And Now, The Perpetual Victim
A man informed Ann Althouse that she hadn’t asked his permission to film him, didn’t have it, and then pushed her camera out of his face. Or, in the language of conservative victimization:
Wow. Madison is to Althouse as Queens was to Kitty Genovese.
One man being rude — even if it was criminally rude, as Althouse insists — is the equivalent of a woman being chased down, beaten, and murdered in front of a hundred idle neighbors. What’s distressing isn’t that they’re adopting the rhetoric of victimization, but that they actually seem to believe what they’re saying.
Permission to film? I don’t think that someone protesting in a public place (that is, blowing a vuvuzela to draw attention to himself) has any expectation of privacy.
In any event, I didn’t see a camera in anyone’s face.
I agree that Kitty Genovese is a bridge too far but just because you don’t agree with Althouse, and you don’t, I’ve gathered, think much of her as a person, doesn’t mean that you should contort yourself and justify assault.
Oh, there’s contortions going on all right. But they ain’t in the service of “justify[ing] assault.”
I did no such thing, Fritz. I even noted, very specifically, that I was talking about the rhetoric of victimization, of which the comparison is a symptom.
You presented two points. One, the notion that perhaps Althouse needed permission to film a demonstrator with a vuvuzela in public place. Two, that this fellow was pushing her camera out of his face. You then take one comment (and I don’t see the “they’re” there) and tie it up with the idea that perhaps the man who hit Althouse was merely being rude.
You don’t like her. We got it. But please, you’re minimizing an assault by pointing out that one comment from a supporter was overheated.
You missed the point, again, and I can only assume deliberately: I’m not minimizing anything about the assault, I’m making a point about the rhetoric. Which shouldn’t be a surprise, because I study and teach and most often blog about rhetoric.
To sum up:
A blogger was minorly assaulted at a political rally… not interesting
Nobody in the crowd is the least bit concerned… not interesting
The responding police officer threatened to put her son, who defended her and got a small cut in the process, in jail… not interesting
One of the 392 comments is a pretty wild overstatement… OH MY GAWD THEY’RE ALL A BUNCH OF SICK FUCKS LET ME BLOG ABOUT THAT
That’s rhetoric too my friend, is it not?
I don’t think you can assume deliberateness because I already wrote, “I agree that Kitty Genovese is a bridge too far…” I’ve agreed with your trivial point that Althouse is not equivalent to Kitty Genovese.
Now, re: rhetoric, I don’t see the point made by Lincolntf as being persuasive to anyone. Again, there is no “they’re” there. Clearly it’s bad rhetoric.
That being said, your rhetoric is equally problematic. Where Lincolntf obscenely overstates, you minimize. That is, you present as facts, i.e., that he pushed the camera out of his face, which are demonstrably false in order to provide mitigation, you characterize his behavior as merely rude, i.e., your characterization that you clearly set in opposition to Althouse’s, etc… As long as we’re assuming, I can only assume that your framing of the incident arises from your personal dislike of Althouse.
Here, here to Undertoad.
As usual, your reading comprehension seems to be impaired. You are confusing what the man in the incident is reported to have said with what SEK is asserting. SEK simply reported the incident without passing judgment and even conceded that the man’s behavior was wrong.
Not wrong, DrDick. He called it “rude”. He’s willing to grant Althouse’s characterization for the sake of argument, but he clearly doesn’t share it.
And I should be forced to accept Althouse’s framing of the events why? I think I’m entitled to interpret the events that I saw — from two angles! — according to what I believe I saw, as opposed to how an attention-seeker does.
I don’t know about forced, but there is a question of the benefit of the doubt because she’s the one who was hit.
There was a railing between them. She points her camera at him. He’s leaning over the railing and makes the comment that he didn’t give her permission to film him (which everyone agrees, though you haven’t said as much, is besides the point). He then hits her with the end of his vuvuzela.
I’m no lawyer, but I figure calling her “socially retarded” is rude and hitting her with his horn is assault.
Other than being a conservative, attention-seeker filming liberal protesters, where did she go wrong? Further down the thread you’ve got timb talking about her provoking attacks. I’m not clear whether you think filming people at a protest in public as they sing and toot their vuvuzelas is provocative.
It seems to me that your position boils down to, “I don’t like her, so nothing happened, and, by the way, if you disagree, you’re a bad person for getting upset about it.” Bad faith is bad faith, innit?
