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."

Comments

He's A Jerk

[GrahamCox]

That police chief in Austin, Texas? - He's a Jerk. So sue me!

Re:He's A Jerk

[Art Acevedo]

Yes, I'll do that GrahamCox

Re:He's A Jerk

[buchner.johannes]

*facepalm* you're supposed to post anonymously

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

He IS a jerk. His list of jerk-like actions include:

1) Authorizing police officers to draw blood on the spot, with or without your cooperation (using a contract phlebotomist of course) if you are pulled over under suspicion of DUI.
2) Constant and aggressive speed traps all over the city (I recently observed motorcycle police tailing people into a school zone and nabbing them if they didn't hit the brakes immediately).
3) Increased patrolling and harassing motorcycle riders for helmet law violations during the ROT Motorcycle Rally. It should be noted that these were primarily older white middle class people. However, when Highland Mall requested police security for the Texas Relays their request was denied by the chief. The Texas Relays attract mostly black youth, which in itself is not a problem. The problem is that the entourage they attract has in the past loitered in the mall, intimidated shoppers, and in fact resulted in fights breaking out inside the mall. The chief denied the mall owner's request because black community leaders would have crucified him had he not done so.
4) Hiring so many police officers that it becomes a strain on the city budget. This year's police academy class was almost suspended except that existing officers agreed to forego their raises. The chief is a big fan of "preventative patrolling" (but only in the form of speed traps, not in truly high-crime areas like Lamar & Rundberg). Methinks this must be tied to the budget strain. Plus, Mr. Acevedo wouldn't want to be accused of racial profiling in a primarily Mexican immigrant neighborhood.

The country should also know that an Austin police officer recently shot a young black man in the back of the head while he was fleeing. Gee, I can't imagine what the young man must've been afraid of! As you might expect, the police officer was essentially let off the hook.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, posting anonymously because APD fucking scares me. This once-peaceful town is morphing into a police-state before my very eyes. It should also be noted that Austin is run by Progressives, and prides itself on being a model for other cities. We're only a few steps away from police checkpoints throughout the city. From environmental laws so strict that only the mega-rich can build anything, to police harassment of citizens, this place is becoming a microcosm of fascism. Ironic for a place that prides itself on being so liberal, tolerant, and "weird." Remember folks, we're trying to be a model city. Expect to see this crap coming your way soon.

Sincerely,
A Deeply Concerned Austin Resident

Re:He's A Jerk

[drinkypoo]

Texas is basically the worst state in the nation for speeding tickets. It got so bad that the state legislature passed a law saying that a given town could only make a certain percentage of its income by writing tickets!

P.S. A "speed trap" is where you estimate speed based on distance and time. I don't know about Texas, but it's illegal in California. Being parked just behind a speed limit sign which is itself invisible until you are on top of it in Johnson City isn't illegal, it just makes you a big fucking asshole. Texas? Will not visit again, except perhaps for business. Will probably fly right to my destination if I do. Will be very careful about where I spend my money to avoid funding bullshit like what is perpetrated by the average cop in the state. Not that I am in love with cops in California...

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

So, register at the Statesman, and comment. I've been registered there for some time - just posted my first comment on the article. There will be more - I use the same name over there. Join in the discussion!!

Re:He's A Jerk

[S77IM]

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

Re:He's A Jerk

[bangthegong]

Interesting with all that policing and tolerant liberal/progressive do gooders running things Austin can't seem to do anything about the homeless begging at every major intersection even outside the city, and harassing you for change urinating on things, stealing, and generally being a nuisance, if you are walking around downtown. I don't live in Austin but I visit for work and the people are mostly nice but the town they have created for themselves really does suck.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Pushed for a never ending supply of stop light cameras then basicly ignored his officers running red lights.

That said on a personal level I've had very good experiences with Austin Cops. I just disagree with department policy.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

It got so bad that the state legislature passed a law saying that a given town could only make a certain percentage of its income by writing tickets!

Of course that law has holes in it big enough to drive a fleet of 18-wheelers through.

Only "ticket revenue" counts. "Court Fees" don't count. So what they do now, essentially, is that you get dragged in, you're not allowed to plead not-guilty without being there in person (not even sending a legal representative is allowed in most towns/counties, a deliberate method for fucking over out-of-towners).

