Police Director Sues AOL For Critical Blogger's Name

Pippin writes "Memphis Police Director, Larry Godwin, is suing AOL for the names of the authors of the Enforcer 2.0 blog. The blog is rumored to be authored by a Memphis police officer, and is critical of the department, Godwin, and some procedures. Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this and, interestingly, the complaint is sealed".

Comments

Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

with a Godwin Law violation...

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this story has Godwined itself.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[jd]

How do you propose to violate Godwin's Law? Do you even know what Godwin's Law is?

(For those interested in the subject, Godwin's Law states that as the length of any discussion approaches infinity, the probability of a reference to Naziism within that thread in any context approaches 1. It says nothing about who wins, who loses, or even when the event occurs, only that the probability goes up with time. You could substitute any word or phrase you like into that equation and it would still hold true. In an infinitely long thread, you are absolutely certain to have at least one mention of every single concept, object, philosophy and idea ever known to humanity, because of the way probability works. In other words, the law is senselessly specific and statistically meaningless.)

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh...

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Ihlosi]

In an infinitely long thread, you are absolutely certain to have at least one mention of every single concept, object, philosophy and idea ever known to humanity, because of the way probability works.

Only if the thread is irrational (just like you can find any combination of numbers in pi or e). In a nice, rational thread, you'll eventually get repetitions and the thread will loop back to itself.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I hereby present you Godwin's Law 2.0:

As the internet grows and Godwin's Law becomes more and more famous, internet discussions will increasingly refer to Godwin's Law instead of actually mentioning Nazism.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[locofungus]

In an infinitely long thread, you are absolutely certain to have at least one mention of every single concept, object, philosophy and idea ever known to humanity, because of the way probability works.

Only if the thread is irrational (just like you can find any combination of numbers in pi or e). In a nice, rational thread, you'll eventually get repetitions and the thread will loop back to itself.

This doesn't follow at all.

Liouville's constant is not only irrational, it's transcendental. But it only contains the digits 0 and 1.

Tim.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[kaos07]

Did the miss the fact that the Police Director in this article is named... Godwin?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[jimthehorsegod]

and I do believe JD's law states that as the length of any discussion approaches infinity the probability of someone missing a joke approaches 1.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

The most commonly seen form of Godwin's law in the wild is closer to "As thread length approaches infinity, the probability of someone making an unjustified comparison with nazi germany goes towards 1. The first person to do this is usually considered to have lost the debate."

That might not be the original form, but I've found that it's often useful to use the same meaning for things as the majority of the audience.

Incidentally, quoting Godwin: "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust."

Oh, and with the above in mind, I'm sure you can construct a number of possible inappropriate nazi germany comparisons for the original story.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I just ran out of mod-points and I wished I had saved one long enough to mod you redundant. Instead I'll comment:

This isn't a "whoosh" moment you mime chiming little moron. The whoosh sound is the gas escaping form your air-filled head.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Grismar]

An informative post can still be wrong. You say that the longer a thread runs, the probability of any topic coming up increases. You attribute this to every topic coming up eventually.

As others have remarked, any thread that is actually about something is likely to remain close to that topic and eventually endless repeat earlier statements. I think /. directly proves that threads can actually go on endlessly about the same topic, although not always the topic the OP intended. So I have to disagree with the premise that every topic will come up eventually, this is not 'the way probability works'.

But even in the more basic statement you're making, you're probabilistically wrong. Even if the topic is likely to come up eventually, this likelihood does not increase over time, except if you assume the need of the speakers to start talking about something they haven't mentioned sofar.

It does no more than the odds of throwing a six with a die increase as you throw it more often. Obviously the odds of you not throwing a six that often are tiny beforehand, but as you keep throwing the odds for every individual casting of the die remain the same (not accounting for wear of a physical die).

Godwin's Law makes sense in that it makes a statement about the specific probability of nazism being brought up and it proposes that this probability actually approaches 1 for -any- discussion. Whether that's true or not is besides the point; it definitely does make sense.

By the way, you actually avoided what the parent poster said they wanted to do: you brought up nazism and thereby adding evidence in favor of Godwin's Law. (or rather, failing to provide evidence disproving it) This thread won't violate the law now...

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[ZombieWomble]

What the GP was thinking of was, I believe, normal numbers, which are defined as those whose digits have a uniform distribution. Obviously all normal numbers are irrational, but not all irrational numbers are normal, as you point out.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[c]

> Only if the thread is irrational

What discussion thread isn't? The empty thread?

c.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Tony Hoyle]

Try reading the The Godwins Law FAQ

The point of Godwins Law is that once a thread degenerates into comparisons with Hitler that thread is effectively over, and can be killfiled by the participants without risk of losing any useful information.

This leads to the tradition that mention of Nazis in a thread by a participant automatically makes them lose the argument (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html)

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Erie Ed]

so then whats the law for soviet russia, because that gets brought up on /. almost on a daily basis...

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand that mime. 99 % of the time it's used improperly. Plus it's condescending and doesn't demonstrate any kind of imagination. Reminds me a lot of high school bullies type of humour.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[hostyle]

"When I see professional clowns, mimes, or people who makes balloon animals, I think of their relatives and how disappointed they must be." - Jimmy Fallon

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[91degrees]

In an infinitely long thread, you are absolutely certain to have at least one mention of every single concept, object, philosophy and idea ever known to humanity, because of the way probability works.

Only if the thread is irrational (just like you can find any combination of numbers in pi or e). In a nice, rational thread, you'll eventually get repetitions and the thread will loop back to itself

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

(For those interested in the subject, Godwin's Law states that as the length of any discussion approaches infinity, the probability of a reference to Naziism

Only, nowadays its a certain George W ....

Why else would you see his name mentioned here
http://www.thevarguy.com/2008/07/22/oscon-2008-microsoft-attends-but-apple-steals-the-show/ ;)

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[X3J11]

with a Godwin Law violation...

One does not violate Godwin's Law, one invokes it.

To violate it would mean that the subject of said Law is never mentioned in an infinitely long thread, which as jd mentioned earlier, would be impossible.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Minwee]

Try reading the article at the top of the page you're on.

"Memphis Police Director, Larry Godwin, is suing AOL"

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you can construct a number of possible inappropriate nazi germany comparisons for the original story

. -OR-

You could also note the protagonist's name is

Godwin

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[digitig]

with a Godwin Law violation...

One does not violate Godwin's Law, one invokes it.

To violate it would mean that the subject of said Law is never mentioned in an infinitely long thread, which as jd mentioned earlier, would be impossible.

Except, as others have pointed out, JD got to that correct conclusion through an incorrect argument. I could write a script that would generate an infinitely long thread that never mentioned Nazis (because every post in the thread would just say "Hello, Cowboy Neal!") but because it could never run to termination the infinite thread with no reference to Nazism would never actually exist. Of course, somebody else could post to the thread with a reference to Nazism, so unless it did run to termination (or somebody made such a post) we would never know whether or not Godwin's law was going to be violated at some point in the future.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Senselessly specific and statistically meaningless...well, you must be proud of yourself, having took the time to study and explain a concept that you yourself acknowledge is fundamentally useless.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, ain't that the truth

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

The intelligence in the universe is constant. More people are being born than are dieing.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no robocaust!

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I could, but I found it more entertaining to give a completely straight answer.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be new here...

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[somersault]

I think you mean 'meme'. Unless there's a whole other level of slashdot interaction that I am not aware of, where people mime each meme.

In any case, I propose a Meta-Meme-Mime Meme: I feel a great disturbance in the air, as if every slashdotter in the world suddenly mimed the meme 'whoosh'.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[ArcherB]

Try reading the The Godwins Law FAQ

The point of Godwins Law is that once a thread degenerates into comparisons with Hitler that thread is effectively over, and can be killfiled by the participants without risk of losing any useful information.

This leads to the tradition that mention of Nazis in a thread by a participant automatically makes them lose the argument (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html)

What if the whole point of the article is about real world Nazis? Is there no point in reading it?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[akzeac]

Methinks you are confusing irrationals with normal numbers. It's not yet proven whether pi or e are normal.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[somersault]

I know you're referring to rational and irrational as numerical concepts, but do you seriously expect to be able to describe any slashdot discussion thread (never mind an infinitely long one) as completely 'rational'? ;)

Godwin's law is likely to be invoked pretty quickly in any debate where both sides dislike each other, a lot quicker than my law at least: "as any discussion continues to infinity, the probability of a man on horseback lighting jelly babies on fire, tossing them up into the air and catching them in his eyes being mentioned approaches 1".

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[sm62704]

That was an excellent post, except you dodn't add any links. From the Nazis at Wikipedia:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not state whether any reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the probability of such a reference increases over time. It is precisely because such a comparison may sometimes be appropriate that Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

In one of its early forms, Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[5] The law is now applied to any threaded online discussion, including electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, blog comment threads, and wiki talk pages.

From the Uncyclopedia death camps:

"Godwin's Law is precisely like Hitler. The similarities between Godwin's law and the Nazis are uncanny. People who start screaming that the fascist law of Godwin has been invoked are no better then the guards at the Nazi death camps." ~ Godwin's Law on Godwin's Law

You'd better log off. Science says - he's coming for you.Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Apparition) is a scientific law. It is not a theory!

The law states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Nazis or Hitler spontaneously materialising and enacting systematic genocide against the poster approaches one. Godwin's Law does not question whether the genocide enacted by Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate or justified, but only asserts that the enactment of one is increasingly probable.

The most frequent invocation of the law today is found on Wikipedia, where discussion threads for the most trivial of topics cover pages and pages. This explains the origin of the WikiNazis who roam the site, permitting only their warped "NOPV" version of the facts.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[PopeRatzo]

What if the whole point of the article is about real world Nazis? Is there no point in reading it?

That's the sound of my head exploding.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[PopeRatzo]

a certain George W

No, with Bush it's a little different. I believe it's something like "The longer Bush remains in office the probability of his dying in a bunker in Germany approaches 1".

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's just interpretation of Godwin's Law tacked on by silly people who want to look down their noses at other people based on their choice of metaphor. The point of the actual law is to make an amusing observation about how Hitler is loved/hated in our culture.

