Free speech activist convicted of trespassing on public(?) land

[Bartdog]

This one seems a little fishy. Wishing I had more knowledge about it.

 

[LesClaypool]

Can you describe the link so I can decide if I want to click on it? That was one of the very few MadCow causes I supported. He was always crusading to get people to describe their links.

 

[tommynole3476]

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...-found-guilty-trespassing-case-judge-allows-2

This seems like a more descriptive link. Seems like he was arrested and charged because police thought he was protesting on private property, when he was actually on public property, but was still found guilty of trespassing anyways. But that may have to do with what he told the police his intentions were for being there as well.

 

[seminole97]

This one seems a little fishy. Wishing I had more knowledge about it.

How do we that sign wasn't really.... a bomb!

Seems like he was arrested and charged because police thought he was protesting on private property, when he was actually on public property, but was still found guilty of trespassing anyways. But that may have to do with what he told the police his intentions were for being there as well.

"Hoffman then refused to tell police what he was doing when he was stopped and questioned."

"The trespassing case largely centered on whether the grassy right of way next to the entrance roads toward the airport allowed Hoffman to walk there with signs. Hoffman argued it’s public property and he had the right to walk toward the Jacksonville Aviation Authority building while holding signs that said “F??K the TSA” and “Police State.”"

Fair to say he proved his point?

 

[tommynole3476]

I'm honestly confused. He says he refused to tell the police why he was there, his defense says he was really making a public records request, but it seems like the state won because they proved he was really protesting, which I wouldn't think is illegal to do on public property, so...?

Ok, seems like his guilt hinged on whether or not the police asked him to leave and he disobeyed that order, which he definitely did, but it doesn't seem like he was allowed to prove that it was an unlawful order to begin with.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...we-plan-to-appeal-pinac-protest-also-planned/

Interesting... that's pretty effed up... so basically this ruling means, you have to do what a cop tells you to, even if the cop is wrong? Ehhh... don't like that precedent very much.

 

[Bartdog]

Can you describe the link so I can decide if I want to click on it? That was one of the very few MadCow causes I supported. He was always crusading to get people to describe their links.

Sorry, will do better later.

I have no knowledge of this case other than what I watched on the news this morning, then went looking for a link to post here for someone to help me understand it. They did talk about the confusion over whether it was public or private and also about his statement about going to look for records. But what he was actually doing when they got him was walking on the side of the road with a sign (or maybe two as said above).