Artist: Save Me From Myself! Judge Does
I'm sure artist Ben Stone of Chicago feels much safer now. After all, he's protected by a restraining order. He's got the order itself in his hands. It's signed by Judge Daniel Miranda and signed and stamped by County Clerk Dorothy Brown. He's even got his own videotape of police officers serving him with the order.
But wait. Serving him with the order? Isn't he the one protected by the order? Why would they serve it on him?
This article explains (ArtForum). It was a simple matter of Stone's filing the request and providing the court with all the proper documentation for an order of protection against himself. Apparently it all went like clockwork too. Ben Stone went to court and got an order of protection against himself.
Come to think of it, I could use one of those. So the next time I cut myself in the kitchen or slip on a step I can get the police to arrest me. That'll show me! I'll have to stop talking to myself. Better yet, I'll have to stay away from me altogether. I won't be allowed to call myself on the phone or interfere in my finances, and believe me, that's probably a good idea. Seriously, I feel safer just thinking about it.
I don't know if Ben Stone's taking out an order of protection is more ridiculous than Colleen Nestler's taking one out against David Letterman, a man she'd never met and who lived many states away from her. I call it a dead heat.
But whichever one you prefer, both give a pretty good idea of how seriously we take people's rights to things like freedom of speech and association. I've discussed this before, but honestly, imagine the court hearing in which a woman in New Mexico can get a TRO against a star like Letterman. Was the judge even awake?
Ditto the Ben Stone hearing. How is it possible that Judge Miranda was so out of it that he didn't notice that the name of the person requesting the order was the same as the name of the person he was requesting it against. I mean, did the judge ask him a single question?
The Stone and Letterman cases are absurd, of course, but the principles are anything but. Restraining orders are acts of the state abridging the liberties of people who supposedly have rights to due process before that can happen. How much more blatant does a case have to be before we realize what we've given up?
Thanks to William for the heads-up.
| More from Robert Franklin, Esq.
Stumble It!