Invoking Godwin's Law == Pointing out that a particular thread must eventually mention Nazis.

Violating Godwin's Law == Running a long thread with no mention of Nazis.

Confirming Godwin's Law == Mentioning Nazis in a thread.

Evading Godwin's Law == Mentioning Stalin instead of Hitler.

Just Making Things Worse == Mentioning George W. Bush instead of Hitler.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[sm62704]

so then whats the law for soviet russia

In Soviet Russia, the law breaks YOU!

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[somersault]

First of all - expecting /.ers to stay on one topic? Even if it's not the topic of the summary/article? You must be new here ;)

Comparing the chances of something coming up in an infinite discussion (and note that no /. discussion is infinite, they are locked after a week or 2) to the odds of throwing a 6 in one throw is spurious. Out of 6 fair throws it is reasonably probable you will get at least one 6. Out of 12 fair throws it is even more probable you will get at least one 6. Out of an infinite number of fair throws, the chances are very close to one that you will get at least one 6.

Likewise, out of an infinite discussion (which is kind of beyond our comprehension, becuase even the whole of human discussion in the past, present and future is not infinite, and most people would get bored of a slashdot discussion or feel they've proven their point and move onto another discussion), the chances of any topic cropping up do indeed approach one. The chances of a topic being mentioned at any single moment kind of depend on what is being discussed, but taken over time, the chances of a completely random topic being mentioned do approach one due to the very nature of infinity, and the capacity for humans to ramble on and on. Much like I'm doing now.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[somersault]

In that case, if I compare your informative dialect style to that of Hitlers, does that mean you can't reply to me? In a conversation between 2 people Godwin's law would work, but in a place like /. filled with know it alls and trolls who are free to interrupt any thread, you might be ruining a perfectly good discussion just because some idiot has come along and made comparisons with the Nazis..

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[somersault]

you must be proud of yourself, having took the time to study and explain a concept that you yourself acknowledge is fundamentally useless

Hey, if it's acceptable to give geeks sex education using taxpayer's money, why isn't it acceptable to explain other useless concepts to us?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[SoVeryTired]

That's not the case at all. Take the binary expansion of PI and interpret it as a decimal. That gives you an irrational, decimal number which doesn't use the digits two to nine.

Similarly, you can have a non-terminating, non-repeating discussion without saying "Godwin".

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[UnknowingFool]

only for extremely large values of 1

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[jimthehorsegod]

Or for extremely small values of infinity...

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice one :-D Too bad I don't have mod points. (mime despising AC here)

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[hesiod]

And thus we come full circle... Whoooosh

Do you know the difference between meme and mime?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you propose to violate Godwin's Law? Do you even know what Godwin's Law is?

What are you? Some sort of Godwin Nazi?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice one too.
As it happens, i really dislike mimes too, but I did mean meme.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I do.
Do you know the difference between misconception and misspelling ?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[tehcyder]

Your comment makes about as much sense as a man on horseback lighting jelly babies on fire, tossing them up into the air and catching them in his eyes.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Sheafification]

This is false, and demonstrably so. As locofungus points out Liouville's constant is irrational, but only has the number 0 and 1 in its decimal expansion.

Irrational numbers may not have repeating decimals, but that's no guarantee that you can find any combination of numbers. In fact quite the opposite. The examples you list, pi and e, are famously unknown to have the property that any sequence of numbers appears in their expansion. It's actually quite a hard problem.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Maxime]

Yes, that makes sense, but the number of such cases is infinitesimally small compared to the number of "normal" cases.
Hence the fact that the probability approaches 1. Nobody said anything about it ever reaching 1.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[DavidTC]

You are assuming that all discussions can and do last forever. On many forums, this place included, discussion must cease after a certain amount of time.

Even in places like Usenet, where discussions and theoretically last 'forever' (Or at least long as there is intelligent life), in practice software stops carrying and display threads that are past a certain age.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[digitig]

You are assuming that all discussions can and do last forever.

Er, no I'm not. I explicitly wrote that the script could not run to termination.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[somersault]

Freudian slip then. Much more forgivable than a typo ;)

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh - I got a first post!!!

Mind you, I always have trouble with Godwin's law. You see, I don't see Hitler as the epitome of all evil.

No, I'm not a Nazi, it's just that I suspect that, given the chance, many politicians would have ended up like Hitler in the same situation. I think they all have the capability of being pretty evil, and many African and Asian ones are doing just this as we speak.

So when I think "that's just how Hitler started" on seeing some Bush action, I really do mean it. I think we're often very close to a dictatorship. Imagine what it would be like if Bush were a top orator, like Hitler, and America really was being encircled by enemies. He could well create a political climate in which we would be happy to suspend the constitution. However, I have to keep these thoughts to myself, and pretend that there was something specially bad about Hitler, so we must never think that we could end up like him.

I don't think that's true, folks. Hitler was a man, and a politician, much the same as any other to begin with. Pretending he was special in some way means that we could repeat the 1930s if we aren't careful...

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[D Ninja]

Only if the thread is irrational

What discussion thread isn't? The empty thread?

One where no girls are involved.

I would say I am going to be modded down for this, but considering there are 0 females on Slashdot, I'm not too worried.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

What are your feelings on memes?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[hedgomatic]

Quit being such a Godwin's law Nazi.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

You posted as AC, then came back an hour later and read the replies to your post. That tells me you do give a flying fuck what people think.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[SleptThroughClass]

Just make sure we get a followup article when one of the legal documents in the case mentions Hitler.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Whoosh!

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Dog-Cow]

Everyone is dying, but not everyone is being born, hence you are completely incorrect.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind. I think it's the only time I've ever seen the redundant mod used correctly.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have any feeling on memes in general.
Only about the "Wooosh" one.
It's often used to dismiss without even a thought any serious answer to a joke. Believe it or not, interesting stuff can come out of a serious point of view on things that at first seem ridiculous.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[celle]

And if they're right?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

They're miming the "joke" going over someone's head. Mime, not meme.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible for a post to be +5 redundant?

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the whole point of the article is about real world Nazis? Is there no point in reading it?

Ahem.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[dgatwood]

Guess you were wrong. At this point, we can posit the existence of at least one female on Slashdot. Given the lack of a second downward moderation, however, we can likely bound the number at less than 2 * (1 / p) where p is the probability of a given user getting mod points today, assuming a normal distribution.... :-D

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Crazyswedishguy]

The Slashdot thread of course!

...wait, I take that back.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[reboot246]

I'm reminded of the immortal words of Marcel Marceau, "___ ___ _____ _ ____".

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[jd]

Yes. You need to have it marked +5 (something else), where one previous negative moderation has occurred. The next moderation must be -1 Redundant, followed by the prior negative moderation being lost through the person posting in that discussion. If two prior negative moderations have occurred, it used to be possible to get a +6 moderation by this method, but from the lack of any examples in a long time, I believe that has been eliminated. +6 Troll was a difficult one to achieve, but could be done.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[Anonymous Coward]

Did nobody else notice that one of the most selected tags says "cencorship" rather than "censorship" ?

Hello? Bueller? I think Slashdot just had a sudden outbreak of lemmingitis.

Re:Do, Do let me be first..

[somersault]

Did you not read the poster's reply to me saying he meant meme? Even IRL it's not a mime, because it involves sound.

Send Larry the legal bill

[Alain Williams]

If Larry Godwin is using tax dollars to protect himself from embarassment then his force should investigate him for misuse of public funds, prosecute him and make him pay the bill.

If the bloggers are leaking information that harms investigations then Larry is doing the right thing; if they are merely critical of Larry then they should be encouraged at their efforts to improve the police service.

Re:Send Larry the legal bill

[Anonymous Coward]

if they are merely critical of Larry then they should be encouraged at their efforts to improve the police service.

But that's not the American way, sue sue sue is how its done these days

Re:Send Larry the legal bill

[zoomshorts]

Typical Memphis mindset. Remember the Amateur Action BBS stuff Larry Parrish
dragged the Thomas's through in a venue shopping attack? Memphis morons.

Re:Send Larry the legal bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing: To Larry, embarrassment IS harming his investigations. Being critical is making things harder for him. It's a small-town parallel to how anyone who doesn't support the war is a terrorist.

capcha: "recounts"

Re:Send Larry the legal bill

[Malevolyn]

Plus, I'm not sure why he thinks he'll win, considering the first amendment and I didn't see any sensitive material on the blog itself. Isn't it poor little Larry's job to know the law? Including the amendments? Or do I have the term "officer of the law" confused with something else?

Re:Send Larry the legal bill

[gregbot9000]

The question is what kind of idiot who is inside uses a blog to reveal information and registers with his real name or doesn't use a proxy. Call me paranoid but basic counter survailence techniqes should be in bloggers FAQ.

what?

[edittard]

is interestingly

I don't know whether to be amusingly or annoyingly about the quality of the editing round here.

Re:what?

[Alarindris]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interestingly Interestingly - in an interesting manner.

Re:what?

[Bozzio]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interestingly

Interestingly.
ADVERB

Either there's a word missing in the sentence, or it should be rewritten:
And, interestingly, Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this. The complaint is sealed."
  - or -
Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this, and, interestingly, the complaint is sealed."

Re:what?

[Frosty Piss]

Either there's a word missing in the sentence...

You must be under some mistaken impression that Slashdot has "editors" that vet the stories.

Re:what?

[Alarindris]

Wow totally didn't see the 'is'. Funny how easily your brain can filter things out.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I enjoy being interestingly, thank you very much.

Re:what?

[Stanislav_J]

Grammar is for Grandmas -- it's so 20th century.....

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also remove the 'actually' as it adds nothing to the sentence.

Re:what?

[clickety6]

Grammar is for Grandmas -- it's so 20th century.....

I thought Grammar was for Grampar !

Re:what?

[rugatero]

Using the same thinking, your use of 'also' is not strictly necessary. Nor is my use of 'strictly'.

Re:what?

[dwater]

Here, I've fixed it :

"Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this and is interestingly illiterate ; the complaint is sealed."

