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 [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.
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?
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'.
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.
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.
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.