The First Amendment analysis is also misplaced. The First Amendment covers only government entities, not private functions or private organizations. Thus, student groups have the right to choose who can or cannot attend or speak at their meetings. Further, even were the First Amendment applicable, Mr. Meyer's behavior would not have been protected, as his disruptive behavior would be considered disturbing the peace. Consider: The spectator galleries in the US House and Senate are public property, yet none of us can yell down from the gallery in order to challenge a member of the House or Senate. When, as periodically occurs, someone chooses to disrupt the House or Senate floor from the galleries, they are physically removed and charged with disorderly conduct. This happens despite the guarantee in the Constitution that one may "petition the government for the redress of grievances" and is routinely upheld by the courts.

As to the use of the taser, recent postings have confused and blurred two distinct issues: Mr. Meyer's free speech rights, and his resisting arrest. Mr. Meyer was tasered in order to force him into handcuffs, not in order to punish him for disrupting the meeting. While Mr. Meyers will undoubtedly have some minor scars from the use of the taser, he would likely have had a more strenuous objection to having one or more torn rotator cuffs, or to having his shoulder dislocated. Both are common occurrences when a subject resists being arrested.

The murkier issue is the UF police department's policy on use of the taser, which appears to restrict use of the taser in situations such as this. If one has an objection to how the police handled Mr. Meyers, it should arise from this issue, not misplaced arguments regarding the First Amendment.

Although Mr. Meyer was out of turn he was still a registered student participating in a school activity. The Senator was willing to answer Meyer's questions. Meyers was giving the Senator a chance to respond to his line of questions. Meyers is protected under the first amendment because he allowed for a response (See Heckler's Veto). Meyers had credible references to back up his line of questioning and he was not verbally attacking the Senator even though his methods were aggressive in the way his questions were put forth. Meyers was not a threat to himself, to the crowd, Senator, or even the police. If anyone was disturbing the peace it would be the police. The use of force has to be equal to subdue the suspect. The suspect was already is custody. If the suspect refuses to move, police use a hog-tie and carry the suspect, not zap the crap out of them. The cops caused the confrontation. Meyers should have calmly demanded a lawyer right then and there.

Three things. First, the meeting was not Senator Kerry's. While he may have been willing to answer the question, it was the right of the meeting host to control who has access. Like it or not, agree or disagree with the decision, the group hosting the meeting had, inter alia, turned off the microphone and requested that the police remove Mr. Meyer. Senator Kerry's willingness to address Mr. Meyer's questions therefore is not dispositive.

Second, only 12 states retain the common law right to resist unlawful arrest, and Florida is not among those states. Again, use of force is always unpleasant, but the police are authorized by law to use force when someone resists arrest--and that is the case in Florida even were, arguendo, the arrest unlawful. In the latter case, the courts have long held that a civil suit is the remedy, not self-help. Thus, you are misinformed when you state that resisting an unlawful arrest is not illegal.

Third, the Supreme Court has long held that disruptive speech of the sort displayed by Mr. Meyer is not protected by the First Amendment. You may not agree with the case law, but it is the law nonetheless.

I respectfully disagree. Just as one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater, so too is it against the law to disrupt a public gathering. According to police reports, they were called by the meeting organizer to eject the student. The microphone was cut off, and Mr. Meyer was repeatedly asked to leave, yet instead of complying with the officers' orders, he escalated the situation. Further, he resisted arrest, which is, itself, a criminal offense.

As for the use of the taser, it appears that the officers used it in drive stun mode, which is when it is applied to the subject's skin in order to cause pain. As such, use of a taser is preferable to using the other means of force permitted under the law in order to obtain compliance, and runs less risk of serious injury. Indeed, cuffing an uncooperative subject creates a high risk of tearing the subject's rotator cuff and other long-term injuries. Thus, use of the taser was the best in a series of unpleasant options in a situation that was created entirely by Mr. Meyer. The fact that the confrontation was one of Mr. Meyers' doing was something he himself acknowledged, when, out of view of the cameras, he told police that they had done nothing wrong, and were simply doing their jobs.

Bottom line, it is not up to Mr. Meyers to decide whether to comply with the police when they direct him to leave a meeting that he is disrupting. The fact that Mr. Meyers was not "physically threatening" is irrelevant, and Mr. Meyers was not within his rights to resist arrest.