Oh, no. That would be whoever posted the article. ...and, no, I don't know in what way his illiteracy might be interesting, though I can probably think of one or two ways, if I put my mind to it.

Re:what?

[Synonymous Bosch]

Perhaps it was sealed in an interesting fashion?

With ear wax, for example. Or by a team of weaver ants.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this and is interestingly, the complaint is sealed".

I think GP was pointing out the shockingly bad editing when taken in context.

Yes, the "amusingly or annoyingly" bit was probably supposed to be irony.

Re:what?

[wylderide]

Is? Can't get very far without is.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

- or -
Interestingly, Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this. The complaint is sealed."
    - or -
Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this. Interestingly, the complaint is sealed."

No you've got it wrong. It's a question:

"Is Godwin actually using taxpayer dollars for this and is interestingly, the complaint sealed?"
    - or -
"Is Godwin actually using taxpayer dollars for this and is the complaint interestingly sealed?"
    - or -

"Is Godwin interestingly using taxpayer dollars for this and is the complaint actually sealed?"

Re:what?

[Gerzel]

Strictly is necessary depending on the contexts of "strictly necessary" as it does indeed modify rather than only reinforce necessary.

An example would be that safety measures are not strictly necessary for a functional nuclear reactor but anyone building a reactor would put such measures in the necessary category.

Re:what?

[sm62704]

As somebody who was born in the middle of the 20th century, I got to correct you. It just ain't so. Nobody never used proper grammar back then, neither.

Grammar is so ninteenth century.

Re:what?

[somersault]

Likewise. Also funny how the gp thinks that a word has to be missing rather than noticing there is an extra word o_0

Re:what?

[Fnord666]

it's so 20th century.....

Apparently so is the Constitution.

Re:what?

[Subm]

What a bunch of grammar nazis!

Can we get back to Godwin now?

Re:what?

[rugatero]

On behalf of myself and the AC, I concede defeat in this pedantry contest. Congratulations!

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird. I always thought that was more of an 18th century thing.

A link

[miraboo]

to the actual blog: http://mpdenforcer20.blogspot.com/

Re:A link

[BPPG]

They make some pretty serious allegations in this blog. Including possible murder cover-ups and tolerance of rampant sexual harassment directed at females in the police force.

I'm not sure I really believe everything I'm reading here, but if much of it is true, then I can see why the MPD would want to shut them up.

Re:A link

[dbcad7]

I haven't read the blog.. So I don't know how specific it gets, or if it names names.. but you can't assume that this is just to "shut someone up".. it could very well be that they might want to do something with these allegations.. There is also the fact that this blogger has knowledge of alleged crimes.. and this can go either way.. he could find himself a criminal, or a witness... I would think at this point, he needs to take what he knows to whatever authority (justice department ?) for investigation.. because otherwise, I think he will find himself on the criminal side, with obstruction of justice.

Of course my opinions are based on too many TV cop shows...

Re:A link

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If it's not true, then it's probably libel, then the blogger should be stopped.

Re:A link

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is not true it is equally reasonable to want to shut him up ...

Re:A link

[forand]

Or, just to give the appearance of being fair, they could be trying to get enough information to actually investigate the allegations. While I wear a tin foil hat as most seem to here, sometimes people are doing what is right and if what he is claiming is true then going to the feds or a trusted authority is the correct action not just posting rants on a blog.

Re:A link

[tinkerghost]

I've known several female police officers. If there wasn't sexual harassment going on I would be stunned.

Q: Why are most female police officers absolute cunts?

A: Because the ones who have a soul were driven off the job.

A large number of cops are exactly the pigs we refer to them as - they are bullies with badges with way too much testosterone and not enough brains. Female cops do not fit into their little world except as meter maids and clerks - and they have no objection to showing them exactly that.

One former female cop I know spent part of a shift bagging several hundred used condoms that had been dumped into her car. Another did the same with tampons & pads.

Propositions are a constant & threats are not uncommon following rejection.

Discipline for shit like this is usually an unofficial "don't do it again" or "sensitivity training" which just pisses them off more.

Re:A link

[DavidTC]

The police are not in charge of stopping or even investigating things that are 'probably libel'.

The courts are in charge of deciding if something is actually libel or not, and awarding damages, and ordering that the libeler remove the libel, with the police as enforcement if he refuses.

Re:A link

[Anonymous Coward]

if it weren't true, they wouldn't care.

Re:A link

[Darundal]

Well, if a quarter of what is on that blog is true, then it is pretty apparent that they are trying to shut it up and not fix anything.

Re:A link

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is not true, then the blog has committed slander which is a crime.

Re:A link

[Anonymous Coward]

Same bullshit arguement used by when people say "wiretap my phone, I have nothing to hide!"

Anyone else over the internet?

[kaos07]

I don't actually think there's anything intrinsically "technological" about this story, be it the fact that there's an anonymous whistle-blower or that the boss is trying to hunt him down, except maybe the amount of people the blogger it could reach. But, and yes I know this clearly is not the case, the Internet was supposed to free us and allow us to share knowledge and information freely and that includes opinions. Since that obviously is no longer here (If it ever was), I think it's time to find or create something else.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[kaos07]

Some of you may wonder about the long-windedness of a such a simple point. The thing is, I was trying to pre-empt essentially useless replies from other Slashdotters that get modded Insightful. Say I had written it much simpler without the commas and brackets, like this:

"I don't actually think there's anything intrinsically "technological" about this story, be it the fact that there's an anonymous whistle-blower or that the boss is trying to hunt him down. But the Internet was supposed to free us and allow us to share knowledge and information freely and that includes opinions. Since that obviously is no longer here I think it's time to find or create something else."

The first reply to this would have been "There is something fundamentally different about whistle-blowers on the internet. They can attract far more attention and spread their views to more people than in the past. It would have been modded Insightful.

The second would have said "The internet is not free, lulz, read Slashdot and The Register more. You must be new here" etc. It would also have modded Insightful.

And finally, "The internet was never free! Was built and designed by corrupt organisations and is much a scam for our money and freedom as is anything else." You guessed it. Insightful.

Then, obviously, you get the expected three replies to each of those posts and the thread exponentially drifts more and more off-topic until the initial point is lost amongst a haze of Natalie Portman's and gritz.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not technological no.

It is a legal matter and it relates to "The Slashdot Crowd" because it will define what can legally be done on the internet. This is still quite a shady area because the internet is still young and doesn't have the same protections as newspaper does.

The interesting part is that unlike a news paper the company hosting the site doesn't have a great financial interest in free speech.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize it's low tech but meeting face to face and discussing these things is legal and covered but under free speech ad free assembly. Sadly technology wasn't a consideration when the Constitution was written and the government doesn't like the rights people have now so they aren't likely to expand those to include something as easily accessible as the internet.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[kaos07]

The interesting part is that unlike a news paper the company hosting the site doesn't have a great financial interest in free speech.

Actually, they do.

Bloggers don't want their opinions and views to be silenced by "the man". If AOL gets a reputation as a company all too willing to help hush-hush bloggers (The people who bring traffic and revenue to their site), they'll experience a backlash.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Stanislav_J]

Then, obviously, you get the expected three replies to each of those posts and the thread exponentially drifts more and more off-topic until the initial point is lost amongst a haze of Natalie Portman's and gritz.

But "Natalie Portman's [sic] and gritz [sicker]" is the whole reason why I visit Slashdot.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[MrNaz]

It's time to create something else that provides free speech? They already did, it's called Europe.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Beezlebub33]

Free speech in Europe? Try promoting Nazism in Germany. Try denying that the Holocaust happened in Austria. Try insulting Ataturk in Turkey (okay, let's not argue whether or not Turkey is in Europe).

Free speech is more free in the U.S.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[rah1420]

Now, Grasshopper, THAT's a true demonstration of how Godwin's law works. :)

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[SkunkPussy]

Free speech in Europe? Try promoting Nazism in Germany. Try denying that the Holocaust happened in Austria. Try insulting Ataturk in Turkey (okay, let's not argue whether or not Turkey is in Europe).

Free speech is more free in the U.S.

what about free speech in Mexico (okay, let's not argue whether or not Mexico is in USA)

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Hektor_Troy]

Indeed - you even have such highly protected rights like "free speech zones". Not to mention how you have the FCC decide what can and cannot be said on public airwaves. And of course the FCC is an elected commision, answerable to the voters as well as congress, right?

Arguing that Free Speech is more free in the US vs Europe results in some interesting argument, especially as the things you're pointing out are individual countries, not the EU.

Hell, I can mention an EU member who up until a few years ago had a nationally funded Nazi radio station until the politician changed the funding law in a way that hurt I think 50 other radio stations. The result - they're still on the air through private funding. Aditionally, this country came under attack from Turkey for not banning ROJ from broadcasting sattelite TV.

As for insulting Ataturk? Have a look at the Dixie Chicks - sure, that wasn't government censorship, but you can't really have free speech when you have that many members of the public upset over someone making use of their free speech.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it true that American woman sleep with their Bra's on?

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[sumdumass]

For what I read on the blog site, I'm not sure that a news paper would be protected from what was said. Most of the posts are speculation and innuendo that presents little evidence. It is really close to libel if not already there. Of course if he has evidence that isn't being presented, then it isn't libel but it still isn't a "News" story that would be protected under normal situations.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[howlinmonkey]

The outrage of the public over the Dixie Chicks is the perfect example of free speech, not an example of censorship. The DC were free to sing their song, and the public was free to react and let them know that it wasn't well received.

Please tell me where the government stepped in to curtail anyone's free speech rights in that situation?

(Hint: censorship is carried out by governments, not the public)

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Oligonicella]

Dixie Chicks? Bull. Totally free speech. She was able to say what she wanted before and after the hubbub. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from response. Your last paragraph is pap.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Double_Dark]

The right to free speech is a limitation on the government. Both the public and private enterprise have wide latitude to make restrictions such as refusing to give airtime to a band or refusing to print an article. For another example of this see what happened with the Hollywood blacklist.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

As for insulting Ataturk? Have a look at the Dixie Chicks - sure, that wasn't government censorship, but you can't really have free speech when you have that many members of the public upset over someone making use of their free speech.

