and-thin-b uild-i-do-not-have-a-dog-and-i-am-not-thin
The link below is another report Sophia made.
https://biker-news.com/2020/06/29/stillwater-investigating-harassment-complaint-involving-arya n-cowboy-mc.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: neighbors say hi to each other
From the link:
The neighborhood, historically very diverse in ages, races, faiths, gender identity, sexual orientation, has been known to welcome all, and continues to do so. The neighbors have always, and continue to wave, and say hi to each other. That does not mean that people who drive too fast, or drivers of semis and other type III vehicles will not be given a look of disapproval. It also does not mean that a property that is overused and noncompliant will not be disapproved of as well, and that does not equate to hate.
Again, the data collected from the City for years does not support that there is hatred from the community. What it does support is that the building is overused and noncompliant and in this post, titled, "Responding to Dar Al Farooq patron on twitter comments, part 1, part 2, part 3," it shows how the City unwilling to address the concerns affects the patrons view of the neighborhood.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/the-day-after-3-officers-came-to-my-hou se-the-planning-commission-hearing
Other links to address concerns:
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/responding-to-dar-al-farooq-patron-twitter- comments
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/responding-to-dar-al-farooq-patron-twitter-c omments-part-2
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/responding-to-dar-al-farooq-patron-twi tter-comments-part-3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: it is a great neighborhood
It is a great neighborhood and residents help each other, including helping each other with their yards.
It is about the overuse and noncompliant use of a building; it is not about the neighbors or neighborhood.
And of course, the grandchildren play with who is ever at the park, (the school now has their own playground, so the Smith Park playground is available to the public and fortunately the public has begun using it again) and I talk with whoever brings their children to the park, again, it is about the overuse and noncompliant use of a building, it is not about the neighbors or the neighborhood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Inaccurate report link above did not work
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/2019-report-includes-walking-a-dog-and-thin-build-i-d o-not-have-a-dog-and-i-am-not-thin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A summary
Not exactly an unbiased source of information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Neighborhood did not care it was Al Farooq Youth & Family Center
Tim Cushing writes, "When a new school catering to immigrants moved into the neighborhood, Sally Ness took action."
From the link:
When some neighbors received the following, there was disappointment that the school building was not being purchased by Bloomington Schools but there was not a concern that the purchaser was Al Farooq Youth and Family Center or as the twitter comments, "Black Muslims." The lack of concern in who was purchasing the building was evident in the number of residents, in the Smith Park area, who showed up at the planning commission meeting; three.
As noted by the comments below there was only one person who indicated they were "unhappy," the rest supported Al Farooq Youth and Family Center.
At the first City Council meeting on April 18, 2011, there were six people who spoke. There were four that spoke in support of the building and two that spoke of parking concerns.
1 Applicants attorney, #2 Resident Old Cedar Ave spoke positive about the building, #3 Applicant, director, #4 Bloomington resident not from the neighborhood, asked about consequences if applicant overbuilds the parking, #5 there is no speaker indicated, #6 resident 82nd street, he addressed parking and that Park Ave is now 5 feet narrower, #7 resident Oakland Ave, parking
At the next City Council meeting on May 2, 2011, "no public testimony was received."
Concern began not because "Black Muslims" decided they wanted the building, but when parking was being proposed; specifically parking in an area that is known as the entrance to Smith Park that was not identified in the conditional use permit.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/responding-to-dar-al-farooq-patron-twitter-co mments-part-3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A summary
nasch, thanks for reading.
If there is anything in the links provided that you would like data to support what is stated, I will find the data. Let me know. Again, thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dar Al Farooq proposed use that ended at 10pm, video after 10pm
Here are some video of the use in the low-density neighborhood. The proposed use was 7am to 10pm, all these videos are after 10pm.
This use was about 1am.
WP 20140706 084 1 kid screaming
https://youtu.be/04OF8qV7Jyo
If I recall correctly, this video was taken at about 11pm.
WP 20130721 002 11 08
https://youtu.be/4Po_80eVgHY
squealing car 6 24 17 about 3am
https://youtu.be/ML8SOXjpW10
bike riding in lot at 4am 6 22 17
https://youtu.be/QzMAGkLZSTs
I believe this video was taken sometime around midnight in June. It is taken at a home from across the street on the front steps. It is taken with an inexpensive phone so the quality is not good and the amplification of the person speaking inside the Dar Al Farooq gym is much louder and clearer in person.
Also, notice the vehicles coming and going.
amplification from the building
https://youtu.be/Mr6L5Wf0mRg
car alarms 6 24 17 about 4am
https://youtu.be/BhcnYJJO3s4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim Cushing writes, "An agreement between the city and the Dar Al-Farooq School allowed students of the school to use a nearby park for recreation."
There is not a shared agreement for the use of Smith Park or the Smith Park playground. There is a shared agreement for the fields and the parking lot.
