The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Miami Beach Police Chief Defends Detectives' Visit to Activist over Facebook Post About Mayor"
So WPLG Local 10 (Miami) [Ryan Mackey] reported Friday. Apparently,
[A] Facebook post by [Mayor Steven] Meiner, who is Jewish, … he described Miami Beach as "a safe haven for everyone," contrasting it with New York City, which he said was "intentionally removing protections" for and "promoting boycotts" of Israeli and Jewish businesses.
This led to a response from Miami Beach activist and past political candidate Raquel Pacheco:
The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way (even leaves the room when they vote on related matters) wants you to know that you're all welcome here [followed by three clown emojis].
Police detectives came to her home; a video apparently shows one saying,
What we are just trying to prevent is somebody else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement, we are not saying if it's true or not.
The Miami Beach Police Chief responded with this statement:
Given the real, ongoing national and international concerns surrounding antisemitic attacks and recent rhetoric that has led to violence against political figures, I directed two of my detectives to initiate a brief, voluntary conversation regarding certain inflammatory, potentially inciteful false remarks made by a resident to ensure there was no immediate threat to the elected official or the broader community that might emerge as a result of the post. The interaction was handled professionally and without incident.
I had serious concerns that her remarks could trigger physical action by others.
At no time did the Mayor or any other official direct me to take action.
The Miami Beach Police Department is committed to safeguarding residents and visitors while also respecting constitutional rights.
My tentative reaction is that, in the absence of more evidence about Pacheco's statements, this is improper behavior by the city, behavior that risks deterring people (whether Pacheco or others) from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
To be sure, the police may indeed ask to talk to people based on their speech, even if the speech is itself constitutionally protected. To take one simple example, I generally have the right to say "Joe Schmoe is an evil man and I'd be happy if he died." But if the next day he winds up killed, the police may talk to me to see if I may have been involved. Likewise, I generally have the right to say "Joe Schmoe is an evil man and God is sending me messages about what God's plan is for punishing Joe Schmoe." But the police may come to door to ask about what I think God's plan to be (maybe it involves God appointing me as the agent of punishment).
But Pacheco's statement, as reported in the media (see also the Miami Herald [Aaron Leibowitz]) doesn't seem to me to justify any concerns that Pacheco is planning on attacking the mayor, or is otherwise likely to have violated the law or be planning to violate the law. And if the concern is with "somebody else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement," I don't see how that can justify having the police approach Pacheco about it.
Note also that, if the mayor simply wanted to ask Pacheco to retract her statement on the grounds that it's wrong (e.g., as to "consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians") or unfair, or on the grounds that it might lead others to attack the mayor, I think he'd be entitled to do that. But there's no basis for sending law enforcement officials to do that.
Thanks to Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) for the pointer.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Well I guess it makes sense . If a politician feels in their heart of hearts any criticism of them could lead to violence then police should be visiting people. In Europe if a politician feels this they will even ban opposing political parties or imprison you.
Freedom is at stake when people are allowed criticize their government or target lawful government functions. It's Karl Popper's Paradox of Freedom, sometimes you have to take away people's freedom of speech & thought inorder to have a free society.
This used to be a libertarian site.
Are you really that stupid?
Genuine question: has the commentariat population here ever been actually libertarian? I've only come here recently, so I have no idea what the site used to be like.
The articles themselves seem libertarian/conservative leaning (of which I am neither, but I like being exposed to those viewpoints). The comments, though, are flooded with people celebrating government crackdowns on speech and foreign interventions, neither of which feel particularly libertarian or conservative to me.
People are free to believe whatever they like, of course. But I always heard of this place (and Reason.com more generally) as one of the big hangout spots for libertarian thinking, and I'm not really getting that vibe from the short time I've been here.
Just to be clear, several of the actual Conspirators are enthusiastic about government crackdowns on speech and freedom generally, which gives this blog a somewhat hallucinatory (polite word for incoherent) quality. It hasn't always been that way, but Trump and Israel tend to cause people to abandon what were purportedly firm philosophical commitments. The commenters range across the board, as has ever been the case.
In the early days of Reason, (I was a print subscriber back in the day.) yes, most of the commentariat were libertarian. This was back when having an online presence was a bit unusual, mind you, and that probably had a lot to do with the quality of the people commenting.
Dogs couldn't swing internet service yet...
But, of course, back in the day Reason was a more serious publication, because the libertarian movement was more serious, still seeing some realistic prospect of being influential.
Today the online population are more representative of the general population, rather than being skewed libertarian and intellectual. The libertarian movement is somewhat unserious, Reason also.
I suppose that if Reason ever actually enforced that "only subscribers can comment" rule they keep threatening, you might see a more libertarian commentariat. They'd still be somewhat hostile to Reason's editorial stances, though, because the libertarian community was always more ideologically diverse than Reason's editorial page reflected.
