Good afternoon, readers from across Wisconsin.
Earlier this Sunday, the Wisconsin State Journal‘s veteran reporter, Dee Hall, published a story describing my recent experiences as a blogger in Whitewater, Wisconsin. It’s on the front page of the State Journal, and is entitled, “Whitewater Police Pursue Anonymous Blogger, Critic.”
Her story recounts how City of Whitewater municipal officials acted against lawful, constitutionally-protected, anonymous political and social commentary. More startling, though, is the officials’ conviction that they were right to do so, and that there is no assurance that their efforts are not continuing even now.
This post is a point-by-point reply to the City of Whitewater’s efforts against free speech. I will offer replies to the anti-speech positions of Whitewater Chief of Police Jim Coan and Whitewater City Manager Kevin Brunner. I will refer to their on-the-record statements in Hall’s front page story.
On Constitutionally Protected Speech.
My website, and my postings, are a very small part of a great American tradition of constitutionally-protected anonymous or pseudonymous speech on public matters, involving public figures. It’s been part of the American legal tradition for over two hundred years, since the founding of this republic.
No one in my city, or my state, or anywhere in America has a right to overturn this tradition, and act against constitutional protections. No one. And yet, in Whitewater, city officials have placed themselves above, apart, and against these legal protections.
In doing so, they have shown themselves ignorant of the political heritage of their own country, and have brought embarrassment on themselves.
We are a beautiful, but troubled city; no one can help Whitewater who undermines American constitutional protections. On the “About” page of my website, I mention clearly that anonymous and pseudonymous speech is part of our legal heritage. Chief Coan and City Manager Brunner should have spent more time reading American history, and less time reading each others’ emails.
These men cannot build themselves up by pulling America’s free speech tradition down.
Famous Political Speech.
I said once that I write polemically, but live peacefully. That’s part of what’s great about America: we can do that freely here. At least, we’re supposed to be able to speak freely — including anonymously — in America.
Consider some tough, polemical statements from great people of American history. If readers click on one of the names below, they’ll go to a page with a tough, hard-hitting statement from that person. All of these statements were lawful, and any of the people who made them would have been allowed under our law to make them anonymously without interference.
(Ali and Buckley, I think, have the funniest, most polemical statements of the group.)
On Whitewater Police Chief Coan’s Remarks.
A. “Potential Threats.” Under this standard, anyone who disagrees with Coan’s leadership — and he has been bad for our city — might be a suspect, or person of interest, etc. Coan uses the language of the criminal law against lawful speech.
Of course, Coan knows that I have made no threats — it’s lawful speech itself he fears, and finds threatening. So threatening, he treats a constitutional right as though it were a potential crime.
B. Confusing Himself with the Whole City. Coan falsely contends that he was justified in his actions because I am “someone who seems so angry at me [Coan] and with our department.”
Throughout my website — fully searchable — my comments about Coan have been directed to his leadership, and where it has led others astray. In fact, my post on December 31, entitled “The Force we Need,” demonstrates clearly that my concern is for our police force and city, not against it.
Here is part of what I wrote in that post — written before Coan and one of his police lieutenants confronted a citizen at his home:
I have been — for sound, inescapable reasons — a critic of the state in which Jim Coan has left our lovely, but troubled, city. He, and those who have supported him, have made life worse for others. I have watched, day after day, as he has taken this city and its police force down the wrong path.
My family have a great familiarity with police work, one having committed himself to a lifetime of intelligent, dedicated leadership in that field. We well-understand this vocation, and it is the gap in leadership between what should be, and what is, that both astonishes and infuriates. Only someone confused, or ignorant could have confidence in the leadership that burdens and embarrasses our current force, and the city it is sworn to serve.
There are many in Whitewater who would like the force to be more than it is, and I know how disappointed they are that it lacks the leadership it needs….
This can be a beautiful and well-run place once again. Officers should embrace the community that they serve and be a part of it; community policing is the very opposite of a puffed-up idea of officers as warriors. Here is our invitation: Live here with us, worship here with us, send your children to our schools, and shop in our markets. We will be your neighbors and friends. Policing will be better, officers will feel better about their jobs, and our community will be safer.
If you live elsewhere, think about living with us here in Whitewater.
Coan odiously contends that criticism of him is criticism of all; one can easily see how false his contention is.