From the link:
The shared use agreement will need to be amended because it does not include the use of the Smith Park playground and surrounding park land and yet the charter school is currently using both. The shared use agreement is for the shared use of the fields, tennis and basketball courts and parking lots.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/parks-shared-use-agreement-will-need-to-be-amended-t he-agreement-that-had-67-versions
From the link:
The comment summary continues, "By expanding the use to 60 to 90 minutes per day, this may restrict access of the playground by the general public."
Note to City, it does, the use of the playground by Success Academy restricts access by the general public.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/new-cup-comment-summary-smith-park-playground -and-parking-lots-should-not-be-taken-over-for-a-private-use
From the link:
This blog post is about Dar Al Farooq request for a new conditional use permit and the Mayor choosing to ignore a recommendation of the Planning Commission requiring the applicants to provide their own playground. The Mayor makes his comment/suggestion after the hearing was closed to the public and therefore the public did not have an opportunity to speak to the change.
The Mayor states (rough translation):
"I agree with some of the speakers this evening that maybe they putting in a playground might be something would be overkill, or really unnecessary, I think the school utilizing the playground and the park would work just fine, maybe times when some of the neighborhood people want to use it at the same time but to interact and use it with the recess kids."
What the Mayor does not recognize is that very few school age kids interact with preschool children and actually pose a danger to those who are younger.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/mn-safety-council-states-play-areas-for-different-ag e-groups-should-be-separated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an agreement between school and city for playground
Tim Cushing writes, "An agreement between the city and the Dar Al-Farooq School allowed students of the school to use a nearby park for recreation."
There is not a shared agreement for the use of Smith Park or the Smith Park playground. There is a shared agreement for the fields and the parking lot.
From the link:
The shared use agreement will need to be amended because it does not include the use of the Smith Park playground and surrounding park land and yet the charter school is currently using both. The shared use agreement is for the shared use of the fields, tennis and basketball courts and parking lots.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/parks-shared-use-agreement-will-need-to-be-amen ded-t he-agreement-that-had-67-versions
From the link:
The comment summary continues, "By expanding the use to 60 to 90 minutes per day, this may restrict access of the playground by the general public."
Note to City, it does, the use of the playground by Success Academy restricts access by the general public.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/smith-park-is-the-taxpayers-playground-and-sh ould-not-be-taken-over-for-private-use
From the link:
This blog post is about Dar Al Farooq request for a new conditional use permit and the Mayor choosing to ignore a recommendation of the Planning Commission requiring the applicants to provide their own playground. The Mayor makes his comment/suggestion after the hearing was closed to the public and therefore the public did not have an opportunity to speak to the change.
The Mayor states (rough translation):
"I agree with some of the speakers this evening that maybe they putting in a playground might be something would be overkill, or really unnecessary, I think the school utilizing the playground and the park would work just fine, maybe times when some of the neighborhood people want to use it at the same time but to interact and use it with the recess kids."
What the Mayor does not recognize is that very few school age kids interact with preschool children and actually pose a danger to those who are younger.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/mn-safety-council-states-play-areas-for-diff erent-age-groups-should-be-separated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not an agreement between school and city for playground
link above did not work
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/parks-shared-use-agreement-will-need-to-be-amend ed-the-agreement-that-had-67-versions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: pals
There really has not been a group addressing the overuse and noncompliant use. I am asking for City Code compliance and that should not require a group. If I want to change City Code, then a group likely would be needed.
I had a few neighbors who would call with concerns, most of them have moved. There are a couple neighbors that still live in the neighborhood who call with concerns.
From the link:
The Conditional Use Permit findings require the use not to create an excessive burden on parks, streets, or be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, or cause harm to public health, safety and welfare. The use of the Dar Al Farooq property is injurious and does cause harm.
This is noted by the five families that have moved out because of traffic that is too fast, traffic that is too intense, and crime.
These concerns have been validated by the many traffic studies and the recent email from Parks to park staff concerning the crime in the parks.
The last traffic study indicated that 85% drive 32 miles or less on 82nd street, that means of the 500 driving, 75 are driving 33 mph or more.
