Slashdot Mirror


Austin Police Want Identities of Online Critics

An anonymous reader writes "The police chief in Austin, TX is not happy that people are voicing their disapproval of him via anonymous blog posts and comments. He claims that 'such posts erode public trust in the department.' The chief wants to find out who these people are and investigate and prosecute such posters for statements he deems defamatory and libelous. Interestingly, the article notes, 'the Associated Press has reported that most of the cases fail because statements of opinion are protected under the First Amendment.' One wonders if this is a legitimate problem that warrants public money to investigate, or whether it's that the people who deserve the most public scrutiny don't like it when others take issue with their job performance."

12 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Well, there is a problem here by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but the problem is not the one the police chief is making it out to be.

    The problem is that it is utter waste-of-space career political figures such as him don't like criticism. There are laws and processes he can follow to make a case for someone's identity - if he can show reasonable grounds that they have committed libel or deliberate defamation.

    He says, "There ought to be a law against people saying nasty things about me."

    I say, "Get lost you ignorant pigfucker. Don't go into politics if you can't stand being publicly criticised. Oh, and expect to have to pay for legal advice before you make yourself look like a rube hick crying to the press about what your critics say."

    Honestly. If they're not litigious bastards, they want the laws changed or fabricated out of fictional whole-cloth to engineer the political landscape most suited to their aims. Constitutional protections are just an inconvenience.

    --
    Where's the Kaboom?
    There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
  2. He proves their point by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People are posting anonymously because they have no trust in the police.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  3. Public trust is eroded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ummm,,,,public trust has to be earned too. Acting like a f***ing crybaby won't help.

  4. Re:Not surprising by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aye, me be thinkin thar be only one way te keep te copper from te coppers: All must keep to a Code, guidelines if ye will. Three of 'em:
          1. Serve the public trust
          2. Protect the innocent
          3. Uphold the law
          4. (Classified)

    Of course, if ye landlubbers want true freedom, take to te sea, 'cause it's a pirate life for me.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Re:He just proved them right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except that's not the complaint, the complaint is that people are misreperesenting themselves as police officers and other officials to make their complaints which is different. Did anyone here read the article?

  6. This is a "case-by-case" scenario... by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Libelous speech is not protected speech. Never has been, never will. It matters not that the speech is online and was intended to be anonymous.

    If a post consists of "Austin cops suck!", it is obviously a protected matter of opinion.

    "Austin cops' mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelled of elderberries!": Obviously an exaggeration and/or satirical, and is protected via Flynt v. Falwell.

    "Austin cops routinely have orgies in the backroom with arrested hookers!": Libelous (if not true) and not protected in any sense of the word. Unleash those subpeonas!

    Just sayin' that this isn't necessarily bogus, and depends on the posts in question.

    SirWired

  7. Re:He's A Jerk by S77IM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you kidding??? Were you paying attention to the previous police administration? Acevedo is a vast improvement. He is a regular cop who rose through the ranks, not a politician looking for a desk job with a lot of power. He is trying to clean up the department and instill the sort of discipline needed to not shoot black people (which has been a tragic recurring problem that the previous administration basically ignored). And Austin has hired a lot of cops recently is because (surprise, surprise) crime has been increasing. Reasons for this are unclear, but the economic downturn must play a part, and a lot of it is blamed on Katrina evacuees (racism again?). In my neighborhood we monitor local crimes and the police response time has improved greatly. Austin still has the one of the lowest police budgets and number of police per capita of any major US city, and some of the lowest crime statistics. So claiming that Austin is becoming a police state is silly.

    Is the APD perfect? Heck no. That blood-draw thing is kind of crap, and for some reason they have been killing people in high-speed chases lately (I guess since they are no longer allowed to shoot black people). But compared to most other police departments, APD is really good, and Acevedo has the unenviable job of trying to make it better. I hope he succeeds.

      -- 77IM

    --
    Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
    Master: Well, yes and no.
  8. Re:He's A Jerk by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The homeless are a problem? Skip over that - there are estimates that human trafficking has almost a million victims (yeah, a victimless crime, right) who have passed through or into Texas in recent years. Sometimes, little boys and girls as young as 10, 11, or 12 years old, being brought into our nation to be sold into sex slavery.

    Where's Austin? It sits astride Interstate 10 and Interstate 35. A HUGE portion of that human trafficking passes through Austin.

    Instead of battling online anonymity, maybe the police chief should be out searching vehicles for child whores being carried to points east and points north.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  9. Re:He's A Jerk by GrahamCox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Feel free, I'm a British Citizen, resident in Australia. I doubt his jurisdiction applies, even if in his own head he runs the world! In fact, I, on the other side of the world, now know that this guy *is* a jerk, which previously I didn't, so his jerk-like tendencies are now known globally. I think it's known as the Streisand Effect.

    I encourage as many people to criticise him online as possible; he can't haul in everyone. It's the only sane response to an insane individual.

  10. A WTF Moment by kilodelta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here in Providence, RI our police chief Col. Dean Esserman is known by the moniker "Chief Shiny Badge". I'd say it's an accurate assessment, his rank and file even had a full no confidence vote against the chief a bit over a year ago.

    And who coined the "Chief Shiny Badge" name? Convicted former Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci. Cianci also calls current mayor David Cicilline "Little Napoleon" on Cianci's radio show.

    The Austin chief needs to grow a thicker skin.

  11. On the off chance you're serious... by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, calling a public figure a pigfucker isn't libel.

    It's a generic pejorative term indicating derision, rather than a statement of fact.

    It's the same as calling someone a motherfucker.
    The label doesn't actually indicate a statement of fact that the target has engaged in intercourse with his mother.

    Nor does calling someone as asshole indicate a statement that they are actually a walking talking sphincter disguised as a human.

    These are all simply forceful statements of opinion of the "I don't like him" variety.

    As such, they are protected speech.

  12. Austin resident here by chrysrobyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm an Austin resident. I don't have any direct involvement with the police except for the traffic enforcement people -- speeding, stop signs and state inspection stickers. If the Austin Police Chief wants to talk about eroding public trust, they need to collectively agree to follow all laws they plan to enforce. If they want to ticket for 40 in a 45 a block from my house, they damn well better keep it at 40 or under -- speeding by a park with kids at 50 is not acceptable. If they want to ticket for rolling stops, they damn well better actually stop at the stop signs.

    And it would be nice if Austin Police would actually ticket the state police asshole who keeps cutting across 4 lanes of traffic from the far right side of Burnet to get onto MoPac in less than the 100 feet between the traffic light at Gracy Farms and the entrance ramp (ignoring the solid white stripes).

    Instead, the city and state police and the county sheriffs in Austin make me feel like what the good Shephard Book said, "The government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned." There are many specific complaints I have, and can provide patrol car numbers and times; instead, I fear the departments are so corrupt I dare not tempt reprisal.