Witch-Hunting a Blogger in Whitewater, Wisconsin: Part 13

A blogger – a modern day pamphleteer – writes about municipal affairs, and his website has been critical of certain police practices and actions.

As one might imagine, some officials in town are disappointed with the criticism.

One day, the police chief, perhaps accompanied by someone else, visits the house of someone in town, to confront that man about being the ‘evil blogger.’ The man apparently has relatives who had been active in local politics, he may be libertarian, etc. The man’s wife sometimes attends public meetings, and takes notes.

Those slim – ludicrous – facts convince the official that the man he visits is the blogger.

The chief goes to the man’s house with the apparent purpose of confronting the man, perhaps to shame him into silence, whatever that might mean.

Here’s what’s especially odd — it wasn’t the blogger’s house.

They went to the wrong house, and confronted the wrong man.

In fact, the blogger has never met the man that the chief visited.

Did the chief expect the supposed blogger would stop? If the blogger said ‘no,’ what did the chief say or intend to say (other than conveying the impression of intimidation and coercion)?

Basic Reflections:

(1) An official who would make a visit like this is disrespectful of fundamental constitutional rights of all citizens.

(2) An official who would make a visit like this is arrogant, or self-deceiving. He would have to imagine that his presence would intimidate and dissuade.

(3) An official who would make a visit like this is wasteful of public time and money.

(4) An official who would make a visit like this is incompetent. Even in my post concerning the discredited actions of Maryland Governor William Schaefer, at least Shaefer identified the correct protesters. Schaefer was wrong but accurate. In the scenario I have just described, the Whitewater official is merely wrong – twice over.

In this circumstance, the official identified the wrong man! Here would be the case of an official who was incompetent to identify correctly the political critics that he wanted to intimidate.

(5) A response to criticism based on supposed social pressure only works if the one being pressured cares about the opinion of any number of wrong-headed simpletons. These critics cannot think through the issue, and they cannot defend themselves on the merits.

Their response is proof of their substantive inadequacy – and also of their child-like view of dissent and how to respond to criticism in a free society. No one who dissents would yield to embarrassing, ludicrous people like this. If these critics had even a shadow of a counter-argument, they would make it.

(6). Again, Coan treats a blogger, and the man he believes is a blogger, as a suspect. In fact, by his own account, as his “No. 1” suspect. Coan distorts the language of the criminal law against political speech.

How many other suspects does Coan have, and did he keep a list? If he kept a list, why was it not included in the public records request that I received? (I will have more about collection of public records later.)

It’s reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list. Coan — the little Nixon of Whitewater. Not even as good, really; at least Nixon went to China.

(7). Coan is 99.9% convinced that he went to the right house; I know that he was 100% wrong. Coan’s complete conviction is therefore the same as a common person’s complete error.

They have nothing worthy to say, and so they futilely try to stop someone else from speaking.