33 mph or more on a street that leads to a city park and a school where traffic should slow down to 25 mph.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/neighbor-comments-at-hearing-about-five-families -who-moved-because-of-increase-in-intensity-and-speed-of-traffic-and-crime
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the link:
The blog post, County Attorney and City both acknowledge, Ness' intended conduct is not proscribed by the Harassment Statute, is about having detectives at my house regardless that there was not a violation of the law. It is about having a detective state, "I just want to let you know before we leave..., as your requesting us to, you are being considered for being charged with a crime based on what you've already told us and what this family told us." What I told them was that I take pictures of the traffic and the overuse and noncompliant use of the building. The decision states, the definition of 'harass'... does not extend to the monitoring of a physical space, an issue, or a random crowd of people.," and yet, I had detectives at my home twice, an incident report was written, and a request for prosecution was submitted to the County.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/summary-of-detectives-at-my-house-incident-re port-request-for-prosecution-and-civil-rights-action-complaint
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
From the link:
Attorney General Keith Ellison intervened in the lawsuit, document filed 4/17/20, in support of the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. 609.749. He states, "The Harassment Statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad because any protected speech that may be regulated by the statute is insubstantial when compared with the statute’s plainly legitimate regulation of harassing and stalking conduct. Finally, the Harassment Statute is not void for vagueness in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because it makes it reasonably clear what conduct falls within its scope." Yet a month later the harassment statute was revised on May 18, 2020 and made effective August 1, 2020.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/42-us-code-1983-civil-action-for-deprivation-of-righ ts
From the link:
The blog post, County Attorney and City both acknowledge, Ness' intended conduct is not proscribed by the Harassment Statute, is about having detectives at my house regardless that there was not a violation of the law. It is about having a detective state, "I just want to let you know before we leave..., as your requesting us to, you are being considered for being charged with a crime based on what you've already told us and what this family told us." What I told them was that I take pictures of the traffic and the overuse and noncompliant use of the building. The decision states, the definition of 'harass'... does not extend to the monitoring of a physical space, an issue, or a random crowd of people.," and yet, I had detectives at my home twice, an incident report was written, and a request for prosecution was submitted to the County.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/summary-of-detectives-at-my-house-incident-re port-request-for-prosecution-and-civil-rights-action-complaint
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: false report female planning being violent, thin, dog
From the link:
The blog, Falsely reported "female is planning on being violent, is about the next incident after I overheard the officer say something like she knows all the rules and "at least you know we are here," and "there are ways around it" and "you are right, I will call" and "what I recommend." I was in my car, in my neighbor's driveway, over 400 feet away when I am approached by an officer. The officer says, "they were concerned ‘cause you’re over here taking pictures and stuff. I’m letting you know, so that’s why we’re here." Later when I get the police report, it states, "Veh across the street taking pictures of students" and "wanted to make sure it was noted that they believe this female is planning on being violent." This was reported by the same person who called the police on me previously. It is the same person who greeted me at the planning commission meeting, who came over to say hi at the playground, falsely reported "female is planning on being violent."
The blog post, 2019 report includes walking a dog and thin build, I do not have a dog and I am not thin, is about inaccurate reports. One report stated that I was walking a dog and said to the students using the park that they do not belong in the park, and that they are crowding the park. I have not walked a dog in 25+ years. It was not me, and I would not assume there is another resident that would speak negatively to students. Another report stated I was taking pictures nearly every day between 7am and 7:15am and that I appeared to be using a camera. I was not, and when I was taking pictures, I was using my phone. The report also described me as thin build and was not at all in 2019.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/summary-of-detectives-at-my-house-incident-repo rt-request-for-prosecution-and-civil-rights-action-complaint
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The link to the Facebook page is below. If you scroll through it, you will see that it includes people from the neighborhood that attend the building and other patrons of the building, and that they post on the page. Their posts include pictures of the children that attend Dar Al Farooq and Success Academy, and they do not cover their faces.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/589133684592349
This is a link to the blog where faces and license plates, and other identifying features are covered just like I do on the Smith Park Facebook page. The concern is the overuse and noncompliant use of the building, not neighbors or patrons.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. This is about the ordinance as written, not the actions of the woman in this particular case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: inaccurate reports yet forward for prosecution
Correct...thanks!
My posts are providing people additional information to show what was reported is inaccurate and that the city responded to the inaccurate reports by forwarding to the county for prosecution even though what was reported was inaccurate and not against the law. The city also responded to the inaccurate reports by creating the unconstitutional City Code.
It was one 6 second video, and yet from the link:
another detective said "so when we go review the video from the mosque,"
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/summary-of-detectives-at-my-house-incident-report-re quest-for-prosecution-and-civil-rights-action-complaint
The point the mosque/school is recording the public using the park. I am at the park, and a detective states, "so when we go review the video from the mosque."
From the link:
Decision states, "Ness' decision to chill her speech was not objectively reasonable for two principle reasons. First, her intended conduct is not proscribed by the statute, .... additionally the definition of 'harass' ... and the word 'another' ... suggest that harassment ... must target an individual victim. As such, ... does not extend to the monitoring of a physical space, an issue, or a random crowd of people."
"Ness claims she intends to monitor an issue—the non-compliant use of DAF's facilities and the use of Smith Park—by filming and photographing the activity in the physical vicinity of DAF, which may include filming and photographing people... Ness does not claim a desire to surveil individuals or track their location by filming or photographing them once they leave DAF's neighborhood."