The Dixie Chicks have every right to say they're ashamed of President Bush... and people have every right to say they're ashamed of the Dixie Chicks.

Much like the RIAA doesn't have a right to your money if they produce crap, the Dixie Chicks don't have a right to money if they offend their fans. Nobody threw them in jail, people just refused to listen to or buy their music because they didn't want to support them. Free speech cuts both ways: you have the right to criticize and others thave the right to criticize you. Don't want to be criticized? Then don't put your foot in your mouth to begin with.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[sumdumass]

Wow.. So many issues but I will only comment on one of them.

Have a look at the Dixie Chicks - sure, that wasn't government censorship, but you can't really have free speech when you have that many members of the public upset over someone making use of their free speech.

99% of the people weren't upset with what was said, it was the venue it was said in and where. When you wait until going over seas to open your damn mouth and speak ill of the country or it's leaders, you are unAmerican. The exception of course is if your doing it all along within the country too (look a George Cloony). The Dixie Chicks didn't care to mention that one bit in the country and only trashed the president to promote sales overseas. If you actually think it was "what they said", then you need to take another look.

The people felt like they were lied to by what the group did.

I know I said I was only going to address one but I think I'm going to clear a few other things up too.

"free speech zones".

Free speech doesn't give you a venue nor does it give you any right to imped on anyone else's free speech. The free speech zones limit the ability to take both.

FCC decide what can and cannot be said on public airwaves

Not really. They control the decency over what can be broadcasts over the airwaves to ensure it isn't offensive to the intended audience. It doesn't control the content or subject matter except in that it limits swear words, and sexual nudity/material that many people find offensive. It has venues available for anyone wanting that type of programing. To say they decide what can and cannot be said is disingenuous at best, otherwise misleading. At best, they control a minute amount abut what cannot be said on over the air broadcasts and to a smaller extent on regular cable programing.

As for the Europe situation you presented, I don't know enough about them to comment so I won't.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[langelgjm]

Indeed - you even have such highly protected rights like "free speech zones". Not to mention how you have the FCC decide what can and cannot be said on public airwaves. And of course the FCC is an elected commision, answerable to the voters as well as congress, right?

I agree, free speech zones are idiotic. However, the FCC does not decide what you can and can't say over the airwaves. You can say whatever the the hell you want into your cell phone, and you'll never receive a fine (actually this historically was not always the case with telephones). What the FCC has decided (ostensibly at the behest of the people) is that free speech does not extend to the point of being able to pump expletives into millions of homes, while using a public resource to do so.

As for insulting Ataturk? Have a look at the Dixie Chicks - sure, that wasn't government censorship, but you can't really have free speech when you have that many members of the public upset over someone making use of their free speech.

I don't think you understand what free speech (at least in the US) is. As others have replied to you, it doesn't mean that there's no reaction or consequences or outcry over what you say. It just means that you're not denied the right to say it by the government.

Finally, you do have to admit that the U.S. is a much friendlier place for Holocaust deniers. They'll still rightly be ridiculed as hateful, ignorant people, but they won't be thrown in jail.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[moosesocks]

You're making the assumption that AOL gives a damn about its customers.

I'm not sure that's a terribly great assumption.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[tehcyder]

Try promoting Nazism in Germany.

That is going beyond free speech and into the realm of political action.

Try fundraising for Al Qaeda in the US and see how far you get.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[geekoid]

"(Hint: censorship is carried out by governments, not the public)"

Who started that incorrect thought? is it only on slashdot? I certianly hope so.

It is wrong. Any large group can censor, any corporation can censor. Any person can censor.

censorship

noun
1. counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring]
2. deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censoring]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

tr.v. cenÂsored, cenÂsorÂing, cenÂsors
To examine and expurgate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

one has to do with speech and the other is supporting an enemy of the State.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[howlinmonkey]

In the context of this discussion, censorship implies curtailing free speech rights. When an individual, group, or corporation exercises censorship, the effect is limited, and no rights are trampled upon.

In the example given, the Dixie Chicks did not loose the right to sing their song, and it was still available to anyone who wanted to listen. Individual or group censorship is the other side of the free speech coin. You have the right to say whatever you want, and I have the right to not listen

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[quanticle]

Indeed - you even have such highly protected rights like "free speech zones".

If they weren't free speech zones, those fences hemming in the protesters at the G8 summit in Genoa were what, exactly?

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. A free-speech zone by any other name smells just as shitty.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[celle]

It wasn't that many members, just the corporates caved in to the few that complained.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[paperdiesel]

That's going to be a nasty backlash; two of the five remaining AOL users will cancel their subscriptions in protest! The horror!

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Analogy Man]

I once heard of a mythical place where the truth could be spoken without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately this poor bloke might have see if he can find a job there.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[UnknowingFool]

True, in the Dixie Chicks case it wasn't the government that did anything. Rather, a large radio corporation (not to mention names here) decided that they were going to be proactive and ordered their radio stations to ban the Dixie Chicks from their stations. Senators from both parties were troubled by the action. Senator McCain who disagreed with the Dixie Chicks' statement said:

"If a local station made a decision not to play a particular band, then that is what localism is all about. But when a corporate decision is made that (a company's radio stations) will not play a group because of a political statement, then that comes back to what we're talking about with media consolidation."

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Didn't have to, with friends and associates of Bush in charge at Clear Channel:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E1DD1230F936A15750C0A9659C8B63

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Beezlebub33]

I know I should not rise to this bait.

Mexico is not part of the USA. Both are separate countries, both are located in North America, where that's defined as part of the North American continent or the continental plate.

Istanbul is in the country of Turkey, and is the largest city in Europe. What counts as 'Europe'? It's a traditional geopolitical continental boundary, though it's part of the Eurasian landmass and continental plate. Most of Turkey is considered part of Asia. Wikipedia: "Turkey is physiographically considered a transcontinental country in Western Asia (UN region) and Southern Europe. However the population and area figures include the entire state, both the European and Asian portions."

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

There team played in the Euro Cup, ergo they are part of Europe. :)

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[Big Jojo]

The DC were free to sing their song

Not as free as they were before they pointed out an uncomfortable truth. Clearchannel pretty much booted them off most country radio stations.

and the public was free to react

More like, Clearchannel was free to react. Large portions of the public were fully supportive of that truth ... but their voices were all but drowned out by ClearChannel whipping up a little fascism on the Dixie Chicks.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[howlinmonkey]

So because Clear Channel stopped playing their songs, the public was unable to go out and buy their music, or find it on their favorite torrent sites?

See, Clear Channel has the freedom to disagree with the Chicks. They have the right to choose which music to play, and which music to leave on the shelf. That is the definition of freedom of speech. Individuals, groups, and businesses have the freedom to choose what to say, what to see, and what to support. Freedom of speech is only violated when the government steps in to curtail that freedom.

One man's fascism is another man's freedom. You are free to hold your opinions, whether I or anyone likes them or agrees with them.

Re:Anyone else over the internet?

[howlinmonkey]

Conspiracy theories aside, are you surprised that someone who supports GWB would prefer not to play music that is critical of him? If you had a public forum, would you make anything available that opposed your opinions and beliefs? Of course not!

Again, this is freedom of speech, not censorship.

Great idea.

[AhabTheArab]

Because all you have really ensured is that the blog will get a decent amount of free publicity.

Re:Great idea.

[kaos07]

Godwin's Law meets the Streisand Effect? Meme Meltdown!

Re:Great idea.

[Dash Hash]

Similar to my thoughts, sans the whole meme bit.
The attempt to silence the blog, especially with tax money, will blow up so badly it will make our oh-so-glorious capitol's fireworks displays look paltry and dull in comparison.

Anyway, I wonder if there is any way to change an "effect" into a "law".

1st...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I forgot about the First Amendment being repealed and the new laws forbidding freedom of speech... oh wait

Re:1st...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watches the AC being snatched by a gang of thugs in jackboots and black jump suits....

Re:1st...

[kaos07]

The point of being an Anonymous Coward is so the gangs of thugs don't know who you are...

Oh, and to troll.

Re:1st...

[AhabTheArab]

Oh I forgot about the First Amendment being repealed and the new laws forbidding freedom of speech... oh wait

While the 1st Amendment should (operative word) protect Anonymous Blogger from lawsuit, it may not protect him from company/department policy. For example my employer has a policy stating something to the effect of:

You can't say anything that could damage or discredit [insert company name here]. Failure to comply is grounds for reprimand, termination, etc..

I'm sure many other organizations have a similar policy which allows for the termination of whistle blowers, especially if their claim doesn't hold it's weight.

Re:1st...

[daniorerio]

Your company can say that, and with good reason, but it still raises the question if they are entitled to anonymous blogger's name in a lawsuit. IANAL, but I think they don't.

Re:1st...

[sumdumass]

After reading the blog in question, it appears that it is mostly speculation and innuendo which runs very close to if not passing into libel. This isn't just a blog that says X happened, it says X and Y happen therefor Z is true without offering a connection between either X, Y, or Z.

Anonymous speech shouldn't be used to protect a violation of the law if that is the case. If a company as in your reply is complaining about the same potential libel from slanderous comments, then it is likely they would have an entitlement to the blogger's identity. If it doesn't reach that point, I'm not sure if they would or should.

leaks that might affect investigations

[Anonymous Coward]

If the real concern is that officers are improperly leaking information on the interwebs, then is suing AOL really the best course of action? Surely, in the history of law enforcement, they've had leaks before and have some strategies to deal with them?

You've missed something important

[Drenaran]

Yes, what you say is true, but you forget that this America! We are KINGS of misappropriating funds to defend politicians and law enforcement, and our legal system is all for supporting such practices (since it helps protect them as well). Screw what is right, what about the status quo!

Yes, this statement is perhaps pandering, but it's also painfully true (dammit).

Re:You've missed something important

[jd]

I don't know why people keep subjecting Status Quo to American culture. They're a great British rock group and should be left that way.

Re:You've missed something important

[Chris Mattern]

We are KINGS of misappropriating funds to defend politicians and law enforcement,

No, we aren't. It happens here, yes; it happens everywhere. It's even a defendable proposition that it's been getting worse here. But there are countries out there that make us look like pikers. Burma, to pick a particularly egregious example.

