Opinions vary on the whole Gates/Crowley thing. There are some people making comments to a post here about speech and other basic freedoms, and some are misguided. (Of course, I recognize this is in many ways my opinion, not an assertion of fact per se.)

I made some comments, mostly in response to one particular individual, about the differences between objective and subjective reasoning, and what that means as far as legislation goes concerning basic liberties. (Other commentator's statements in bold)

1.

I think the way speech is legislated in the UK and other European countries is wrong. It comes awfully close to an attempt to legislate morality, and that simply does not work. The problem is that we cannot allow the opinion of one person to arbitrarily dictate the actions of another. When legislation includes ambiguous words that is exactly what the situation can lead to. Statements like 'behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace', and 'yelling at anyone in a public place in a manner likely to cause alarm to other people is (illegal)' leave too much to interpretation. The question is, who gets to decide? Laws written in such a manner leave too much leeway to individual police and judges.

2.

"It is better for them to stop legal behavior when it interferes with their ability to enforce the law and restore order in a dangerous situation."

It is never ok for anyone to stop legal behavior, period.

"Actually, we do indeed give them that power, to a significant extent, every time we call them to deal with a situation and hold them responsible for resolving it."

This statement is utter nonsense. A citizen calling the police to resolve a situation in which they really don't have authority does NOT infer any rights or authority. Law enforcement action is dictated by law, not citizens on the spot in any given situation. That would be like making shit up as we went along.

As I understand it, (commenter), the cops had ascertained what they needed to know. They had gained access to the residence, and Gates showed proof he had a legal right to be there. Everything in question happened AFTER this, which is what a lot of the stink is about.

3.

"Public officials have jobs to do, and obligations to the community, and being insulting and abusive to their faces while they're on the job should not be considered a 'right'."

Well, it is a right, and no amount of moral indignation from you or anyone else will change this simple fact. What you advocate is morality legislation, and it is much too oppressive, regardless of the form it takes, or the lofty intentions of those that try it.

4.

What is wrong with "exercising a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" is that it depends on an opinion. What is "sensible" to one is ludicrous to another. Decent respect would be fine for you, as long as YOU decide what is decent and what isn't. I refuse to allow someone else to make that decision for me. Kindness is not objective, it is subjective and open to interpretation, and I again refuse to allow anyone to decide for me what is kind and what is not.

I have nothing against a society in which the inhabitants are civil to one another, but in a truly civil society the members understand the differences between objective and subjective reasoning, and between opinions which can be varied and diverse, and basic truths which are few.

After all that, one commentator posted this...

Not all people are disorderly dangerous assholes, but cops have to deal regularly with those who are; and many times, in that jungle, such arbitrary assertions of authority are necessary to command respect and keep the peace.

"Arbitrary assertions of authority." It is hard for me to fathom that a citizen of a free society, as the US is supposed to be, is capable of such a statement, even after much reflection that I assume was practiced while following the thread of the conversation.

Wait, there's more...

Some of those blowhards got arrested because some cop decided (rightly or wrongly) that he had reason to consider said blowhard an immediate threat to someone else's life or safety. And some of them get arrested on a bogus charge to give the cops a pretext to get evidence for a more serious charge.

Un-fucking-believable. This is blatant advocacy of illegal search and seizure. For some reason this statement brings to mind the court scene described in a song on an album by Pink Floyd called The Wall. The song is called Trial.