Free speech should be balanced with civility
Tweet
Last year, when Jared Rapp confronted a university parking officer about a parking ticket, he likely didn’t intend for it to lead to a long lawsuit about his First Amendment rights.
But, for better or for worse, that’s what happened.
Recently, the Ingham County Circuit Court ruled that Rapp was within his First Amendment rights to confront Ricardo Rego, an MSU undergraduate working as a university parking officer, while at the same time deciding that an MSU ordinance was unconstitutional.
The ruling stemmed from the event last September, when the 26-year-old Rapp, a former MSU undergraduate and then third-year MSU law student, confronted Rego in an on-campus parking ramp. Rapp claimed Rego ticketed his car in the ramp when the meter had not yet expired. As he was leaving the ramp, Rapp drove his car at a high speed toward Rego, came to an abrupt stop and demanded that Rego reveal his name. Rego refused, which eventually led to Rego locking himself in his university parking services truck while Rapp proceeded to take pictures of Rego with his cell phone.
Rapp was charged with violating MSU Ordinance 15.05, which states that “no person shall disrupt the normal activity” of a university employee when they are completing an assigned task.
Although we agree with the decision and affirm the protection of First Amendment rights, this case is unique, and appears to be much more than a simple confrontation. Rapp certainly has a right to tell a parking officer how he feels, but university employees such as Rego deserve to be protected from fear and threats. Seeing as Rego locked himself in his truck before calling police, it seems pretty clear Rapp was not being altogether kind and polite.
It’s clear the language in the ordinance needs to be revised. Lawmakers should reword or clarify exactly what it means to “disrupt (the) normal activity” of a university employee. This could be anything from striking up a conversation to physical confrontation. But the language in the ordinance is so vague, MSU officials should have known it only would be a matter of time before it was challenged.
It’s also important for people to realize that many university employees, such as Rego, are just regular students working their way through school. Just because one of these students works as a parking official does not automatically make them the enemy. Rego was just trying to do his job, and, even if he did mistakenly ticket Rapp, he did not deserve to fear for his safety while doing his job. No one does.
Although we affirm the freedom of speech and the right to protest an official, we don’t affirm acting improperly, which appears to be what Rapp did here. Confrontations about parking, tickets and ordinances likely happen every day, but Rapp’s actions were way over the top. If he was so concerned about being wrongfully ticketed, maybe he should have considered taking a picture of the unexpired meter rather than running down Rego in a potentially assaulting manner.
The First Amendment is one of the most important freedoms we have in American society, and we should protect it at all costs. Rapp might have been within his rights, but that doesn’t justify his actions.
In order for us to truly reap the benefits, we should put an emphasis on using our speech and expression responsibly.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
J
(10/18/09 8:09pm)Report
Once again, the functional illiterates at State News strike out. The issue is the 6th amendment fools,
“[the right] to be confronted with the witnesses against him;”
This was outlined clearly in the Lansing State Journal article that I also read (better I might add).
Lastly, do you honestly believe the current 8 members of the Board of Trustees actually know even a portion of the ordinances? These ordinances were grand-fathered in by Trustees of Christmas Past.
OldTimer
(10/19/09 12:04am)Report
Lots of junk lies waiting in those ordinances; selective prosecution results.
Consider also Disorderly Conduct, 15.07: “No person shall project or drop any object which could cause injury, damage, or interference in the spectator or playing area during any athletic contest or exhibition.” As in, pitching a baseball? Worse yet, a javelin?
No, we are talking about criminal acts, we’ll know these when we see them. Right.
Point is, general-purpose laws (that clause, “disrupt the normal activity,” is very general) are a handy way to say, “we don’t like you, so you are a criminal.”
To allege criminal activity such as assault, say so. The grab-bag laws need to be dropped from the books.
Sparty
(10/19/09 9:53am)Report
The law may be bad and its good taht it’ll be revised.
That being said, Rapp was being a total a**hole. You dont behave that way towards other people. Stop behaving like a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum and this stuff doesn’t happen.
You should be deeply embarrassed by having people know just how badly you behaved in public published in the newspaper. Sadly, i’d bet 10 to 1 that you’re proud instead.
Grow up! What happened to the golden rule?