Re:You've missed something important

[Anonymous Coward]

this America! We are ***KINGS*** of misappropriating funds to defend politicians and law enforcement, and our legal system is all for supporting such practices

Clearly you haven't been to Sri Lanka.

Re:You've missed something important

[Elldallan]

Yes dictatorships and their like tends to be much better at misappropriating funds for personal interest but US is a democracy and thus subject to higher standards on matters like these.

Modern dictatorships usually exists to enrich the dictator but democracies claims that they exist to protect the general population and hence your comparison is not very fitting.

Re:You've missed something important

[Anonymous Coward]

We?

You're not one of those people who lumps an entire population, consisting of unique thinking individuals, into one giant borg-like unit that mindlessly thinks in unison?

Re:You've missed something important

[smoker2]

"but democracies claims that they exist to protect the general population"
Yeah "protect" like in the phrase "protection racket".
Besides which, democracy is not designed to "protect" the general population - it is designed to allow governance that is representative of the majority's wishes. No "protection" or safety inherent in that. The police aren't there for your safety, they are there to catch criminals. The military aren't there for your safety, they are there to protect the government from outside aggressors.
This repeated tagging of government activities as "for your safety" is a load of bollox, and leads to interception of your communications, categorisation of certain groups of people as undesirable, and a virtually unlimited line of credit from your pocket.

Re:You've missed something important

[wellingj]

The way the constitution and the amendments was designed was supposed to protect individuals against the majority rule of government. Mistaking that for "protect you, for your safety" is the single largest misconception that the USA has, and it's killing the once fine form of government we had.

Re:You've missed something important

[sumdumass]

This is all because some jack ass started teaching kids that the word public servant means the public official serves the public instead of simply belonging to the public services work sector.

In fact, most kids graduating from schools today think the government is there to serve them in some way.

Re:You've missed something important

[stoofa]

Did you mean to say Burma or did you just panic?

Re:You've missed something important

[sm62704]

Yes dictatorships and their like tends to be much better at misappropriating funds for personal interest but US is a democracy

Actually, no it isn't. The US is a republic, not a Democracy. It isn't even a democratic republic; if it were, before any bill became law it would have to be voted on my the citizens.

We have "almost" democratically elected legislators. I say "almost" because we are more of a plutocracy than a democracy; usually the candidate with the most money to spend on his campaign wins. This allows the corporates, who own the media, to marginalize all but two of the political parties and "contribute" to those two, making whoever wins beholden to them.

I truly wish we were a democratic republic, where nobody could contribute to more than one candidate in any given race, where nobody could contribute to a candidate he wasn't eligible to vote for, where all laws expired after ten years and had to be relegislated, and where no bill became law unless voted on by the citizens.

I'd like to be rich, too, but that's about as likely to happen.

Re:You've missed something important

[DavidTC]

Pffft, everyone does that.

Re:You've missed something important

[Tanktalus]

where all laws expired after ten years and had to be relegislated

I like this ... except for the part that there really are some laws that should not be subjected to "forgetting" about them. For example, murder. Or term limits (such as for the President). Perhaps a supermajority of both the house and congress plus a simple majority of state governors would allow the President to optionally sign the "make this permanent" line on a bill. Sort of like constitutional amendments (which also should not be put to expiry), but a bit simpler (since the courts can still overturn a "permanent" law, unlike a constitutional amendment).

Re:You've missed something important

[CheshireCatCO]

Uh, no. "Democratic republic" does not mean that the populace votes on bills. That would be a pure democracy. "Democratic republic" just means that we vote for our representatives. And also, no, it is not particularly the case the the winning candidate spends more than the loser. (There's an analysis of this in Freakonomics. There is a bit of a bias toward the spendier candidate, but it's not a very major effect.)

As you point out, there's much to worry about in our current system, but it's worth having you facts right before you correct others.

Re:You've missed something important

[sm62704]

A pure democracy would not need legislators; any citizen would be able to introduce a bill, and if his fellow voters approved it it would become law.

A democratic republic would have legislators, but the law wouldn't pass without a popular vote.

Ours is a republic with democratically elected legislators.

Sometimes the lesser funded candidate does win, but it's rare. Here in Illinois when the now incarcerated George Ryan ran for Governor, he barely beat his opponent in the polls despite having outspent him ten to one. If he'd only spent twice as much instead of ten times as much he likely would have lost.

Re:You've missed something important

[sm62704]

For example, murder

Do you really think they'd have a hard time passing a law against murder? I don't. Laws like that would be easily relegislated. There are no term limits on Congress or the Senate.

A "make this permanent" would be a Constitutional amendment. That requires 2/3ds of Congress and teh Senate and 2/3ds of the states approval. I guess it would likely tale a Constitutional amendment to make laws expire.

Re:You've missed something important

[CheshireCatCO]

If they aren't the ones passing the laws, they aren't legislators to begin with. Therefore, if you need popular voting to pass a law, they aren't legislators by definition. Anything else is just you redefining terms to suit your own inclinations, which is both confusing and gives you no basis to correct others.

And no, the less-funded candidate wins nearly half the time (vis-a-vis, there little effect). It matters with close races, but in general it isn't the deciding factor. If you can't be bothered to even check out the source I pointed you to, please don't try to correct me. It's rude and makes you look bad.

Re:You've missed something important

[sm62704]

What source? I saw no links, only the name of the book "Freakonomics".

Re:You've missed something important

[CheshireCatCO]

This to you is not a source? A book written by the author of the peer-reviewed papers on the topic?

Are you joking? You're acting like a 10-year-old at this point.

Re:You've missed something important

[emarks]

That's the problem with idealistic people who get rich. Suddenly their ideals change.

Re:You've missed something important

[sm62704]

You're asking me to stop what I'm doing and schlep down to the library, where I'll probably have to get an interlibrary loan to get a copy? How is that helpful here?

Re:You've missed something important

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you're saying is that the status quo is that the Status Quo are British, and you are in favor of maintaining the status quo by keeping the Status Quo in Britain?

Re:You've missed something important

[QuietObserver]

I agree completely. In fact, the United States is not a democracy at all; the method we use to elect a president should make that perfectly clear, let alone statements made by founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin (who said something to the effect of "You have a republic, if you can keep it").

Unfortunately, far too many people want the "general welfare" clause in the preamble of the constitution to mean something that it was never intended to (that clause is specifically the welfare of the nation as a whole, not of the people individually).

You know who else

[Dwedit]

You know who else sued AOL for a critical blogger's name?

Re:You know who else

[rpillala]

Does this joke rely on me knowing the answer or on the fact that I don't know the answer?

Re:You know who else

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP was implying that Hitler did such a vile act... hence invoking Godwin's Law :)

just flame a little more carefully

[speedtux]

Godwin has illegally used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States.

Accusing someone of an illegal act without having that proven in a court of law puts you at risk of getting sued for libel, and that is as it should be.

Something like this is probably less risky:

I believe Godwin has illegally used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States.

No problem with that; it's the author's opinion, not a statement of fact.

Godwin has used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States; this may be illegal.

Again, "ruining the Constitution" is fairly vague (and poorly worded to boot), so it's probably doesn't count as libel.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the fact, that there is "no unchallengeable truth" in this universe and considering the fact, that all human beings are always subjective in every single judgment they do, as no human being can claim to be 100% objective, everything you ever say is always just your opinion. Whether you explicitly state it ("In my opinion ...", "I believe ...") or not. These "diminishing" phrases are just stopgaps.

1) Earth is not the center of the universe

2) I believe/In my (humble) opinion earth is not the center of the universe

(1) == (2)

As nobody can prove to 100% that earth is not the center. It is highly unlikely, that it is the center, the chances are more than 99.99% that it is not; but there is nobody who can guarantee it isn't.
Everything I ever say is either my opinion (what else should it be?) or it is the opinion of someone else, in that case it is a quote and I should tag it as quote, to show people that this is *not* my opinion (though I might share it).

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[olliM]

Something like this is probably less risky:

I believe Godwin has illegally used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States.

No problem with that; it's the author's opinion, not a statement of fact.

Actually, it's a statement of fact disguised as an opinion. Doesn't help. Something like "Godwin is an asshole" would work, as it clearly expresses a personal opinion.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[speedtux]

Actually, it's a statement of fact disguised as an opinion.

There is nothing "disguised" about it.

"I believe he did something illegal." is an opinion. "He did something illegal." is a statement of fact.

If you can't tell the difference, you have a problem.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[speedtux]

Everything I ever say is either my opinion (what else should it be?) or it is the opinion of someone else,

And it is your responsibility to make the distinction when you speak:

"He committed this illegal act." (Implies "in the opinion of the people making up the legal system", which is the opinion that counts.)

"I believe he committed this illegal act." (In your opinion, which probably doesn't count.)

"The NYT reports that he commited this illegal act." (The NYT opinion, let them worry about it.)

That's what it's all about: tell your audience whose opinion it is. That's your responsibility.

Most statements imply whose opinion it actually is if you don't qualify them, and it's often not the speaker's.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[olliM]

"I believe he did something illegal." is an opinion. "He did something illegal." is a statement of fact.

If you can't tell the difference, you have a problem.

The two statements say exactly the same thing - you are saying he did something illegal. Whether he did or did not do something illegal is not a question of opinion, but a question of fact.

http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No - but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[Dan541]

Whats wrong with libel?

Is it not free speech?

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[freedom_india]

Anything you say is protected as free speech as long its not deliberately false.
Libel is deliberate lie.
So suing this guy with a libel statement can make the blogger turn around and sue for libel.
Am sad that the city has to take the costs of the same when the police director's salary should be deducted for wasting people's money.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[Dragonslicer]

I wouldn't rely on just being able to tack "I think" on to any statement as a defense against libel lawsuits. If a judge sees a clear pattern of you doing so purely to try to avoid libel lawsuits, they could reasonably rule that you are indeed making statements of fact. Libel is very much an issue of intent, and judges have to do a substantial amount of interpretation when dealing with libel cases.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[DavidTC]

While you are correct that tacking on 'I believe' is not always a defense to libel, in actuality saying someone 'did something illegal' is not libel. Saying someone committed specific crimes is libel.

