Justin Bieber's manager Scott (Scooter) Braun arrested for not Tweeting at the time of cops' request

NY Daily News ^ | 03/25/10 | Samuel Goldsmith

[OldDeckHand]

The manager behind teen heartthrob Justin Bieber was arrested on Long Island Wednesday for failing to stop a riot at Roosevelt Field mall last year.

Scott "Scooter" Braun turned himself in to Nassau County police on charges of reckless endangerment and criminal nuisance, cops said.

In November, Braun took Bieber to an appearance at the mall in Garden City, N.Y. The crowd of teenage girls became unruly, and cops told Braun to announce on Twitter that the event was cancelled.

[OldDeckHand]

Before you laugh, this isn't about the "tween star" Bieber. It's about the question of whether the police have the authority - absent a court order - to compel someone to say something (the something in this instance is a Tweet), or be arrested.

Sure, you can't incite a riot. But, can the police order you to quell a riot? It's an interesting question, and one that has 1st Amendment implications.

[apillar]

The crowd of teenage girls became unruly, and cops told Braun to announce on Twitter that the event was cancelled.

Wouldn't that have just made the crowd of teenage girls ANGRY on top of being unruly. This guy probably was smarter than the police and knew if he texted the message it could start a riot.

[WayneM]

So who stuned Bieber?

[6SJ7]

If cops can compel you to write anything, then it won’t be long until...

I love Big Brother
I love Big Brother
I love Big Brother

[robby]

This is funny. Three year old crying over Justin Bieber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTCm8tdHkfI

[DaxtonBrown]

[But, can the police order you to quell a riot?]

Can Jim Robinson be compelled to call off a ‘riotous’ Tea Party event?

[OldDeckHand]

"Can Jim Robinson be compelled to call off a ‘riotous’ Tea Party event?"

If you ask the Nassau County DA that question - apparently - the answer would be "yes". This is why this arrest is so chilling, in my mind.

[Hebrews 11:6]

If I'm not mistaken, in most jurisdictions it is indeed a crime not to obey a peace officer's lawful order during an emergency. Thus, if a riot is already occurring, does an officer have the right to order a citizen's assistance in a limited way?

You overstate the case. The officer was not asking him to quell a riot, a task which might include physical or even armed intervention. He asked him simply to help discourage a riot by sending a message, in this case electronically.

[OldDeckHand]

'He asked him simply to help discourage a riot by sending a message, in this case electronically. "

Then, using your logic, cannot the federal authorities compell Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to instruct their listening audience to not act in a violent way.

Yes, I did overstate the case - intentionally. There wasn't a riot taking place. There was just a collection of, at best, emotionally anxious teeny-boppers. How is that an emergency? If that's an emergency, virtually anything is an emergency, and then the powers of the police-state become unlimited.

[MissDairyGoodnessVT]

that was soooo good and funny too- i posted this on my fb page for my kids to see

[Jack Hydrazine]

The guy wasn’t asked. If he was asked by the police and he refused then they could not have arrested him. Since he was told (ordered) by the police to do so he was not obeying.

Being told and being asked are two different animals altogether.

[Hebrews 11:6]

You make a distinction without a difference. In several places I specifically referred to the officer ordering compliance. The fact that in one case I used a different word, "ask," completely takes it out of its context.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Then, using your logic, cannot the federal authorities compell Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to instruct their listening audience to not act in a violent way.

I don't know, but it is certainly an interesting point, although you've structured it only from a conservatiive standpoint. Shouldn't you include Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow in your hypothetical, too?

I think the answer would come down to the relationship of the rioters to the broadcaster. If there were a clear and obvious connection, then the broadcaster should probably comply. Of course, later, once the dust had settled, the onus would be on the peace officer to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the broadcaster did, indeed, have the lawful duty to comply.

I am unfamiliar with the present law, which I'm sure varies by jurisdiction. You posted the article--can you cite chapter and verse?

By the way, this certainly touches on a biblical imperative, from Romans 13: obey the civil authorities. I think that requires a citizen (this citizen, anyway) who receives an officer's order in the heat of the moment to have a strong reason for not obeying if that is his choice.

[OldDeckHand]

"Shouldn't you include Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow in your hypothetical, too?"

Without question. I abhor hypocracy. I detest Olberman and Maddow and think they do a better job than anyone when acting a fool. But, I'd fight to the death to protect their right to "act the fool".

"I am unfamiliar with the present law, which I'm sure varies by jurisdiction. You posted the article--can you cite chapter and verse?"

I'm not a NY attorney, so I'm not familiar with this particular statute the police used to arrest this manager. But, I am intimately familiar with the Constitution, and whatever those NY local statutes may be, they still have to withstand judicial review with respect to the defendant's 1st Amendment protections.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Thanks for your posting—it’s a question that’s new to me. If you post on further developments, I’d appreciate a ping.

[Jack Hydrazine]

You said that the officer asked him to prevent one, not stop one. Having an officer ask you means that you can voluntarily say, "no" without any harm coming to you. But the reality is he was told/ordered by the officer to prevent a rioti by saying something via Twitter where the choice of, "no" means you get arrested and go to jail.

"You overstate the case. The officer was not asking him to quell a riot, a task which might include physical or even armed intervention. He asked him simply to help discourage a riot by sending a message, in this case electronically."

[Hebrews 11:6]

Friend, if you will look at my original post, I began by stating the issue in general terms, and twice I specifically used the word “order.” When later I referred to the specific incident and carelessly used the word “ask,” it was nevertheless within the context of my general statement. Any reasonable reader would understand and appreciate that and not make an issue of it.