Striking her with a feather would also be assault. I fail to see why this buys her the benefit of the doubt.
Then you clearly don’t understand my position, which is only incidentally about Althouse in the first place.
Perhaps in your world being rude to people is normal and right (I would not doubt it), but in my world, being rude puts you in the wrong. Not as wrong as assault, but literally shoving a camera in somebodies face, as has been reported, could also constitute assault.
Reported? By whom? I’ve watched the videos and I don’t see any camera in any faces. I see a larger man hitting a smaller woman with the end of his vuvuzela, literally.
SEK is a fucking assfuck hypocrite. That hypocrisy about being a victim is driven by pure hatred and cowardice. It comes back top get you too. People don’t like Scott Eric Kaufman and don’t think he should be showing his face at LGM.
Name three. And by that I mean real names.
Or even repeated screen names.
I’d think I know who that anonymous person is… …but I’m not entirely sure that the one I’m thinking of knows how to spell f%ck.
I demand that SEK respond to these accusations regarding his hypocrisy on assfucking.
Well, I know I’m convinced!
I find your ideas intriguing. How can I subscribe to your newsletter?
People don’t like Scott Eric Kaufman and don’t think he should be showing his face at LGM.
SEK’s face is visible at LGM? Even though he is headless back at his own place? Who knew? Did “people” know?
I feel so left out…
You need to look at the video again. The first thing she did was go up and poke at the face of the guy talking with her camera. He backed up and backed up because she was poking at his face with her camera. I don’t know why she feels the need to lie about it when it is right there to be seen. All it does is serve to cast doubt on whatever else she says happened.
Different people respond differently to having something poked at their face. The first guy backed up. It would appear that the second guy was the knock it away sort.
Did Althouse carve a backwards “B” in her heaqd?
If any of them had any brains, they’d carve an “O” in their faces, which even imbeciles them can’t possibly fuck up.
Or, can they?
Never underestimate the ability of a wingnut to screw up a wet dream.
Not strictly related, but the comment immediately subsequent to the Kitty Genovese one informs us that, “Education started as a Christian attempt to teach scripture to Christians so they can protect themselves from liars like Mr Judgemental here.” I for one am outraged at the lies my Classics professors told me. As for the two commenters, ideas intriguing, newsletter, etc.
Actually, they may have a point, since much of Puritan theology on economics was that earthly rewards go to the Godly. I mean, sure, that’s a perversion of the Gospels, but, if you going to pervert the Gospel as a defense of feudalism, you should get started early!
Besides, as every good evangelical know, Jesus was concerned about abortion and boobs in movies than he was the poor. Hell, he barely even mentioned the poor and when he does: “When you did it to the least of them, you did it to me” He obviously meant the aborted babies and the poor he claimed to
Kitty Genovese was not murdered in front of 100 idle neighbors. The number given in the notorious news account was 38, and that appears to have been made up. As the account that *you* linked to says: “None of the witnesses observed the attacks in their entirety. Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final attack and rape in an exterior hallway, which resulted in Genovese’s death. Additionally, after the initial attack punctured her lungs (leading to her eventual death from asphyxiation), it is unlikely that she was able to scream at any volume.”
See also http://www.onthemedia.org/2009/mar/27/the-witnesses-that-didnt/transcript/
And your point is … ? I was speaking colloquially, about a traumatic event in New York City history, and you’re running the numbers to, I suppose, prove that Althouse was equally victimized? Sorry, I don’t think that cuts through warm butter, much less anything resembling the mustard.
SEK, that’s not how I read Janet’s comment.
She is, I think, trying to use facts to invalidate a major cultural signifier, which is like pissing up a rope.
I didn’t see any kind of justification for Althouse’s self-gratifying victimhood.
She just pointed out that the whole Kitty Genovese story is a urban myth. I wonder you don’t etach about it and use it as a typical example how modern myths are created.
SEK, I think you overreact to Janet’s missing the point.
Yes, Janet, the consensus appears to be that the popular recollection of the tragic events surrounding Ms. Genovese’s death is not a factually accurate reflection of the actual events. But it is the popular recollection, and there’s really no question that this popular recollection is what Althouse was referring to. And no question that SEK is replying to the wildly inappropriate application of this popular recollection.
