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".

91 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Do, Do let me be first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    with a Godwin Law violation...

    1. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I believe this story has Godwined itself.

    2. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by jd · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by locofungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    6. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by kaos07 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    7. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    8. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by ZombieWomble · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by c · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Only if the thread is irrational

      What discussion thread isn't? The empty thread?

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    11. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      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)

    12. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Erie+Ed · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    13. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by hostyle · · Score: 5, Funny

      "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

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    14. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Minwee · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

    15. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      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'.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    17. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      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".

      --
      which is totally what she said
    18. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    19. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      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".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Funny

      so then whats the law for soviet russia

      In Soviet Russia, the law breaks YOU!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    21. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    22. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny

      only for extremely large values of 1

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    23. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or for extremely small values of infinity...

    24. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

    25. Re:Do, Do let me be first.. by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      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

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Send Larry the legal bill by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Send Larry the legal bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    2. Re:Send Larry the legal bill by Malevolyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Your ad here.
  3. what? by edittard · · Score: 5, Funny

    is interestingly

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

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:what? by Bozzio · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

      --
      I just pooped your party.
    2. Re:what? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:what? by Alarindris · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    4. Re:what? by Stanislav_J · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    5. Re:what? by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      I thought Grammar was for Grampar !

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    6. Re:what? by Synonymous+Bosch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps it was sealed in an interesting fashion?

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

    7. Re:what? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  4. A link by miraboo · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:A link by BPPG · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    2. Re:A link by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    3. Re:A link by tinkerghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. Anyone else over the internet? by kaos07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by kaos07 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by kaos07 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by Stanislav_J · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    4. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      I hate printers.
    5. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    6. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by rah1420 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    7. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 2, Funny

      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)

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    8. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    9. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by howlinmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)

    10. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Anyone else over the internet? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

      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."

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. Great idea. by AhabTheArab · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Great idea. by kaos07 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. 1st... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. Re:1st... by kaos07 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      Oh, and to troll.

    2. Re:1st... by daniorerio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  8. You've missed something important by Drenaran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:You've missed something important by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:You've missed something important by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:You've missed something important by Elldallan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:You've missed something important by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    5. Re:You've missed something important by wellingj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:You've missed something important by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:You've missed something important by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:You've missed something important by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pffft, everyone does that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  9. You know who else by Dwedit · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:You know who else by rpillala · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  10. Forbidden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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.

  11. Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse by SloWave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse by Vectronic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse by Downside · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
  12. No. by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:No. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  13. What's all the fuss about? by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's signed!

    Posted by Dirk Diggler MPD

    ;)

  14. Links by Morosoph · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Links by __aarcfd8085 · · Score: 2, Funny

      mmmm meta-waffle

      do they come with irony icing and sarcasm syrup?

  15. Police need protection from the police by unlametheweak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:just flame a little more carefully by speedtux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re:just flame a little more carefully by olliM · · Score: 2, Informative

    "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").

  18. Yeah, it was an interesting read by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. read the blog itself by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  20. Re:read it by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  21. What's the sound... by Tsar · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  22. Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American. by brkello · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!)

    --
    Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  24. Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."