HATETHESTATE / SO THEY CALL IT FREEDOM

OG2.0

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
29
HATETHESTATE media coverage and interview:

Article from 2012:

Articles related to his "activism":
Security Risk: https://www.winknews.com/2017/07/11/punta-gorda-mulls-135k-security-upgrades-for-city-buildings/

Supporting Cop Killer:

Doxing A Janitor:

Interview with Ian:
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
Not biased, huh? And he didn't dox a janitor. He doxed a guy that was calling him on the phone and making death threats. That guy was a security guard -- totally different from the janitor issue.
 

OG2.0

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
29
Putting up raw data isn't biased. Its just data. HATETHESTATE has effectively gotten first amendment activity suppressed rather than expanded with his brand of "activism".
 

Goofymom

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
2
I absolutely loathe what this man(using the word loosely) is as an auditor. It is scary to know what a following such a disgrace to the human population this person has. Another of those cancers that is killing the chance for real auditors to make any changes!
 

OG2.0

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
29
Is he an auditor or is he larping as an activist for clicks and dollars?
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
I absolutely loathe what this man(using the word loosely) is as an auditor. It is scary to know what a following such a disgrace to the human population this person has. Another of those cancers that is killing the chance for real auditors to make any changes!
What "changes" are you hoping for?" The government respecting First Amendment Rights? That would be nice, and they can start with Ian.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
Putting up raw data isn't biased. Its just data. HATETHESTATE has effectively gotten first amendment activity suppressed rather than expanded with his brand of "activism".
Another nutty thing to say. You don't think Ian should be able to film in the Punta Gorda City Hall, right? So why would you care if they added a section to their municipal code that says he can't film there at all? You don't want him to anyway! All the hand-wringing of this crowd worrying about what other auditors are doing is disgusting.
 

OG2.0

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
29
RogueRivered,
Intent means a lot. I've seen enough of his content, media coverage and history to come to the conclusion that his motives are suspect.
Don't assume what I want or don't want. You're wrong. I DO want people to be able to film inside their public buildings. Until his antics in that area it was allowed, now its not, just like the farmers market. He has effectively limited the speech of his fellow citizens. He's larping.
 

FattMatt

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
38
Trouble with Ian is he shows narcissistic tendencies and poor communication skills when he is confronted. This has resulted in him doing the worst thing a first amendment auditor can do and told people to shut up.
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
134
RogueRivered,
In response to your comment "What business is it of yours what his motivations are" I would say that it is everyone's business what his motivations are. Whether you agree or disagree with his methods, IMO you need to understand his motivations to be able to properly defend your position for or against what he is doing. It is evident both the city and county have changed laws to limit or restrict the right to record in public places using time, place, and manner restrictions. Whether those changes are constitutional have not yet been decided.

Additionally, the courts and quasi-court (trespass hearings) have also made changes. These changes are impacting not just Ian, but everyone in the area.

Examine what happened in Olmos Park & Leon Valley Texas. Based on released public records there has been and continues to be an orchestrated effort among numerous agencies to shut down both the First and Second Amendment activists.

Also examine the numerous press releases from law enforcement around the nation, the large majority are not favorable to the activist community. Knowing and understanding motivations are necessary to properly discuss and defend the rights of the activists. You do not need to like the message or the manner in which it is delivered, but you need to be willing to defend it within the limitations of the law and understanding their motivations will better equip you to do so.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
RogueRivered,
you need to be willing to defend it within the limitations of the law and understanding their motivations will better equip you to do so.
That's what I've been saying except for the "understanding their motivations" part. What happens between Ian and the police or citizens is self-evident. I don't need to see inside his head to witness the reactions he receives.