SEK, you could have explained this to Janet without being so disparaging.
Hey, I haven’t been here for a while, am off my game, so some unnecessary disparagement is in order … especially when the material facts of the case don’t do anything to alleviate the inappropriateness of the comparison. Even if I grant Janet the benefit of all of the doubts, she’s still minimizing the problem of likening Althouse’s camera’s being A-Rod-slapped from her hand with a woman being stalked and murdered. There’s still a problem there.
There’s still a problem there.
The only problem seems to be “disagreeing with SEK about invocating a long-disproven moral panic”.
No, the problem is you fucking progressives need to get a goddamned life. No one has a “right” not to be videoed in public. You don’t knock someone’s camera out of her hand and then allege she’s screaming like a perpetual victim. Fucking. Progressive. Assholes.
I was wondering what was taking the flying monkeys so long to show up. Were you guys stuck in traffic of something?
No one has a “right” not to be videoed in public.
Correct! Now perhaps you could make this point in a venue where someone is arguing differently.
Fuck you, Lemieux. Hey, that rhymes, dickface.
I’m assuming the chance of this being el Donalde is approximately 99%.
The vocabulary is close, but Donalde wouldn’t pass up an opportunity to post his name and photo where people might see it.
Hmm… I’m not so sure. The Donalde is so Althousian in his self-promotion that I’m sure he wouldn’t let an opportunity to have his name attached to some trolling pass by.
I’m assuming the chance of this being el Donalde is approximately 99%.
I have to agree with the others that Teh Donalde would never pass up a chance for self promotion. I am thinking Meade trying to pretend he is all manly and stuff, defending his woman from the barbarian hordes (safely hidden behind an impervious “anonymous” shield).
The vocabulary is close, but Donalde wouldn’t pass up an opportunity to post his name and photo where people might see it.
I thought Donalde now does by the nom-de-no-life of Neocon Avenger.
Because, you see, he now avenges things. Or something. I understand Sasquatch is his sidekick.
The problem, as I see it, is it’s difficult to see anything with your head so firmly lodged up your ass.
Yeah, it was fucking Altamont. Worst thing I’ve ever seen. Now how about you fuck off, you incredible weakling. Maybe you and Althouse can get some PTSD counseling.
speaking of assholes, here’s one now. let me clear up your confusion for you:
i do have a right to not have a camera shoved in my face, whether i’m out in public or not, period. that’s what we heathen progressives charmingly refer to as “assault & battery”, which ms. althouse, purportedly (i haven’t seen any documented evidence of this) an attorney and law professor, should well know.
in fact, she’s lucky her sorry ass wasn’t hauled off in cuffs, having been arrested for such.
in a public setting, i do give up some reasonable expectation of privacy, but i do not give up the right to not be assaulted. you somehow seem to equate the two.
Also we are fortunate that Althouse’s commenters didn’t dig further into the barrel of discredited cultural signifiers and claim that “Madison is to Althouse as Central Park was to Trisha Meili.”
Looks like it’s pretty obvious to everyone but you, SEK, that Janet’s comment had nothing to do with undercutting your point, in any way whatsoever. But you went off on her, cuz hey why not. Then when this was pointed out to you, you dug in your heels, cuz hey what’s more fun than a righteous anger buzz. Fact of the matter is you’ve got more in common with Ann Outhouse than you can even consider.
I didn’t dig in my heels, I let it drop after it was pointed out that I was wrong. There’s a difference.
I guess I should have checked back a while ago. No, I was not trying to undercut your point. Althouse is a whiner, and her commenters are sycophants and divorced from reality. Sorry for not being clearer.
The last time I stirred up this much trouble on a blog was when I made a minor, technical criticism of something PZ Myers wrote, and spent days reaffirming to his attack dogs that I wasn’t trying to undermine his basic point before finally giving up. I should learn to keep my (figurative) mouth shut.
P.S. Thanks to all who read my point and took it for what it was intended to be.
OMG, Janet, when you criticize a factual error PZ makes, don’t go back and read the responses. The Pharynguloids love to pile on to an “opponent.”
SEK, who’s pretty low-key, and commenters here not so much: whatever tempest there was seems to have been brief, and I’m sure there are people who value your debunking of the myth in question.
I’m sure there are people who value your debunking of the myth in question.
I did, thanks.
