[aruanan]

When you learn from the article that he was deliberately baiting the police -- then the police WERE right to have an articulable suspicion that something was up. Call it a false report of a crime.

Wrong. He wasn't baiting anyone. He was asking questions he, and everyone else, should ask. You sound like the majority of people who inhabit every police state on the face of the planet, who, in fact, help to make those police states possible. "Oh, gee! Yessir. Here are my papers! And if I could bend over any farther, I would 'cause I know you're doing it all for my own good!"

[=Intervention=]

Fair enough. But where do you draw the line between such farcial antics that this reporter employed and our Constitutional rights? What others mean by "baiting" is that the reporter deliberately did things that would arouse suspicion. Is that a crime in itself? Of course not. But how can you blame the cops for suspecting him? This is borderline shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, which the courts have always ruled is NOT free speech. The real question is the bind we're putting the cops in. The instant they get too nosy people yell "civil rights" but if the reporter really was a terrorist, then the cops would be defamed for not catching him. The cops must have some standard by which to judge threats. Even the most anarchic has to admit that if we're going to have a society. Likewise, citizens must have freedom of person and of movement and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, among others. Hysterical rants against the survelliance state (while resonant here) are NOT the answer. Hysterical rants for the survelliance state are NOT the answer either. We are a nation that has to defend herself against terrorist threats AND head them off before they kill any more of us, AND individuals who must remain free. There's a tension there.