"Thus, as the County Attorney and the City both acknowledge, Ness' intended conduct is not proscribed by the Harassment Statute because she is not tracking or monitoring a particular individual."
And yet, ...
Having detectives at my house twice, an incident report written, a request for prosecution submitted to the County, and being told "my presence" is "intimidating" and "turning into a harassment type issue," chilled my speech, and should not have happened, especially noting that "the County Attorney and the City both acknowledge, Ness' intended conduct is not proscribed by the Harassment Statute because she is not tracking or monitoring a particular individual."
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/county-attorney-and-city-both-ackno wledge-ness-intended-conduct-is-not-proscribed-by-the-harassment-statute
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: city has 6 second video no one afraid
Again, your comment is correct, thanks, unfortunately, too many comments are responding to inaccurate reports and again, the city forwarded to the county for prosecution and changed City Code based on inaccurate reports.
From the link:
Again, I took one 6 second video. The short video clip does not support the statement "teachers, family and students feel unsafe." The video does not show anyone afraid. The video shows children playing and only one adult off in the distance that might have seen me with my phone out.
To be clear, the students were playing and the video does not show any student afraid.
Once again, the data does not support what was reported to the police.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/obligation-to-follow-up-on-felony-reports-report-was -for-speaking-but-videos-not-viewed-officers-explained-action-speaking-was-harassing-behavior
The City does have a copy of the 6 second video and again, it does not show any student afraid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: another inaccurate report
This blog post addresses another inaccurate report concerning a May 2017 joint statement made by the City and Bloomington Schools that the Star Tribune reported, "was prepared in response to reports of intimidation or targeting of immigrants in the city" and that members of the community "have shared they've either been bullied or possibly harassed."
The data indicates differently (see link below for copies of emails).
From the link:
November 17, 2016, email states "I am not aware of anything that we are doing as a city council as a whole, but from a community engagement perspective, we are organizing an immigration forum .... to address the concerns and fears of our immigrant community in light of the election results."
November 23, 2016, email states "He says the concern is not so much about Trump but the Republican control of Congress and what they can do to the immigration regulations."
December 12, 2016, email states "This is in response to many fears and concerns expressed by members of our community as a result of the elections."
March 2, 2017, email states "asked what, if anything, the City/City Council is doing to address the concerns in the immigrant community given the Trump administration's actions around immigration." The email continues about making "a formal statement, which some other districts have already done."
March 29, 2017, email states, "The City of Bloomington recognizes that noticeable concerns, fears, and needs have arisen in the community as a result of the recent federal Executive Orders that relate to immigration... the goal is to understand how the City can effectively respond to the impact of the federal Executive Orders that relate to immigration."
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/city-and-school-joint-statement-pr epared-due-to-election-results-not-in-response-to-reports-of-intimidation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Neighborhood did not care it was Al Farooq Youth & Family Ce
To be clear, no one is asserting that the neighborhood cared at all. This is about you. If you think your concerns were shared by the neighborhood, fine, but arguments about the neighborhood’s opinions are completely irrelevant since no one is saying anything about them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Neighborhood
Thanks for replying.
There were comments such as the following, "Telling the city and the Muslim community to just deal with it and wait for Ness and her bigoted pals," and "Sally Ness and her local allies," that I took to mean that people were "asserting that the neighborhood cared."
Then there is the inaccurate comment from the link: "no one had cared about the place for years until some Black Muslims decided we wanted it."
Residents cared about the building and were told Bloomington Schools were purchasing it. Then neighbors received notice that Al Farooq Youth & Family Center were proposing a use for the location, and no one cared. I did not receive notice at my home as required but a neighbor showed it to me, and neither of us cared that it was Al Farooq Youth & Family Center proposing the use. Again, I did not care it was Al Farooq Youth & Family Center proposing the use. I did not go to the meetings concerning the proposed use or speak at the hearings.
It was after the use was approved by the city and I was informed that there was going to be a parking lot where it is known as the entrance to Smith Park, land that was owned by the power company, that I cared. I cared that there was going to be additional parking, that it was going to be located at what was known as the entrance, and that there was not a traffic study, and there should have been.
Additionally, from the link:
The neighborhood cared about the building and the field. The neighborhood had heard that the school district was interested in the property. The neighborhood had heard that the price to purchase was 4 million and that the school district had asked the City to borrow 1/2 million.
I had heard from the seller, that while he was in a meeting with a member of Bloomington Schools about the purchase, the school member received a phone call and the meeting ended.
I also heard, while with another neighbor, from the realtor, that Bloomington Schools chose not to purchase because the school did not want to get into a bidding war.
And Dar Al Farooq purchased the property for $ 2.675 million.
https://5yearsofcollectingdata.weebly.com/blog/responding-to-dar-al-farooq-patron-twitter-c omments-part-3
[ link to this | view in thread ]