Oh, it’s a lot better here than at Pharyngula. Things get very nasty very fast over there.
I didn’t miss the point. I am merely a pedant.
Perhaps you should put more thought into how you convey your original posts/corrections. So that their meaning is clear.
The meaning was perfectly clear.
Yes, well, I have apologized for not being clearer.
And again, I did get the point, I just forgot to consider the possibility that writing debunking the story of the Kitty Genovese incident would be interpreted as a defense of Althouse. And given that you’re really the only person who interpreted it that way, I think I probably was clear enough.
IM’s comment above is apposite.
maybe to you, but to few other readers here. but then, esoterica isn’t necessarily my strong suit.
actually, i’ve re-read your initial post a couple of times, and whatever point you were attempting to make (aside from the “urban legendness” of the kitty genovese murder) escapes me.
perhaps, in future posts, before you hit that “submit” button, you might want to review it, to see if it makes sense to you first.
Is this directed to me?
I wasn’t making any point beside the “urban legendness” of the Kitty Genovese murder, so it’s not surprising that you couldn’t find one.
Good thing Harlan Ellison isn’t alive — Genovese was one of his major signifiers (aka bludgeons) back in the 70s/80s.
Even better he’s not here to read that you think he’s dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison
Do you Phil Ochs, who a song about the incident? Phil Ochs is dead.
God, I loved Phil Ochs.
He was one of the all time greats!
I really need to type slower…
Do you mean Phil Ochs, who wrote a song about the incident?
“The Whimper of Whipped Dogs” is not a bad Ellison story, though. Even if its evils-of-the-city message is kinda reactionary, it captures feelings that were widespread in its time.
“Attack on Althouse.”
Is this search engine optimization, Athlete Self-Reference in the Third Person Syndrome, or has she just discovered assonance?
Given her belief that “hits” equal “intellectual integrity,” I’m sure that it’s SEO. It’s not like she’ll earn any integrity on the strength of her prose or quality of her thought, after all.
which leads to a question i’ve had for a long, long time, since i first had the misfortune to become acquainted with ms. althouse: how in the hell did she get into (more importantly, out of) law school? i’m not the smartest guy in town, and it takes little for me to vivisect what passes for intellectual utterences on her blog.
is this whole thing just a schtick on her part? or is she really that stupid?
hey, people want to know, dammit!
[...] And Now, The Perpetual Victim : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
“Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to.. WAAAAAAAAAH!!”
Althousean literature.
[...] with this guy, you stick a fucking camera in someone’s face, and you get your ass kicked, don’t come [...]
I’m surprised at the Kitty Genovese comparison–slavery or the Holocaust would be the more usual analogy over there.
I like how Althouse attempts to act magnanimous by saying that she’s not going to attempt to press charges when she’s obviously going to milk this for all its worth.
Filing charges and filling out police reports, identifying suspects, and testifying in court would all consume valuable self-promotion time.
and result in questions about why she was grabbing that guy or even questions about how entire worldview requires her to be attacked and she seeks to provoke such “attacks.”
Between victimization and whining the modern conservatives forgot to come up with an idea.
[...] Ann Althouse is screaming that she was “assaulted” by by people protesting — well, mostly singing — outside the Wisconsin state capitol building. If you actually watch the videos she has posted as evidence you can’t see much, but my best guess is that she shoved a camera in a man’s face while he was talking and he shoved the camera away. See also SEK at Lawyers, Guns and Money. [...]
Protests in Wisconsin, ALTHOUSE SHOVED
US Credit Rating Downgraded, ALTHOUSE MOCKED
12 Dead in Syria, MEADE BUYS CAMERA
I said nothing when they came for Kenneth Gladney, because he was full of shit.
I said nothing when they came for Ann Althouse, because she was full of shit.
Then, one day, I was full of shit. And nobody said anything when they came for me.
Scott Eric Kaufman, you fucking prick. She’s being bullied and attacked. Something you ought to know about, dickface. Goddamn asshole. Hope I see you at the state fair for a flip cam in the face. We’ll see who is or is not the victim.
I see someone has finally managed to teach a pig to sing.
If he goes to the state fair, how will he recognize you “Anonymous?”
Will you have all of the left-over sticks from the fried butter, fried ice cream, and fried-sugared Snickers you’ve devoured shoved up your ass?
And how will you know it’s SEK?
