> When he went a few seconds over his allotted 3 minute time limit, the city ordered Blanchard arrested and transported to the county jail. The city charged Blanchard with trespassing
fakedang 7 minutes ago [-]
Land of the Free, First Amendment, Right to Free Speech, Democracy, Community Involvement, etc. etc. etc.
sheikhnbake 6 minutes ago [-]
*for those that can afford it
josefritzishere 32 minutes ago [-]
Beale Infrastructure exhibits mafia-like, possibly illegal behavior getting city officials to sign NDAs. I suspect kickback schemes and conflicts of interest to be behind this egregious use of lawfare.
when the state makes a rule that you have to stick your head in the toilet, you would follow?
RIMR 19 minutes ago [-]
This is how authoritarians speak. Rules only matter when they make sense. An authoritarian never cares about that, and insists on a strict interpretation of the rules, well beyond reason.
A 3-minute limit is sensible. Hauling someone off to jail because they spoke for a few seconds too long is tyrannical.
You should want better out of the society you live in. Even if you disagree with this farmer, ask yourself if he would have seen the same consequences if he went over the limit speaking in support of this Datacenter (spoiler: of course he wouldn't have).
Do you really want to live in a world where people are creatively charged with trespassing, not because of actual malicious action, but because they said something that the powers that be didn't like?
wat10000 36 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
solid_fuel 20 minutes ago [-]
Sure man. Nothing says "hacker ethos" like arresting a citizen for going 3 seconds over their allotted free speech time.
There are so many bootlickers here on HN these days. A sign of the times, I suppose.
But of course, what else can we expect? This is the natural consequence of putting ethics and morality after money. Money always wins. And once you start seeing the world like that, through the lens of "success makes right", you have to bend your view of reality to make it square. And then you wind up here, defending actions like this.
NoMoreNicksLeft 33 minutes ago [-]
Top Specious Comment of 2026.
RIMR 24 minutes ago [-]
Look, the article is right there, and what it says doesn't match what you're saying. Sure, they arrested him for "trespassing", but their definition of trespassing was going over his allotted time by a matter of seconds.
They did not ask him to leave, and he refused. They counted down the seconds he had the floor, and ordered his arrest the moment he went over the allotted time.
I don't know if you've ever been to a Town Hall before, but this is absolutely ridiculous. When you go over your time, you can either ask for more time or be told that you are done.
You shouldn't be arrested unless you intentionally refuse to conclude your time, or if you create a disruption. He did neither.
They arrested him because they didn't like what he had to say, and they want to send a harsh message to anyone else who dares speak out against Datacenters.
This is an egregious violation of First Amendment rights.
IncreasePosts 17 minutes ago [-]
You're taking the article as gospel. Is there any video for the lead up to the arrest?
There was a reddit post with this video, and the poster claimed that he refused to leave the podium after his time was up. Not saying that is true, but it sounds different than "spoke a few seconds too long"
Even if that's the case, why not just cut the mic and have security escort him away? Why jump straight to sending the cops to arrest and jail him?
It's abundantly clear that these things happen not because people were so disruptive that it was necessary. It is that they are saying things the government doesn't like, so they use the only tool they have as strictly as they are allowed to in an attempt to discourage people from speaking out in the first place.
At least this is triggering the Streisand Effect, and now this farmer is getting interviews on the news, not only about the Datacenter, but how the local government treats those who speak out against it.
happytoexplain 30 minutes ago [-]
Christ, what does this comment mean? Should we examine the metallurgic constitution of his handcuffs, too?
LightBug1 28 minutes ago [-]
LOL. Did you write that with a straight face?
Rendered at 20:44:26 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
A 3-minute limit is sensible. Hauling someone off to jail because they spoke for a few seconds too long is tyrannical.
You should want better out of the society you live in. Even if you disagree with this farmer, ask yourself if he would have seen the same consequences if he went over the limit speaking in support of this Datacenter (spoiler: of course he wouldn't have).
Do you really want to live in a world where people are creatively charged with trespassing, not because of actual malicious action, but because they said something that the powers that be didn't like?
There are so many bootlickers here on HN these days. A sign of the times, I suppose.
But of course, what else can we expect? This is the natural consequence of putting ethics and morality after money. Money always wins. And once you start seeing the world like that, through the lens of "success makes right", you have to bend your view of reality to make it square. And then you wind up here, defending actions like this.
They did not ask him to leave, and he refused. They counted down the seconds he had the floor, and ordered his arrest the moment he went over the allotted time.
I don't know if you've ever been to a Town Hall before, but this is absolutely ridiculous. When you go over your time, you can either ask for more time or be told that you are done.
You shouldn't be arrested unless you intentionally refuse to conclude your time, or if you create a disruption. He did neither.
They arrested him because they didn't like what he had to say, and they want to send a harsh message to anyone else who dares speak out against Datacenters.
This is an egregious violation of First Amendment rights.
There was a reddit post with this video, and the poster claimed that he refused to leave the podium after his time was up. Not saying that is true, but it sounds different than "spoke a few seconds too long"
https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscurePatentDangers/comments/1shsu...
It's abundantly clear that these things happen not because people were so disruptive that it was necessary. It is that they are saying things the government doesn't like, so they use the only tool they have as strictly as they are allowed to in an attempt to discourage people from speaking out in the first place.
At least this is triggering the Streisand Effect, and now this farmer is getting interviews on the news, not only about the Datacenter, but how the local government treats those who speak out against it.