[IncreasePosts]

You're taking the article as gospel. Is there any video for the lead up to the arrest?

There was a reddit post with this video, and the poster claimed that he refused to leave the podium after his time was up. Not saying that is true, but it sounds different than "spoke a few seconds too long"

https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscurePatentDangers/comments/1shsu...

[RIMR]

Even if that's the case, why not just cut the mic and have security escort him away? Why jump straight to sending the cops to arrest and jail him?

It's abundantly clear that these things happen not because people were so disruptive that it was necessary. It is that they are saying things the government doesn't like, so they use the only tool they have as strictly as they are allowed to in an attempt to discourage people from speaking out in the first place.

At least this is triggering the Streisand Effect, and now this farmer is getting interviews on the news, not only about the Datacenter, but how the local government treats those who speak out against it.

[newaiera]

In the video - 1h58m mark roughly - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPF3rTT0mY

It shows the full context. Yes, he went over his time, he talked over requests to stop, and then approached the front area. He was asked to leave the area, did not, and so the behavior was halted in favor of pre-established rules.

Yes, I’m in favor of free speech, and think more time should be allotted, but does his direct use of extra time impact those who will then not get to speak?

It’s the lines in the sand that are the hardest to draw.

[jibal]

You're lying about what your own link says. The poster did not claim that Blanchard refused to leave the podium; the poster wrote "with *officials* claiming he refused to leave the podium after his three-minute speaking time ended". The poster is sympathetic to Blanchard, which no one would know just by reading your grossly dishonest comment.

[IncreasePosts]

This is quite the melodramatic post.

I wasn't even trying to make any claims about the statement because I have no idea if the poster was even there. My mere point was that "there may be more to the story than what was posted on the 404 link".

And now someone posted the full video so you can just watch that and not need to rely on "grossly dishonest" posts.

[jibal]

It was an honest post, unlike "I wasn't even trying to make any claims about the statement"--you DID make a claim about it--a false claim, as I pointed out.

"My mere point"

Again lying.

"not need to rely on "grossly dishonest" posts"

Talk about melodramatic ... I wasn't relying on your post.

The video shows that many people made unwarranted assumptions. That doesn't excuse you flat-out lying about what your link said.

I won't respond further on this dead post.

[IncreasePosts]

I am so sorry for saying the poster claimed instead of saying the poster claimed that the officials claimed that something happened. I hope to one day regain your trust.

[jibal]

Not that way, you won't. As I noted, those are completely different assertions, and the one you actually made is a lie.

[happytoexplain]

Why "gospel"? Why not "at face value"? What is the purpose of portraying a perfectly normal interpretation as irrational? There's nothing wrong with assuming a writeup is factually true until proven otherwise. We couldn't even speak to each other if that weren't the case.

[lostmsu]

Because the original claim was extraordinary it required extraordinary evidence.