Behaviour like that’s liable to attract attention and people taking pictures even at the fair of the state you’re in? Probably the cops, too.
Should he visit you in jail, then?
He’ll know you then – you’ll be the only one standing in the cell.
SEK can be easily recognized. He’ll be wearing the “National Sarcasm Society: Like We Need Your Support” tee-shirt.
You’d better watch out, Scott. There appears to a particularly foul-mouthed six year old girl who intends to ram your shins with her tricycle.
This is a family blog — let’s try not to smear every 6-year-old girl in the world by suggesting that a single one could be remotely as immature as the Donalde.
My daughter is five, and in her worst tantrums, behaves better than Donalde. Plus, she apologizes once she calms down.
Tough talk from someone wo lacks the courage – and most basic sense of creativity to even come up with an actual pseudonym.
Damn, I didn’t check to see if we had milk before pouring the cereal. Now I know just how Kitty Genovese must have felt.
Can’t someone even walk around sticking cameras in people’s faces to get them upset, without people getting all upset?
Police! Police! Police!
What was the point of the extended filming of eccentrics on the fringe of the rally? To pretend that they were representative of the rally participants in order to discredit the latter, I imagine. What scary violent thugs these Wisconsin protesters are. I hope somebody called the waahhmbulance.
[...] Franziapundit shoves her camera in some random guy’s face, he pushes the camera away, Althouse shrieks for the police, some poor cop has his next two hours ruined, and now there will be 5,000 wingnut blog posts about how wingnuts are always victims. I wonder she’ll will be in a wheelchair this week ala Kenneth Gladney. [...]
This sounds like bullying to me?
Really? Sounds more like Tourettes to me.
Or modern conservatism. Expect Anonymous to send in the Marines to do the dirty work.
As someone with Tourettes, I can assure you that it does not. Not even the 5% of us with copralalia. This sounds exactly like what it is, typical rightwing cryptofascist rhetoric intended to bully and intimidate their opponents.
Dr Dick, I’m on the Tourette spectrum too; I meant no denigration (you fucking fuckstick fuckpiggy fucknugget).
Seriously, I’m one of that 5% and (anecdote != data notwithstanding) most of the Touretters I know are in it, too.
I on the other hand am not and occasionally get annoyed at the misuse of Tourettes in this fashion. Mostly I just ignore it, but this was a pretty egregious abuse of the label in terms of the referent.
Whoever made the Kitty Genovese analogy… I am offended to my core. I was young child when it happened and I saw/read the newspaper accounts. Sorry but Ann Althouse’s claimed “assault” is no where near the assault and murder of Kitty Genovese in any criteria you might want to use.
Thug.
Brown shirt thug, more properly.
I’m willing to be Kenneth Gladney.
I’m willing to be Sparticus.
But I am NOT Ann Althouse.
If the camera was so close to this guy that he could “push it out of his face,” then it was too close and he had every right to defend himself from the assault Althouse committed by sticking it in his face without first asking his permission. She violated his personal space.
Its on tape. He reached out and swiped her, not because she was too close, she appears to be rotating in the same place for a while, but because she is filming him calling people “retarded”.
Even the other lefty restrains him. Its not a big deal but then again the teaparty wasn’t exactly the london riots. Yet is was treated like the 2nd coming of Mussolini.
Say what you like about Althouse, that is a first-class smirk on her face in those first couple of minutes. I would give a lot to be able to feel half that much self-satisfaction.
You know who else got a camera slapped down at the state fair?
Was it… HITLER
No, Hitler did the slapping.
It was Jesus, right?
It was Fay Bainter, nobody was going to have a better mincemeat. Also I think Meade represents Blue Boy, the family’s prize boar
Judging from some of the comments here, and the various defense mechanisms employed by certain individuals, I think it might be useful for many to check out the following website, and the wealth of information available there:
http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com/
Althouse has BPD? That explains so much of her behavior
This explains it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SSegq9USY
Surprise! All of the “Anonymous” comments are from the same IP and email address. It’s just good to know that I won’t be ganged up on by multiple raging losers should I ever choose to attend a state fair.
Some dood from CNN just pulled the same stunt. He tried to shove through Bachman’s escort waving his microphone right in their faces while he was yelling at them to stop elbowing him. I’d have done more than elbow him.