Jake
(10/19/09 9:55am)Report
Tossing insults is fine, but driving at them at full speed and then following them to their car is out of line. Luckily for this slimeball, he didn’t hit and injure/kill the parking attendant. Although somehow, given our pathetic criminal justice system, I’m sure it would still somehow be the attendant’s fault.
Got a beef with a parking attendant? Take it up with DPS, not the poor bastard just doing his job. More unnecessary lawsuits clogging a system overburdened with morons with entitlement issues.
Sparty 2
(10/19/09 11:10am)Report
I thought this paper was independent? It sounds like the administration is pulling the strings over there. First off, these people who write this fraudulent tickets are clearly lying imbeciles. That being said, where was the guy being an asshole? Looks like he had a good reason to be ticked off to me!!
Pedro
(10/19/09 11:49am)Report
Ridiculous. The State News butchers the facts once again. Everybody knows DPPS makes mistakes and that they are like an iron bureaucracy that just rejects any appeal. They write false tickets for revenue. Further, Rego wasn’t assualted. Rapp and the Constitution were assaulted. As usual, the State News is late to the game, reporting on stuff after the fact. Journalists used to believe in and stand up for freedom. So sad to see how far we’ve denigrated ourselves.
Pedro
(10/19/09 11:51am)Report
Good for Rapp. I congratulate him for being one of the few people left who have any idea about individual rights and for having the guts to stand up for them on behalf of the rest of us. Godspeed, young Rapp, godspeed.
Kristin
(10/19/09 1:16pm)Report
Umm… I’m pretty sure the parking attendant WAS assaulted. You should look up the difference between assault and battery. Driving your car at a high rate of speed directly at somebody is a threat to cause bodily harm, and therefore assault.
And yes, the parking office does reverse erroneous tickets. I got a ticket for “improper display of permit” when my permit was properly displayed. I drove over to the parking office, they got a person out right away to look at my permit, and reversed the ticket. When they are in the wrong and you have proof of it, they are happy to correct their errors.
Tech
(10/19/09 1:38pm)Report
Rapp should have kicked that dude’s ass. Those parking freaks can bugger off.
J
(10/19/09 2:01pm)Report
It bears repeating for our brain damaged ADHD generation:
“[the right] to be confronted with the witnesses against him;”
“[the right] to be confronted with the witnesses against him;”
“[the right] to be confronted with the witnesses against him;”
“[the right] to be confronted with the witnesses against him;”
“[the right] to be confronted with the witnesses against him;”
HAM
(10/19/09 3:42pm)Report
I’m more confused as to why it isn’t a big deal that the parking attendants write tickets before the meters expire?
I want an MSU official to answer that question for me. Could a parking attendant that reads this respond to that question: Why do you write a ticket for a meter that is “about” to expire?
MSUAlum2001
(10/21/09 3:32pm)Report
HAM, it’s really simple. They just assume if you have under 5-10 minutes left, you’re not going to make it in time. They can’t wait to make sure (other lots to patrol) so they go ahead and write the ticket.
J
(10/21/09 6:28pm)Report
Hey msualum2001, it’s really simple, if those ticket writer testified in court that the meter had expired when it really had not, that’s a felony called perjury, punishable up to 5 years in prison!
So basically you’re saying, it’s really simple, DPPS basically suborns perjury (suborning perjury is also a felony) by disallowing the actual witness’s testimony in court.
Stand up leaders we have at michigan state, daily felons.
The Truth
(10/22/09 2:59pm)Report
I love how this whole article portrays Rapp as this guy who drove at high speeds at Rego. How fast could he possibly be going—it was in shaw parking ramp. The reason it was stated he was driving quickly was because he has a range rover & the engine sounds like a monster is coming at you. Second, I love how these articles state that Rego had to hide in his University Parking vehicle because Rapp was so scary. Rego is not some little guy. Rego is probably around 220lbs and tall. He probably just got in his car because he was getting ready to leave the ramp & Rapp asked Rego to call police supervisors since Rapp was seeking to know Rego’s name (for 6th amendment purposes) & Rego wouldn’t tell him. Interestingly, Rego decided some 10 days later to file suit against Rapp. If he was so upset, he prob. would have filed a complaint sooner. Last, is Rapp is an obnoxious jerk? Absolutely- BUT, you simply have to do some digging to see what happened here and understand how much the facts have been distorted.