Yes, of course, the weasel government forces do not like what he is doing and will fight tooth and nail to put a stop to it. How is that different from any other challenge to government over-dominance? They never roll over easy. All these reactions are coming from government themselves, not the public. What you see is a few people that suck up to the government and get their wishes granted, like the old lady at the Farmer's Market. Meanwhile, you see thousands of people that support Ian's actions and videos, but they don't have the ear of the local government. Instead, the local government does everything it can to silence all his viewers by trying to get his channel removed. And you call this acceptable in America? You're on the side of trying to silence Ian because you don't like him. It's disgraceful.
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
134
And you call this acceptable in America? You're on the side of trying to silence Ian because you don't like him. It's disgraceful.
I have never said or represented that I find it acceptable nor am I on the side trying to silence Ian or anyone else. My position is that "Knowing and understanding motivations are necessary to properly discuss and defend the rights of the activists."
I am of the belief that dialogue is necessary to bring opposing sides together. Ultimately the conversation may end in a "I agree that we disagree" and that is fine. Attacking others and calling names will not encourage others to enter into a respectful dialogue, which could lead to mutual understanding.
 

FattMatt

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
38
That's what I've been saying except for the "understanding their motivations" part. What happens between Ian and the police or citizens is self-evident. I don't need to see inside his head to witness the reactions he receives.

Yes, of course, the weasel government forces do not like what he is doing and will fight tooth and nail to put a stop to it. How is that different from any other challenge to government over-dominance? They never roll over easy. All these reactions are coming from government themselves, not the public. What you see is a few people that suck up to the government and get their wishes granted, like the old lady at the Farmer's Market. Meanwhile, you see thousands of people that support Ian's actions and videos, but they don't have the ear of the local government. Instead, the local government does everything it can to silence all his viewers by trying to get his channel removed. And you call this acceptable in America? You're on the side of trying to silence Ian because you don't like him. It's disgraceful.
Do you not think the reason Ian's local government is doing this is because they are reacting due to the feelings of the local community individuals,who have come forward and asked them to do something about this harassment. Councils do act on their communities behalf, it's not vindictive solely by them.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
Do you not think the reason Ian's local government is doing this is because they are reacting due to the feelings of the local community individuals,who have come forward and asked them to do something about this harassment. Councils do act on their communities behalf, it's not vindictive solely by them.
Well, of course a few citizens with connections can "get things done." That doesn't make it legal to violate 1A rights. The lady that got the restraining order only did so after being advised by the police to seek it. I think Ian pushed the boundaries right up to the point of maybe going too far, but that is part of his activism -- to see if government can stay out of its own way when reacting to "feelings" instead of law.
 

ed2276

Registered User
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
36
What "changes" are you hoping for?" The government respecting First Amendment Rights? That would be nice, and they can start with Ian.
What if you don't understand what your rights are, and are expecting the government to respect rights you don't actually have?
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
What if you don't understand what your rights are, and are expecting the government to respect rights you don't actually have?
So, in that case, are you saying that the change the auditors are hoping for is to be taught by the government that they don't have the rights they think they do? That seems like an odd thing to wish for. Especially when you know that the heavy hand of government rarely errs in the favor of freedom. The default is usually the denial of rights, whether they exist or not.
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
134
The default is usually the denial of rights, whether they exist or not.
A historical study of the courts (especially the Supreme Court) will find that there is not a default position and the rulings are like a pendulum, moving from center to each side and usually in response to changes in society at large.

If an individual has a bias in either direction, they will tend to see rulings that impact their position or beliefs in a much more negative/positive view. If the cycle of the rulings is moving in a direction opposite of the bias, one needs to only wait as the direction will change.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
77
A historical study of the courts (especially the Supreme Court) will find that there is not a default position and the rulings are like a pendulum, moving from center to each side and usually in response to changes in society at large.

If an individual has a bias in either direction, they will tend to see rulings that impact their position or beliefs in a much more negative/positive view. If the cycle of the rulings is moving in a direction opposite of the bias, one needs to only wait as the direction will change.
I'm not talking about the judiciary. I'm talking about the local executive branch, like police, city councils, and other minor functionaries who rule over their little fiefdoms.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,528
Messages
7,097
Members
563
Latest member
TimothySpout

New Threads

Top