By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Perry County, Tennessee Sheriff Nick Weems ordered the arrest of Larry Bushart for sharing a meme critical of Kirk on Facebook. Bushart was charged with threatening mass violence, a charge that the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argues violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights, as his post was protected political speech and lacked probable cause. The lawsuit alleges that Weems and an investigator, Jason Morrow, maliciously prosecuted Bushart and omitted crucial information from the warrant application to manufacture probable cause. Bushart spent 37 days in jail before the charges were dropped, leading to financial and emotional distress, and chilling effects on his and others’ freedom of speech.
Read the original article here
This Tennessee man spent 37 days in jail for sharing an anti-Trump meme. He says the cops should pay for that. It’s hard to imagine the sheer absurdity of being locked up for over a month because of a meme. The sentiment is that the police should foot the bill for their actions, and it’s a sentiment that resonates. There’s a lot of anger bubbling up around this, and rightly so.
The core issue here is about free speech, or rather, the blatant disregard for it. Many believe the intent of free speech is to protect individuals from government overreach, and that includes the police. The idea that someone can be jailed for sharing a meme, especially one that simply quotes a public figure, is a direct assault on this principle. It underscores a troubling trend where law enforcement seems willing to overstep boundaries, particularly when political figures are involved.
The frustration extends beyond just the cops. People are calling for the judge who set the exorbitant bail to face consequences, as well as anyone else who participated in this “witch hunt”. It’s a reminder that justice involves multiple players, and accountability should extend to all those involved in the system. The common feeling is that those who abused their power should be held responsible financially and professionally.
The outrage is also directed at what some see as a double standard. Some are pointing out how the right, who often champion free speech, are suspiciously silent about this incident. This is seen as hypocrisy – an unwillingness to protect free speech when it criticizes someone they support. Many feel the Republican view of free speech is hypocritical.
It appears many are also concerned about the chilling effect this has on free speech. The fear is that the police are not being held accountable for their actions, and will continue to arrest people for speech acts that are protected by the constitution. This makes it impossible for people to express their opinions without fear of reprisal.
The discussion highlights a fundamental disagreement about the role of the government and the police. There’s a clear divide between those who believe in unfettered free speech, even when it offends, and those who believe in protecting the powerful from criticism. It’s a recurring theme in American political discourse and is now playing out in the unfortunate case of the Tennessee man.
The situation also raises questions about the motivations behind the arrest. Many suspect political retribution and feel that the meme was likely a pretext for punishing someone who dared to criticize a political figure. The sentiment is the police acted in bad faith and were motivated by political bias. This adds another layer of injustice to the situation.
There’s a strong belief that the man should be compensated, and that the police, and potentially others involved, should be financially responsible. This is seen as a way to send a message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. This is a common sentiment in the United States and the UK, that officials will not be above the law, and that their misconduct will not be borne by the taxpayers.
The lack of accountability for law enforcement is another major concern. The police should face serious consequences for actions such as this, and the fact that it may be left to the taxpayers to pay the bill is seen as unacceptable. It’s a reminder that political will is crucial to ensure accountability, and it’s what’s missing in this case.
People are wondering why the meme itself is not being shared, as if sharing the meme itself would give us a better picture of the man’s intentions, and whether he deserved the outcome he received. However, there’s agreement that even if the meme was offensive, it doesn’t justify the actions taken against the man. The general opinion is that the government has no right to punish someone for protected speech, regardless of how offensive it may be.
The case also brings up how the legal system is being used. Some feel that the charges were absurd, and that the judge and prosecutor should have immediately dismissed the case. Many wonder why they did not, and whether this was due to bias or incompetence.
The incident reflects a broader concern about the direction of society and the erosion of freedoms. This case highlights a disturbing trend of political polarization and the weaponization of the legal system. It’s a cautionary tale about the importance of protecting free speech and holding those in power accountable.