Activists in Portsmouth Protest Uber Driver Arrests

free chrisFreeUber.org founder Christopher David was released on personal recognizance today after turning himself in at the Portsmouth Police Department. Activists plan to protest the continued harassment of Uber drivers tonight, and Shire Dude will be livestreaming this protest.

Expect updates every hour, on the hour.

This is a live event that will feature multiple broadcast updates.  If the above video is not live, you can access the footage on Shire Dude’s Bambuser account.

UPDATES:

The protest remained peaceful throughout the night, despite encounters I had with a couple of unsavory characters. Christopher David arrived (over 100 ft. away from the tavern, due to bail restrictions), and I convinced the owner of Daniel Street Tavern to have a conversation with him. State Representative Eric Schleien showed up and had a conversation with the bar owner, asking her if she understood economics or the fact that the state creates monopolies (referring to the taxi cartel). The bar owner became upset after this, and she even flagged down the cops in an attempt to break up the protest. The Portsmouth PD declined her request.

bar3

Unsavory Character #1 attempts to start a fight with confusing homoerotic language

bar2

Unsavory Character #2 attempts to stand in front of my camera

bar1

Owner of Daniel Street Tavern pleads for the Portsmouth PD to break up the protest

bar4

Christopher David stations himself 100+ ft. from the event, due to bail restrictions

 

[FOX protest coverage]
[Disobedient.Me protest coverage]
Bambuser series: VIDEO 1 | VIDEO 2 | VIDEO 3 | VIDEO 4 | VIDEO 5 | VIDEO 6 | VIDEO 7

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


38 Comments

  1. Pity for him, pity for him. I say nay, nay! You get what you deserve! Chris, stop being a dumbass and come to your senses

  2. Is there any evidence to support their claim that the bouncer did not know he was being recorded? Wasn’t the YouTube recording made with a cell phone? If so, it would presumably be quite blatantly obvious that the recording was taking place. Unless his car is tricked out with hidden microphones, it sounds like they’re just inventing nonsense to harass this guy.

  3. Portsmouth is breaking the law and charging him just to harass him. The Glik decision allows anyone to record in public, and New Hampshire Law clearly states in RSS 570 A:2:1-a that the violation is a MISDEMEANOR if the person recording is a party to the conversation. The whole process of charging him with a felony is nothing but harassment.

  4. Harassment? Nope! You libertards are just all butthurt because you “think” he wasn’t doing anything unlawful, well thank you mister bouncer and mister policeman for not letting this entitled liberal do whatever he “thinks” is right! Again thanks.

  5. So, when it’s demonstrated that the bouncer knew he was being recorded (as it almost certainly will be – there’s no practical way he was unaware), you will be demanding that the bouncer be brought up on felony charges for perjury, right?

  6. “And thank you mister policeman” too. Bottom line is stop breaking the law assholes. Plain and simple, don’t like it? Move to Guam. Omg!!!

  7. Wait for it, wait for it…

  8. So, all eight freekeeners were standing and harassing a business. How productive was that? Did you accomplish anything? It doesn’t sound like it. I see Matt Phillips was talking like a big man again. Did he take time out from his many fictitious lawsuits? I’m surprised that guy didn’t clock you for swearing at him to move away from you. You people were obviously harassing patrons and the bouncers and then the police had you leave.

  9. Portsmouth PD did not ask the protesters to leave. Not once. Portsmouth is a small town; hopefully other bar employees got the message to not harass peaceful Uber drivers.

    Also, I was the only Free Keene blogger on the scene, and I think only one of the protesters actually came from Keene. Counting is hard sometimes.

  10. Flint go look up the statute, you fuckng moron.

  11. You need to read the Glik decision again, dipshit, because your legal interpretation of it is completely wrong. It had to do with public employees being recorded while performing their duties, not private citizens.

  12. The statute states “permission” not awareness.

    Again, Flint: read the statute you fucking moron.

  13. Wow Shire Douche is such a wit. Tell me, Douche: did that small handful of losers you hang around with accomplish anything with your “protest”?

    LoL.

  14. The only message they got, Shire Douche, is that your little group of dirtbags have nothing better to do with their lives.

    One of these days you people are going to harass and annoy the wrong person, then things will get very bad for you.

  15. As usual, there is a back-story with losers like this. Maybe someone should tip off the media about this.

  16. @MikeAB: The word “permission” does not appear anywhere within the wiretapping statute. Actually, it doesn’t appear anywhere in the entirety of chapter 570-A, for that matter. What the statute states is that, in some cases, consent is required. Speaking to someone who is holding a recording device constitutes consent to be recorded. If you are aware that recording is taking place, and choose to talk, then you have consented.

  17. @MikeAB: I have. I’ve also read the relevant caselaw. You, apparently, have done neither.

  18. Sorry, but once I got to “expensive buffets,” I couldn’t continue reading. Buffets are the Walmart of restaurants. That’s like saying he was going out for upscale cuisine at McDonald’s.

  19. Hey, MikeAB suck my dick, will ya. You turn me on because you so hard, and shit.

  20. LoL. You have read the relevant caselaw, eh? Why is it then that you can be so completely wrong about your interpretation of it?

  21. consent == permission, Flint. I know that it’s a stretch for you to consider synonyms for words with your extremely limited vocabulary and all … but try and keep up here.

  22. Sorry be_free … I don’t do miniatures.

  23. And another thing, Flint:

    Just because someone whips out their cell phone doesn’t mean they are recording anything. It is, after all, a cell phone, a contact list, a music player, a games player, etc. The cell phone was also placed in such a way that the bouncer did not actually see it, so it stands to reason that Uber Douche was attempting to conceal it.

    The bouncer was recorded without his permission (consent) therefore the law was broken.

