Slashdot Mirror
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".
...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.
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.
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.
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.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Wow.. So many issues but I will only comment on one of them.
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 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.
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.
if it weren't true, they wouldn't care.