Just saying they committed the crime of 'ruining the constitution' isn't libel, as that isn't actually a crime. It's no more libel than threatening to call the police because someone is 'too pretty'.

Now, going into detains of what 'ruining the constitution' entailed could be libel.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

"He committed this illegal act." (Implies "in the opinion of the people making up the legal system", which is the opinion that counts.)

It does nothing of the sort. Do you have asperger's or something? How can you be so ignorant of language usage to come up with this drivel? You're saying I can't claim to be innocent of a crime until a court declares my innocence. If someone hits me, I can't claim that I'm a victim of assault without prepending "I believe" to the statement? This is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

An unqualified statement is unambiguously the opinion of the speaker. To force people to qualify such statements as their opinions is politically correct bullshit.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying I can't claim to be innocent of a crime until a court declares my innocence.

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that when you write in your blog "He committed this illegal act." you are asserting a legal fact that can subject you to libel charges.

If you say "I am innocent", you obviously aren't libeling yourself. Whether that's a legal statement or a statement of opinion is a separate question.

An unqualified statement is unambiguously the opinion of the speaker.

Not among cognitively normal, competent speakers of English.

Do you have asperger's or something?

No, but you apparently do.

Re:just flame a little more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm not saying that.

Actually, you did say that. You said that saying without qualification that someone committed an illegal act "implied that it was the opinion of the legal system". People often accuse others of committing illegal acts without qualification. Some say that the Iraq war is illegal, that bush illegally wiretapped American citizens, etc. They say these things without qualifying with "I believe". Yet no court formally found any crimes in these cases. It is clearly the speakers' beliefs. This is common language usage.

If you say "I am innocent", you obviously aren't libeling yourself. Whether that's a legal statement or a statement of opinion is a separate question.

What is this, a straw man? I never claimed that this was libel. In fact I didn't mention libel at all. I am talking about unqualified statements being opinions of the speaker.

I am saying that when you write in your blog "He committed this illegal act." you are asserting a legal fact that can subject you to libel charges.

But it is clear to anyone reading the blog that when the blogger says, "He committed this illegal act," he means that he believes it to be true. Not that it's the "opinion" of the legal system. Do you really take everyone so literally?

An unqualified statement is unambiguously the opinion of the speaker.

Not among cognitively normal, competent speakers of English.

I guess you don't consider yourself cognitively normal, because...

Do you have asperger's or something?

No, but you apparently do.

Since you didn't state this as your opinion, by your own admission you intend it to mean that it is the opinion of medical professionals that I appear to have Asperger's, an obviously false statement since you don't know me. So you're either a liar (i.e. you don't believe it's the opinion of medical professionals), or you agree with my point that an unqualified statement is the opinion of the speaker.

Forbidden...

[Anonymous Coward]

...where I live.
The police aren't allowed to try to find the source of information in cases like this. IF the blogger is seen as a journalist, which may or may not be the case. Not sure what the latest rulings say.

Streisand Effect

[Kuroji]

I guess this genius never figured out that when you decide to squander taxpayer money on things on the internet, which is about as public a place as you can get, you end up attracting a lot more attention than you want to. Just like the woman whose foolishness coined the phrase 'Streisand Effect'.

This should be interesting to watch in the coming months, don't you think?

Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[SloWave]

Though most policemen are good people, I've heard stories of various 'Rambos' and other scummy types in police departments that would give the Zimbabwe PD a good run for the money. Most of these abuses are not reported by other cops because of guaranteed retribution. We need the anonymous blogs to get this crap in the open and dealt with. This case needs to be unsealed (public office after-all) and dealt with fairly.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[oodaloop]

Why bother with innumerable blogs, when there's Wikileaks?

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[Vectronic]

Why bother with Wikileaks, when there's innumerable blogs?

Personally, I'm glad that its not all funneled through the same site, that's when censorship is easy, Wikileaks is great, but its not perfect, and maybe the submitter didn't trust it, or more likely, doesn't even know it exists, or possibly didn't want to make a big stink about it, and was hoping a lesser known site/blog would only get the appropriate amount of attention, without making it into some big scandal, but he/they could still refer to it.

Disclaimer: I Haven't RTFA.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[Dan541]

This is yet another attempt at silencing freespeech.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[urcreepyneighbor]

Why bother with innumerable blogs, when there's Wikileaks?

The problem is that most of the time there simply isn't a papertrail.

What sort of papertrail would be generated by a corrupt cop that shakes down a drug dealer or makes a "deal" with a prostitute to get a little freebie in exchange for not hauling her in? None.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[Downside]

Though most policemen are good people... Most of these abuses are not reported by other cops because of guaranteed retribution

In my book, that makes those "other cops" bad policemen.

We need the anonymous blogs...

Or more Policemen that respect their badges and what they stand for?

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[sm62704]

Though most policemen are good people,

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22false+arrest%22

http://illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A7027

http://illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A6290

http://www.sj-r.com/news/x857675110/Former-police-officer-sues-for-drug-probe-information

I see you don't live in Illinois.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[sm62704]

What Douglas Adams had to say about presidents in The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe also pertains to cops: anyone who would want the job is unsuited for it. Good luck finding many cops that respect what their badges stand for.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[Oligonicella]

I see you don't understand the word most.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[The Gaytriot]

I know many good cops, and know that not all cops necessarily like each other. But when anyone in the department starts taking heat from the public, it makes the cops band together, including all the dicks and Rambos. They make it out to be an us vs. them scenario.

It would be nice if they saw the blog and decided to look into corruption instead of trying to shut the blog author up. But it looks like it is just another case of cops protecting their own kind, even if that includes the scum.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

"Though most policemen are good people..."

I don't know if I'd even say most. I've met a few nice policemen, but most have been bullies and nut jobs. Stop and think how many stories you've read about crooked cops, unnecessary taser use, violent behavior, etc.

Worse still look at the punishment these guys get. Usually they get fired, if that. Just yesterday I ready about a cop who tasered a guy to death (9 hits if I recall), and all they did was fire him.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[onkelonkel]

Rambo Cop = Bad.

So called good cops who don't report Rambo for fear of guaranteed retribution = Just as Bad

Therefore most cops are not "good people".

Cops (I'll blame senior management here) need to stop being so damn concerned about the reputation of the department, and start dealing with internal problems instead of trying to hide them. They also need to drop the whole "us vs them", "police vs civilians", "nobody really understands what we go through" bullshit. Do those two little things and they might start earning some respect. I'll be fair here and say that this isn't just a problem with the police. Any big organization can fall into the same trap; where protecting the organizations reputation overrides all other concerns. Example Catholic Church and Pedophile Priests.

Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse

[alexo]

Though most policemen are good people, I've heard stories of various 'Rambos' and other scummy types in police departments that would give the Zimbabwe PD a good run for the money. Most of these abuses are not reported by other cops because of guaranteed retribution. We need the anonymous blogs to get this crap in the open and dealt with. This case needs to be unsealed (public office after-all) and dealt with fairly.

Here's the problem:
Policemen are given a mandate to use violence without adequate public oversight on how they exercise their power.

Since the police, as an organization, advocates and acts against increasing such oversight, they are a corrupt organization, not much better than organized crime gangs.

No, I take it back. They are worse than organized crime gangs since their job is to protect us.

Any person who knowingly belongs to a corrupt organization and does not actively seeks to clean it up, is not "good people".

No.

[jd]

The correct action is to give Larry Godwin as much rope as he wants. Record everything. Document everything. Ensure this pooled information is made accessible to the blogger somehow - someone'll know who it is. People who are upset make mistakes. Pushing them deeper into their paranoia and neurotic state of mind will cause them to make bigger and bigger mistakes. It's not entrapment, as nobody is making Mr Godwin do anything illegal, they're not even suggesting it. It would be his choice, with the alternative being to back off. He has total free will. Once he has done something openly illegal, provided immunity doesn't cover him, arrest him for it.Even if immunity did cover him, this is election year and politicians aren't going to want to leave a loose cannon in a public position. He'll be removed from office.

The result will not be a court decision (which never helps anyone) but will give whistleblowers additional measures they can take.

Re:No.

[jcr]

The correct action is to give Larry Godwin as much rope as he wants

Not with tax money. The city council has a fiduciary duty to the people of Memphis to keep this asshole from wasting their money litigating over his hurt feelings.

-jcr

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're obviously not a resident of the city. Mayor Herenton, the Ford family, etc. feel no obligation to anyone except themselves and their cronies.

Re:No.

[magus_melchior]

That's true, but they and the citizens can use the gathered evidence to get the effectively embezzled funds along with interest. Even if the DA doesn't press charges against him, there's always civil court, where the side with more good evidence wins.

Even if crime drama shows are over-dramatized, they point out a few important rules in the court system: you can't make someone pay just because you "know" that he did something wrong, and the more evidence gathered against him will help a judge rule against him. A possible parallel is the lawyer every gamer hates, Jack Thompson. The more paranoid and ill-tempered he became, the more evidence the Florida Bar collected against him. It didn't weed him out when he did the most damage, but at least he's facing the sanctions he deserves.

Re:No.

[celle]

"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you -- Screaming Lord Sutch" It's a little to late to realize though, isn't it? How about before you don't succeed.

What's all the fuss about?

[omuls are tasty]

It's signed!

Posted by Dirk Diggler MPD

;)

Links

[Morosoph]

I notice that they haven't even linked the blog directly.

Does anyone care about the stories, or it it just "another libertarian story that they'll love"?

Granted, it wasn't hard to click through from the article, but it's not as if blogspot as going to get slashdotted, and free speech needs examples, not just meta-waffling.

Re:Links

[__aarcfd8085]

mmmm meta-waffle

do they come with irony icing and sarcasm syrup?

Re:Links

[Anonymous Coward]

More interestingly, it seems they are implicating Godwin in the killing or cover up a young girl a block from his house!