    Was that too many big words for you? Would you like me to break it down so you can understand it? Just let me know.

  24. He’s not a liberal, B … he’s a freetard. Big difference.

  25. “570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited. –
    I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
    (a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
    (b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
    (1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or
    (2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or
    (3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or
    (c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph; or
    (d) Willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph.

  26. ” I-a. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication or with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication, but without the approval required by RSA 570-A:2, II(d). “

  27. “I-a. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication or with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication, but without the approval required by RSA 570-A:2, II(d).

    Seems you overlooked the highlighted part, didn’t you? You were wrong about Glik, and you’re wrong about this statute.

  28. @MikeAB: Putting something in quotes means that you intend exactly that, not a synonym. That’s what quotes are for. And, of course, someone who actually read the statute would be quoting the actual content. The fact that you quoted “permission” means that it’s highly likely you just read someone else’s interpretation, and were thinking in terms of the words that they used.

    You make a very specific claim that the cell phone was “placed in such a way that the bouncer did not actually see it” (see how those quotes work?), but do you have any evidence to back that up? The audio quality of the recording certainly points to an unobstructed microphone.

    Of course, you refute your own claim by stating that he whipped out his phone. “Whipping” something out implies that it’s blatantly obvious, not hidden. Or did you not mean to refute your own claim, and instead just cannot speak English at the level one would expect of anyone over the age of ten?

  29. @MikeAB: You really shouldn’t try to read things that are above your level. The clause is actually, “or with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication, but without the approval required by RSA 570-A:2, II(d),” not only the portion after “but” – that clause refers to a cop (or other acting in that sort of capacity) recording a harassing conversation, or a request for a bribe by a mobster, or the like, where that cop has permission from one party, but did not get approval from the AG’s office.

    The relevant text is that “[a] person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication…”

    The “…or” portion is for cops/etc. who have permission of one party, but not the right kind of permission.

    You are correct about Glik only applying to cops. Although one could argue that the courts should extend that same protection to interactions in which someone is threatening to call the police, or such, since they are materially related. That would have to wait for someone to actually make that challenge.

  30. Hey shire dude, wasn’t jp mister cop blocker supposed to be there, he posted on Keene copblock Web site that he was going to have pizza and a hotel room to help the cause? I didn’t see him in your videos? Was he there?

  31. Never mind I watched the video Mr huffy was there. My bad.

  32. I’m definitely not a legal expert, but the word “intercept” seems key. Christopher David was actually a part of the conversation in question, and the word “intercept” seems to imply a third party that is secretly listening (actually wiretapping).

    If Christopher David wrote down the conversation, is that wiretapping? If he remembered the words and recited them later in a YouTube video, is that wiretapping? Are any of these actions morally wrong?

    If writing or reciting are not equally as bad as electronically recording, you should ask yourself why you hate electricity and consider joining an Amish community.

  33. @Shire Dude: “Intercept” (for the purposes of that statute, anyway) is defined in 570-A:1 –
    III. “Intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of, or the recording of, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

    Interestingly, they define it to include “aural” acquisition (ie, listening in), even when no recording is taking place. This is why it’s obvious that continuing to speak when you know that “interception” is taking place automatically constitutes consent. If that were not the case, then if someone was talking to you and said, “I no longer consent to you hearing this,” but continued talking, you would be guilty of a crime due to the simple fact that you could not magically shut down your ears and prevent yourself from hearing what he said.

  34. @Shire Dude@Flint

    While not exactly the same thing, this scenario is eerily similar to the legal mischief Garret Ean experienced two-and-a-half years ago from City of Keene attorney Thomas Mullins when he provoked an official investigation against Ean for the act of posting a transcript of their conversation on Free Concord. The problem here was not that Ean had actually recorded that conversation (evidently Mullins would not have agreed to have his meeting with Ean if he had), it was that the transcript was constructed accurately solely from Ean’s own memory. So accurately apparently, that Mullins refused to believe that Ean had honored their original agreement. If I remember correctly, Ean’s camcorder was also confiscated as evidence and he was deprived of its use for over a month.

    Bureaucrats really are misusing statutes like Chapter 570-A, and in the case of Ean and David, are now trying to use it for the purposes of criminalizing conversations. Worse, Portsmouth wants to apply the same statute against David for recording (what I surmise) was a heated exchange between him and a tavern employee. What could possibly be considered criminal about the act of recording an incident that could potentially have led to a violent altercation? This is likely to result in a dangerous precedent should Portsmouth succeed in their witch-hunt.

  35. This guy might be getting a rather stiff penalty for his actions, but the protests to support him come off as whiney entitled millenials who never had discipline growing up…failed parenting, parents who never set baselines for acceptable conduct… parents who never said NO.

    Harassing businesses in hopes of bullying them into exhausted compliance… You guys want respect, yet your behavior doesnt justify respect. Principles, thats a key issue. Cause and effect… I see this with people nowadays.

    You EXPECT the world from everyone else, yet NOTHING from yourselves. You want to eat a 3 course meal at a five star restaurant, yet you expect to pay fastfood prices. When other people dont accept your unreasonable expectations, you attempt to bully them into compliance…

    You guys seem to have a need to argue / fight / compete / rise against… you have the natural human needs to feel important, to face adversity, to compete…

    instead of harassing small businesses to satisfy these human hungers, you’d be much better off developing a discipline. Take up boxing, judo, sign up for a marathon…learn guitar. Do something that helps you without violating the rights of others.

    you guys seem to see this situation as a taking a righteous stand against injustice, but you’re coming off as entitled, self-righteous bullies who rationalize unethical behavior that you assume will further your own personal agendas….(sounds familiar…….what major tech start up also demonstrates these qualities?).

Care to comment?