C. “Provide him with answers to his questions and concerns.” There are two obvious replies. First, I have always invited anyone, including Coan, Brunner, or members of our Police and Fire Commission, to reply to me via my website, and I would post those emails. I have posted numerous calls for their reply, to my documented, through critiques. Not one of them has ever done so. Ever.
Second, I am not sure if Coan is foolish, or expects others to be: No one goes to man’s home, accompanied by a police lieutenant, for a dialogue. That’s like a child’s justification. Coan wasn’t even strong enough to go alone — he had to have someone with him.
No one sent Laird Scott — ‘accused’ of being me — a belated birthday card for a dialogue.
D. Coan: the Amazing Empath. Coan states that he was concerned with someone who was “so angry.” I’m not angry: as I said before, I write polemically, but I live peacefully.
That’s some power Coan has — to be able to read the mind of others, and determine their emotions. He’s a bad version, I suppose, of the empathetic ship’s counsellor, Deanna Troi, on Star Trek: The Next Generation. He’s a bad version, indeed; actress Marina Sirtis has aesthetic advantages that Coan will never, himself, equal.
E. Lawful Conduct. My speech is lawful, and constitutionally protected, and Coan knows it. When he contends that he has other information that he is “not at liberty to discuss…at this time” he’s making empty excuses for running license plates and witch-hunting protected speech.
There is no phrase, by the way, so empty and hackneyed as one that declares someone is “not at liberty to discuss” something.
It’s as though Coan said the dog ate his homework, or, like disgraced Senator Joe McCarthy, dishonestly waived a piece of paper and declared that “I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.” (Griffith, Robert (1970). The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate. University of Massachusetts Press, pg. 49. ISBN 0-87023-555-9.)
On Whitewater City Manager Kevin Brunner’s Remarks.
A. “I think that it was a very legitimate use of their time.” Well, we don’t have to wonder where Brunner stands on free speech.
Of all that Brunner might have said, he has made the clearest statement against constitutionally-protected anonymous speech. Note, too, the superlative — not merely legitimate, but very legitimate, to Brunner’s thinking.
Brunner supports, endorses, and condones Coan’s actions, and those who helped him.
B. “I think that the impetus was to engage in some civil discourse with that person.” Outrageous, but laughable, too: as I have noted, anyone could write me without visiting a home with a police lieutenant at his side.
Brunner embarrasses himself when he contends that Coan and the lieutenant’s visit was has an impetus of civil discourse.
C. Stop Reading Free Whitewater. I’m not an ornithologist, but I’ve often heard that ostriches bury their heads in the sand when there’s trouble. It’s the first time, though, that I’ve seen a city manager exhibit those traits, and demand that others do the same.
If Brunner believes that his employees’ actions are a source of contention, he should look to their conduct, and not blame lawful speech. If they don’t have the proper respect for American tradition, then he should impart it to them. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to have that respect either; he cannot teach what he does not understand.
On Laird Scott.
Coan falsely identified, after a months’ long hunt, the wrong man. That should be clear by now, although who knows what Coan actually believes?
Note, though, that after Coan’s visit, someone sent Scott a belated birthday card, identifying him as me. Coan contends that he has no idea “who would do such a thing.” Coan visited Scott with one other member of his department, and so at least two people (other than Scott) thought that Scott was a blogger.
Coan himself emailed the Whitewater City Clerk, more than once, to share his (false) belief with her that he had identified the blogger, John Adams. If people falsely believed Scott was the blogger, Coan should look to his own actions for why that false belief started in the first place.
On Anonymous Speech in Whitewater.
I have called for anonymous speech for those wishing to report malfeasance, etc., in city affairs. That’s consistent with a U.S. Department of Justice white paper on the subject, entitled, Principles for Promoting Police Integrity, that I have cited in several posts.
After Coan and Brunner’s comments, I cannot see how any reasonable person would feel comfortable with an anonymous complaint, if they are injured, etc.
What’s Next?
Of course, I’ll keep blogging, under a pen name, as American law allows. I’ll seek guidance on my options, to assure that rights granted to all Americans to blog anonymously will be respected in Whitewater. I’m also adding new features FREE WHITEWATER, this week.
As my critics drift farther from the heritage of freedom, my website keeps growing, expanding, month after month.
Most importantly, I remain an optimist and true believer in the American promise. It’s a promise that we can bring to Whitewater, too.