The VC commenters skew more libertarian than the general Reason commenters. Probably a side effect of long-time lawyer readers who were at the VC before it was even at WaPo.
To be fair, the Reason side of the site often gives critics a lot of material to work with. You can almost be dead certain, for instance, when they talk about some outrageous prosecution, that they're omitting critical details that make it look more reasonable. It happens over and over and over...
Take the Crystal Mason case, that lady who got in trouble for voting as a felon. It was a simple mistake, anybody could have made it, she wasn't really committing fraud when she signed that paper attesting to her qualification to vote, it was just an innocent mistake, she hadn't read it closely.
Outrageously, the judge refused to accept this explanation, inexplicably, and threw the book at her.
Oh, what was her felony? Reason was unclear about that. The judge wasn't.
Her felony was preparing false tax documents for people to sign. She would assure them that if they got caught, all they had to do was claim that it was an innocent mistake, they hadn't read them closely enough, and they'd get off.
She had literally repeated the exact crime that put her in prison.
The VC was around before it joined Reason, of course. And also Brett Bellmore isn't a libertarian.
I'm assuming that this comment was intended as sarcasm.
But what are her means of regress?
Unless she’s got five every six figures of ready cash to give to an attorney, she SOL…
And even then, what would it turn to be able to do?
I once represented a citizen as to whom an elected general sessions judge initiated a complaint to the District Attorney General regarding a critic who had found some politically damaging information about her, which resulted in my client receiving a visit from a homicide detective. (Police filed a report but otherwise took no further action on the complaint.)
We sued in federal court, alleging that this (along with other actions by the judge, including falsely accusing him of stalking in an interview with television news reporters) constituted unlawful retaliation for his information gathering, contrary to the First Amendment.
The District Court found that the judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for her unfounded complaint to law enforcement, nor for her defamatory accusations to news reporters. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed in part, opining that absolute immunity attached to the judge's actions regarding her letters to prosecuting authorities, but the District Court had properly ruled Defendant was not entitled to absolute immunity with regard to her statements to the media. Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 254.
Neither Court found that the judge's retaliatory conduct did not violate my client's First Amendment rights.
Nothing improper or unlawful about police initiating a voluntary, consensual conversation, about any topic under the sun. You can politely (or no so politely, if that's how you roll) decline to answer questions. If they insist and detain you, we're now obviously in 4A territory.
You ever heard the concept of 'chilling' free speech? It can happen when you send power agents from the state to 'just ask questions'.
Exactly.
Give me a fucking break. Every contact with the police is inherently coercive, and you know it.
If police turned up to my door to just "ask some questions" about something I posted on social media - and it wasn't related to any actual crime - my alarm bells would be ringing nonstop.
"Officer, am I being detained or under arrest? No?"
Slams door in face.
Don't even open the door. Police will often put their foot in the door, and if you try to close it they will arrest you for assault on a P.O.
Nothing improper? The logical distinction between a "voluntary conversation" with police and the act of SWATTING, is very thin.
Certainly, the SWAT team could knock, wait, then ask a polite question. But don't hold your breath.
You forget the world you live in, Volokh. You know how we have protected classes like neegroes or gays? Well there's a super-class: Jews. More esteem or protection than any normal citizen. Their homeland more important than the United States itself.
Sieg Heil Hobie.
It's certainly improper. But is it illegal or unconstitutional? It seems very similar to the jawboning by the Biden administration that so many defended.
You had me until 'Biden'.
Of course I did.
I haven't been able to find any video of the beginning of the encounter, perhaps they started recording after they opened the door.
But one of the cops seems to be in her house, and the other one reaches into the house. She couldn't end the encounter if she wanted to.
That's why you shouldn't open the door for the cops, talk to them through the closed door.
This is one of the things that is always frustrating for me. Do you like the police being able to blow up boats or arrest visa students that engage in advocacy? Or do you say, as here, that you'd like the police to be polite or reserved?
I'm opposed to the police, or the military, blowing up boats. I've said that I think the first amendment should apply to student visas, and I think cops should be polite reserved, and professional.
Respect
Police chief who said he initiated it should be removed. Can DeSantis do that?
Yes. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.51.html
“Serious concerns that her remarks could trigger physical action by others” is obviously not the constitutional standard for a true threat. Just about any controversial remarks “could” potentially do that.
The governor the police chief did it on behalf of is nominally an "independent". Does anybody know if that's just French for "Democrat but doesn't like admitting it"?
*mayor, not governor
Also, not sure his party affiliation is relevant here. Neither major party has a stellar reputation when it comes to freedom of speech.
For fuck's sake, don't reach for partisanship on every damn thing.
This shitshow has nigh universal agreement from the commentariat, absent some of the worst posters on here.
Why drag party politics into it when they're not evident?
For once I agree with Sarc. Dumb comment.
Nigh universal agreement from the commentariat!