Of late, many state legislatures have tried to push through laws to prevent people from videotaping police officers at work (in response to incidents like the shooting of Oscar Grant by BART Police in Oakland last year). I’d like to call upon Althouse’s legion of admirers to combat this assault on our civil liberties.
The Kochtopus is already on it: The War on Cameras.
More here .
that’s your idea of on it? An organization which prioritizes protection of the rich above all writes an article? How many Reasontv cameras are covering these issues versus accosting Matt Damon over teacher salaries?
Fritz takes an organization dedicated protecting a neo-feudal economy and also employs Rodney Balko and extrapolates their feeble efforts to the beliefs of the moronic, wingnut commertariat at Althouse?
Truly insightful, Fritz. As the reason article you linked argues loudly, but unconvincing, they are the Republican mouthpiece you want them to be, whereas Ann and her commenters are
Speaking of “moronic, wingnut” commentary.
Why is timb able to access the internet from where he is?
Because I love you, Tony.
Why is timb able to access the internet from where he is?
Is the answer “Galtian overlords”? Because I love when we pretend that DARPA had nothing to do with it, and it was all Galtian producers.
Here you go, Althouse’s response to this assault on our civil liberties.
Just wondering why you guys seem to be blaming Althouse for a comment someone made on her blog? She didn’t compare herself to Genovese, after all. And considering that the comment could as easily have been mocking (she does get a lot of that–very dry comments that could be taken both ways), why get all het up about it?
Yes, Ann Althouse can be very tiresome. In fact is very tiresome. The comments are the only reason to view her blog. But that doesn’t change the simple fact. She was assaulted (however minor it may have been). Her son tried to protect her and for his trouble was told he could be jailed since he had “no ties to the community” (although…wouldn’t his mother, a resident of the community be a tie? I don’t know). A fat cop in Madison Wisconsin told someone that they were better off letting an assault happen then getting involved.
That stuff doesn’t bother you guys? Only that some random commenter said something that might have just been ironic?
ann attempting to tape and provoke her political enemies into reacting and then whining it about has little interest to me. In fact, as someone who knows a little about the law, calling what happened assault is ludicrous and as insane as saying she is guilty of battery for grabbing at him, which is what she did the moment after her camera was hit…
Assault is the imminent fear of bodily harm. How afraid was Ann when she continued to film and tried to grab her “assaulter.”
Tried to grab? She was holding onto the camera.
It was assault. If you really know a little about the law, you’d know that. But what’s that got to do with any of the questions I asked?
I defined the term for you, look it up
As for your question, I told you I was uninterested. Maybe you’ve never heard of Bob Etheridge and how he was set up, but Ann has and she attempts to portray her political opponents in the same way Etheridge over-reacted (and got what was coming to him). Still, Ann might be able to fool you, but she’s gonna actually have to show assault to interest the media she wishes to
Show assault? LOL.
Never mind. It’s Monday and it’s raining, and arguing with the terminally deranged and ignorant isn’t on the agenda.
Enjoy yourself.
arguing with the terminally deranged and ignorant isn’t on the agenda.
Nobody could have predicted a Dramatic Exit.
Best part? The first sentence of the Wikipedia definition is “In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence”
Sure reminds me of what I learned as a 1L and what I said above. Ironically, Tony means battery, which is “an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor.”
The fact that Ann is out there with her camera attempting to provoke this reaction with an eye toward discrediting her opponents meant nothing to Tony, since he was here to defend the helpless victim.
Imagine how appalled he is when the lawyer (me) and the cop (the guy in the video) agree!
My favorite part was following up If you really know a little about the law with Show assault? LOL.
Show assault? What on earth does that mean? I’m not familiar with that term, so you must be really ignorant. Oh, and you don’t know anything about the law.
“Show?” Huhwuzza?
Let’s just stop right here. Do you really think taping people who are singing, dancing, and blowing vuvuzela’s in public in a political protest would be seen as provocative by a reasonable person?
Unless I missed it, no one has pointed out that Althouse was unwittingly correct in her analogy. She trumped up her own “assault” in the same way that the Kitty Genovese case bloomed into a much exaggerated urban myth. Brava, Annie.
Thus providing one more data point in the correlation between right-wing pundits and psychotic comic book vigilantes: fantasies of a connection with Kitty Genovese.
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcoming/previews/watchmen-1.html