Re:Links

[Anonymous Coward]

heh...waffle irony

Police need protection from the police

[unlametheweak]

So now the police need protection from the police. The privacy issues which they seek to deny civilians in the pursuit of justice they will adamantly defend for themselves. Of course there is a difference between Managers and Employees, but the symbolism is striking.

Is that anything like

[Anonymous Coward]

Brannigan's Law!!!

Try denying something terrible that happened

[Anonymous Coward]

and you will be done for it. It's called "obstruction of justice".

Re:Try denying something terrible that happened

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

Yeah, it was an interesting read

[WindBourne]

The last story indicates how backwards that district is, but the first story shows so many crimes being committed by the police themselves. I remember back in the late 80's, that a story surfaced about the New Orlean police. The feds had JUST shut them down. The reason is that the police chief was going to have a witness murdered to keep him from talking (they had no idea how close the fed were). In fact, the feds had figured out that several other murders by the police had taken place to prevent the feds, so they took this one serious. What was more amazing is that this made the front page and then disappeared from the press the next day. That alone indicates how much control there is over the press.

But taking a side note, this blog really shows that news papers are doomed shortly. It really is important that blogs like this continue. I mean, if news papers were doing their jobs, this would be in the news. The fact that it is not, shows that even when a story is there, they ignore it.

Re:Yeah, it was an interesting read

[sumdumass]

I read through a couple of posts on the blog. Actually, a lot more then I care to admit. I would say that majority of the posts is little more then speculation and innuendo which has no place in a newspaper.

The author of the posts might be right in what he is saying but he has shown little to no proof of it. Meanwhile, he makes assertive positions about stuff that he freely admits to no having the facts to which on the surface makes anyone suspect. I'm not sure I would throw support behind this blog on it's own writings. Surely it should be allowed to exist but it appears that it is doing a lot of slandering in the process which is still illegal and unethical. It may be that the author has more evidence then he is presenting and is attempting to protect the identity of someone or something (including himself). But in doing so, he is creating an appearance that probably justifies the police chiefs actions if he doesn't have more proof.

read the blog itself

[WindBourne]

This is not about embarassment. The top story shows that some top ppl within the police are criminals. The least crime was a cover-up, and aiding/abeting. It is probably a great deal more. As such, this site is about to cause either the state or possibly the feds to come in (not likely the feds with our current admin).

Re:read the blog itself

[sumdumass]

(not likely the feds with our current admin).

Now your just being moronic. If you would have been paying attention to the feds recently, you will know that they have stepped in at several time in several areas. Zanesville Ohio, comes to mind, there has been more in other areas too.

read it

[WindBourne]

You can really see that this has little chance of being libel. THis is an outing of a series of crimes. Godwin and his buddies are going to do time before this is over.

Re:read it

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I looked at it, and I don't see anything that is convincing that this is an "outing" or truthful vs. possible libel.

Re:read it

[UdoKeir]

If you already have a prejudice against someone, then something you read that reinforces that prejudice has to be true.

Re:read it

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Basically, yes. Anybody can post stories to the internet, that doesn't make them true. I know there are plenty of scummy cops out there, a blog about one group of cops making them look scummy might not actually be true.

My position is this: if any of the things that blog chronicles actually happened, I hope that appropriate people get charged and they face the penalties. But if the blog is posting lies or are compromising legitimate investigations, then the blogger needs to face justice as well. But a running blog in itself really doesn't prove anything.

I don't know the proper procedures and all.

"Cencorship"

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, this Godwin guy is a total Hitler-wannabe-Nazi

Trying to cencor this blogger is totally unacceptable. At least he isn't trying to censor him though.

Well that's just stupid.

[zippthorne]

How do you know you can trust the journalist, then? And why should journalists have the ability to ignore subpoenas that the rest of us cannot?

Where I live, journalists can get jail time for contempt of court just like everyone else. And if you're a source and you're worried about it, you only talk to the ones that have been dedicated enough to spend actual time in jail to protect their sources.

Re:Well that's just stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when the journalist is the source?

Lawsuit sealed to keep it quiet

[likes2comment]

The lawsuit was sealed to keep th news of it quiet and hidden from the public. That workd well back in the 1990's and before the internet and Slashdot, Digg, WikiLeaks, Theregister, and other mass news websites that are NOT afraid to publish. Once your lawsuit is filed, it will be picked up and posted somewhere, then replicated across the internet. Even "sealed" lawsuits have a way of leaking into the internet. All it takes is one person whos says "This is not right to hide it". What is the police director and court so afraid of they have to sal the lawsuit?

Larry Godwin is an African-American.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Not with tax money. The city council has a fiduciary duty to the people of Memphis to keep this asshole from wasting their money litigating over his hurt feelings.

I know this won't go down well with the libs at Slashdot, but Godwin is an African-American:
.

http://images.google.com/images?safe=off&q=larry+godwin

And, again, to infuriate the libs at Slashdot even further, if the sentences are grammatically correct and if the spelling is correct at the blogsite, then the blogger is almost certainly Caucasian.

So, in reality, this is probably a racial matter which is being disguised a privacy/right-to-know controversy.

And if you want to read about the disastrous state of racial affairs in the town of Memphis, then check out this lengthy expose from the Atlantic:

American Murder Mystery
Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades.
by Hanna Rosin
July/August 2008 Atlantic Monthly
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200807/memphis-crime

...Janikowski began working with the police department in 1997, the same year that Barnes saw the car with the bullet holes. He initially consulted on a program to reduce sexual assaults citywide and quickly made himself useful. He mapped all the incidents and noticed a pattern: many assaults happened outside convenience stores, to women using pay phones that were hidden from view. The police asked store owners to move the phones inside, and the number of assaults fell significantly.

About five years ago, Janikowski embarked on a more ambitious project. He'd built up enough trust with the police to get them to send him daily crime and arrest reports, including addresses and types of crime. He began mapping all violent and property crimes, block by block, across the city. "These cops on the streets were saying that crime patterns are changing," he said, so he wanted to look into it.

When his map was complete, a clear if strangely shaped pattern emerged: Wait a minute, he recalled thinking. I see this bunny rabbit coming up. People are going to accuse me of being on shrooms! The inner city, where crime used to be concentrated, was now clean. But everywhere else looked much worse: arrests had skyrocketed along two corridors north and west of the central city (the bunny rabbit's ears) and along one in the southeast (the tail). Hot spots had proliferated since the mid-1990s, and little islands of crime had sprung up where none had existed before, dotting the map all around the city.

Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn't been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government's most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city's public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal "Section8" rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.

If police departments are usually stingy with their information, housing departments are even more so. Getting addresses of Section 8 holders is difficult, because the departments want to protect the residents' privacy. Betts, however, helps the city track where the former residents of public housing have moved. Over time, she and Janikowski

Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American.

[Anonymous Coward]

did you just seriously say that the blogger has to be Caucasian because he knows how to spell? Go back to burning crosses and gtfo of my internet, you fucking tard.

Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American.

[Anonymous Coward]

dear god, is it even possible for people to bring up memphis without bringing up race. i live in memphis and i have my whole life, and every time something happens it has to be about race. this issue has absolutly nothing to do with race what so ever. this is at its most basic level a guy who's feelings have been hurt and is spending our money to make himself feel better. it has nothing to do with his race or the race of the bloggers.

Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American.

[gregbot9000]

Every one with a brain knows this. Thats why LA has been engageing in the most ambitiouse anti-poverty campaighn in the nation. Here were're shiping off all the crime ridden poor to the wastlands of the desert, where they will be free to live their lives and create their version of Bartertown. It's also shown great improvment for several of the worst neighborhood. Basically we should just ship all those the state has made dependants to the mojave and just air drop food, It would be cheaper then welfare and about on par with the standard of living they seem to expect in their housing projects.

Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American.

[brkello]

I think you should be modded flamebait instead of interesting. While your post IS interesting, it isn't for the right reasons. You are flamebaiting liberals and you don't really make much sense. Let me explain...

The first problem with your post is that you haven't even seen the blog in question. I am assuming this is the case since you use words like "if" when you describe the grammar and spelling. So you are just guessing at this point which is kind of strange. Also, you are stereotyping that white people can spell and black people can't. I guess I don't really have that stereotype in my head, but let's assume that that is accurate and the stereotype exists for some statistically significant reasoning. I could counter that stereotype by saying that most of the cops I know don't really care about their spelling or grammar regardless of their race so I fail to see how that would be so telling to you.

What's even more interesting to me is that you then post a story that has less to do with race and more to do with poverty. Did the public housing have a majority black population? Probably. But the section8 people all had poverty in common, not race. A black doctor living in a neighborhood is probably not going to cause the crime rate to go up in that area.

So, from all this I think you are probably racist. That's a harsh word to throw out there but that is the only reason I would think that you would associate race with your quoted article and also jump to conclusion about the Slashdot article without even seeing the blog.

As far as the liberal jab goes...what you wrote didn't bother me at all. Liberals see poverty as a large problem and are actually trying to address it. The section8 projects sounds like it didn't solve the problem (I don't know this for sure since we don't know if the overall crime rate went down or if crime went from being more concentrated to being more distributed). The crime rate may have gone up in new areas, but maybe those kids had a chance at a better education and it actually improved things overall. At least people are attempting to solve the problem. Republicans just want to help the rich because this supposedly passes the wealth on down to everyone else since they crate jobs etc etc trickle down economics garbage. Unfortunately that just tends to concentrate wealth and cause more poverty. And as the wealth becomes more concentrated at the top, there is less money for the middle and lower class to purchase with, thus harming an American's buying power and his/her ability to shop thus harming the economy. This stuff can be argued back and forth, but that is another side of that argument. I think having some rational social programs is humane and beneficial to the economy. To try to help and fail is better than to not try at all (as long as we are trying to learn and improve). Republicans (neo-cons) are a complete failure since they don't even hold to their conservative mantra. They just borrow and spend which is worse than any liberal Dem would do. I wouldn't mind Republicans if they actually cut spending and reduced taxation as it would help my bottom line. But they don't do that and just put us in huge deficits. So I have to be for the Dems. The redistribution of wealth (as inefficient as it is) is better than throwing the money in to stupid wars and a rising deficit. Hopefully the Republicans can find their conservative roots again...it doesn't seem like the Libertarians will be able to be a factor in this election where it seems like the true conservatism still lives. (wow, that went way out there but at least it has plenty of topics to discuss!)

Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American.

[jcr]

I know this won't go down well with the libs at Slashdot, but Godwin is an African-American:

So are several million other people. So what?

-jcr

Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American.

[Anonymous Coward]

shit, they actually went and bothered modding down an AC, too.

The cancer that is killing Slashdot, indeed.

Check the tags

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it's spelled "censorship", not "cencorship".

whether or not Turkey is in Europe?

[Dareth]

Are we at war with Eurasia today?

What's the sound...

[Tsar]

...of a joke going over over a mime's head?

Re:What's the sound...

[BattleApple]

I'm trying to describe it, but I just keep getting this message!

Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)

Re:What's the sound...

[Ihmhi]

<badfrenchaccent>Le wuuuuuuuuush?</badfrenchaccent>

where's the ACLU?

[DragonTHC]

This complaint is not kosher.

Godwin has to know about free speech. He is attempting to violate someone's constitutional right to it.

I can only hope the judge follows the law and throws this out.

If the judge grants this, he is not following the law.

they seem to think you can grant an exception in every case.

Chutzpah

[Morosoph]

mmmm meta-waffle

do they come with irony icing and sarcasm syrup?

Absolutely. If the link had been there, my post would have had no reason d'etre!

Bleh - no UTF-8 support :o(

It's not funny if you have to explain it.

[LoyalOpposition]

It relies on you knowing the answer. The answer is, "Hitler."

p.s. It occurs to me that my .sig is particularly apropos. Also, in six months when I change my .sig, if anyone should read this they'll have no idea what I'm talking about.

-Loyal

Re:It's not funny if you have to explain it.

[rpillala]

That's true about explaining jokes but for me that ship had sailed already.

I should have caught that too...

I only have three things to say about all this:

[wykell]

War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength ok - 4 - /. isn't letting me put that in all caps because it tells me that "It's like YELLING." Thanks guys, I know that, but don't force me to not post because of it. You ruin the point of the message, you Nazis.

This Sounds Like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...something Hitler would do.(WWHD?)

Wouldn't necessarily occur

[Paladeen]

In an infinitely long thread, you are absolutely certain to have at least one mention of every single concept, object, philosophy and idea ever known to humanity

This would only work on the assumption that the conversation is random, i.e . that the words used therein are random. It could be, and is infinitely more likely, that the discussion follows a certain set of rules which just makes people use a narrow subsection of English vocabulary.

If you took, say, some fundamentalist Christian moron and conversed him until eternity, it is far from clear that he would at any stage utter the words "God is dead."

Re:Wouldn't necessarily occur

[jd]

On Slashdot and Digg, it seems reasonable to assume all threads are random.

Same issue in Calgary Alberta

[Anonymous Coward]

The Police Department in Calgary Alberta did the same. A person who wrote on line on how the Calgary Police was raping, beating up, and stealing from Street Hookers was sued. The same person wrote on line about illegal actions by the Calgary Police Department, such as child porn, bribes, stealing cameras and laptops during traffic stops.

She was sued by the Police Department, she had to pay money.

You can read the stories on CBC. The CBC is controlled by the government, and will rewrite or remove stories as requested by the Calgary Police Department.

Re:Same issue in Calgary Alberta

[unlametheweak]

You can read the stories on CBC. The CBC is controlled by the government, and will rewrite or remove stories as requested by the Calgary Police Department.

If the CBC will remove stories as requested by the Calgary Police Department then how can we read these stories on the CBC?

As a crown corporation, the CBC operates at arm's length (autonomously) from the government in its day-to-day business. The corporation is governed by the Broadcasting Act of 1991, under a Board of Directors and is directly responsible to Parliament through the Department of Canadian Heritage. General management of the organisation is in the hands of a President, who is appointed by the Prime Minister.

- Wikipedia (bold emphasis is mine)
I remember hearing the last 4 latest Prime Ministers stating that they didn't like what the CBC was reporting about them. Every new PM doesn't like the CBC. The corporation certainly isn't immune from political interference, but neither is anything else.

I don't know the validity of the claims this person has purportedly made against the police, but you claim that she lost in court. So either:

a) There was a conspiracy against this person by the Calgary Police, the CBC and the courts
b) This person had a bad lawyer
c) This person was talking shit on her Web site
d) Maybe you are talking shit

I don't know, it could all be true but you offer no evidence.

Re:Same issue in Calgary Alberta

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you had interactions with the Calgary Police? Have you read stories or posting one day, and than disappeared from CBC? CTV Calgary News is far worst. CTV Calgary News is in the back pocket of the Calgary Police.

Most lawyers in Calgary will have no interaction with the Calgary Police Department on a civil lawsuit level. Try to find a Calgary lawyer willing to stand up and sue the Calgary Police. You won't.

File a complain about the Calgary Police Department, and you need to relocate far away from Calgary. Otherwise, you, your family is a good as in prison. They will lose their jobs after the Calgary Police Department contact their employer. Their friends will be contacted. Police cars will be driving more often around their home.

In Calgary, if you say something bad about the Calgary Police you must be a criminal.

Stirring up some dirty dirty water there...

[Anonymous Coward]

But congrats on saving face after that wacky Godwin post earlier in the thread.

Sue Sue Sue Ya!

[BancBoy]

They learned it from the English, surely. Phil Collins had that song years ago.

But that's not the American way, sue sue sue is how its done these days

Glenn Reynolds link

[DMCBOSTON]

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/021982.phpInstapundit.com/

  Glenn Reynolds link

Race and CRIME.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

What's even more interesting to me is that you then post a story that has less to do with race and more to do with poverty.

No - what the article has to do with is race and CRIME.

Memphis is a hoodlum town, run by a bunch of hoodlum families like the Fords.

In re the original story which prompted this thread at Slashdot, the whistle-blowing blogger is trying to "blow the whistle" on these hoodlums, and Godwin is responding by leveraging the courts to deny the blogger his 1st Amendment rights [both freedom of speech and freedom of the press].

If you were a real "liberal", then you'd be all over these violations of the 1st Amendment like, ah - may I say it? - white on rice.

PS: You also said I think you should be modded flamebait instead of interesting, which is exactly how leftists always respond to speech that they don't like it: Deny it, suppress it, extinguish it, eradicate it, and pretend that it never existed in the first place.

Re:Race and CRIME.

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying anon to preserve mods

I DID mod you flamebait, and here's why: Race has very little to do with it, and only serves to subtract from the real issues, as this whole discussion proves. It becomes some droll little bickering contest. The person who replied to you was spot on, it is an issue of POVERTY. When you blame race, you are saying they are criminals BECAUSE they are black, which is absurd. You don't find it such, I'm sure, since you seem to think people can't write properly BECAUSE they are black, when it actually is "because they don't have good education". You might find a correlation in some areas, but I'd put the cause straight on the poor/uneducated bit everytime. White people can be uneducated criminal morons too, for your information, as can Asians, Mexicans, and any other race you care to name.

The idiotic political spectrum bashing is also a good reason to mod you flamebait, it is uncalled for, fallacious, and obvious baiting. You're entering this for a fight, this is obvious. Either that or your so full of your own self-righteousness that you REALLY don't know any better, the results, though are the same. Reading your post, I could say "man those Republicans are a bunch of racist, backwards, neonazis", would you consider that flamebait? Probably. Would you mod it down, would you do it because it was fallacious drivel, or out of "censorship"?

Most of the conservatives I know would have ALSO modded you down for this, since slinging racial stereotypes isn't part of the conservative ethos either. I'm guessing most of them would be offended by you even making racism a part of their ideology.

Also, and this is only partly directed to you; where is this damn uber-partisanship coming from on /. lately? Every time I hear some self-labled conservative use "liberal" as a pejorative, I picture Joe McCarthy dancing in my head. Are we really going back to that? Looking at our last two presidents, I don't think I have much good to say to conservatives OR liberals. People who bandy about those terms as value judgments are, quite frankly, dogmatic morons. Your ears and mind are closed if you really heap so much disdain on people because of their political ideology.

This is why your flamebait, my own comment proves it. You completely killed discussion on the topic at hand, and instead opened up yourself for comments like these.

Re:Race and CRIME.

[brkello]

PS: You also said I think you should be modded flamebait instead of interesting, which is exactly how leftists always respond to speech that they don't like it: Deny it, suppress it, extinguish it, eradicate it, and pretend that it never existed in the first place.

There are ways of making your point without crying liberals. This statement here eradicates any point you may have made because it turns in to less of a debate about what you said and more in to a game of name calling.

It doesn't talk about race...you do. It talks about poverty and crime. You really have labeling issues. We are all people. Trying to pigeon-hole people is just going to get you in to trouble because the world isn't as black and white (pun intended) as you make it out to be.

I don't see anywhere in my statement about my opinion on the blog or the blogger. I am all for the freedom of speech. And what the heck does "real liberal" mean anyways? I don't think anyone can be purely liberal. I lean liberal but still hold a lot of conservative values as well. And if you think saying that I am not a "real liberal" would bother me...than you are just proving more and more that you are a real ass.

And now to kill this thread

[vimm]

Godwin is no better than Hitler, teh fascist scum!

Cant STAND it when

[Anonymous Coward]

the truth gets in the way of everyday goings on! So, lets sue!

Godwin

[Anonymous Coward]

More interestingly, it seems they are implicating Godwin in the killing or cover up a young girl a block from his house!

What a Nazi!

Whatever happened to Invisiblog?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Invisiblog was a cypherpunk initiative to enable blogging with strong anonymity. It was just what a whistleblower would want, but they don't seem to be in operation any more.

The Memphis PD == "The Wire" ??

[BroncoInCalifornia]

The Blog ( http://mpdenforcer20.blogspot.com/ ) makes the Memphis Police department look just like the fictional Baltimore police department depicted in the TV show "The Wire".

A naive question

[alexo]

A large number of cops are exactly the pigs we refer to them as - they are bullies with badges with way too much testosterone and not enough brains.

Why do we, as a society, tolerate it?