But they offer you either to "take defensive driving and pay a court fee" or "take deferred adjudication and pay a court fee." Oddly enough, the court fees are actually slightly-more-expensive than the ticket would normally be, except that you don't get reported in to your insurance as being "guilty" of a traffic infraction if you go that route.

Oh, and Texas isn't the only state in the nation to do this. Cops everywhere (Arkansas is actually worse than Texas, as is Louisiana) target out-of-state plates.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:He's A Jerk

[ancient_kings]

This isn't a police office nor a police department but a gang with blue shirts. The FBI needs to investigate. If found guilty, the chief needs to be made a *CLEAR EXAMPLE* of police gangsta's. Lock him up for 100 years, take his house, his pension, *EVERYTHING* then publicize it to give a clear warning to other police chiefs and offices.

Re:He's A Jerk

[ancient_kings]

"passed a law saying that a given town could only make a certain percentage of its income by writing tickets!" That doesn't sound too smart. A small percentage? So that will force the "cops" to issue even more, bigger tickets. They should have set that percentage to ZERO....

Re:He's A Jerk

[ancient_kings]

Legalize all drugs (drug war is a complete failure), eliminate 90-99% of the "police" force, direct that money into education, hospitals, homes and churches. How about that? Sounds good to me.

Re:He's A Jerk

[that this is not und]

The Police Union (a Syndicate all unto themselves) would prevent any such action from happening.

Re:He's A Jerk

[MadnessASAP]

Skip over that - there are estimates that human trafficking has almost a million victims (yeah, a victimless crime, right)

IS anybody arguing that Human Trafficking is a victimless crime?

Re:He's A Jerk

[jmerlin]

"Speed trap" also refers to a place where police routinely camp and very strictly enforce a speed limit because it's very easy to "accidentally" be going over it. I'd say, "speed trollin" is more accurate. However, we have many tiny little 1000 person cities in TX on your way from say.. Austin to Dallas.. and if you go through one of them at 3:30 AM going from 70 on a highway to 40 in-town within 600 ft (note, the "speed slows" warning is roughly 600 feet from the actual 40mph sign) meaning you MUST brake quite hard to make the limit, and behind the sign through this 2 mile wide city on this one road there are at least 6 cops. I've seen it many times and been pulled over by them once, driving back home from a trip to Austin, no kidding.. in a convenient store parking lot in the middle of this deserted town I had 6.. SIX cops with their lights on behind me. I was going 44 in a 40. He only gave me a warning. Everywhere else in the country I've been it's been hard as hell to get speeding tickets but here.. they're handed out like candy.

Re:He's A Jerk

[GrahamCox]

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.

Re:He's A Jerk

[ArsonSmith]

APD is fine except for the mummy cops.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

Some people would say so. Especially on the US/Mexican border, where people pay the coyotes to bring them to the states. I've participated in discussions where the most hateful people say that the immigrants and the coyotes should all be shot and dumped into the Rio Grande - with no distinctions for age. There are some truly outrageous statements and claims made on the subject.

Re:He's A Jerk

[dougmc]

I really don't think Avecedo pushed the red light cameras -- that's the city, not the police. They police don't run them or really do anything with them. And if you don't pay, it's a civil matter rather than a criminal matter -- so the police don't even enforce that.

And as for a never ending supply, there aren't that many. At least not yet.

I personally haven't had any `unreasonable' (tickets are bad, but not unreasonable) experiences with Austin police, but friends have.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

While your post has some merit - you don't mention that the Mayor of Houston managed to get the city turned into something called a "sanctuary". Basically, if you're an illegal immigrant, the city ain't gonna fuck with you. They won't ask, if you don't tell. Houston is in worse shape than the liberal controlled city of Austin because of it. "Bring us your undocumented, homeless, drug addicted, child pimping, low life scuzzy law breaking dregs - Houston will provide SANCTUARY!"

Hell of an election platform to run on, eh?

Re:He's A Jerk

[Geoffrey.landis]

Well, apparently British libel law allows libel suits against people who aren't British posting to servers which aren't in Britain. So why shouldn't the opposite be true as well?

Re:He's A Jerk

[shentino]

And let's not forget that due process goes out the window in traffic court.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Minor bit - the crossing point for IH10 and IH35 is in San Antonio - a larger city about 100 miles south of Austin.

Re:He's A Jerk

[DigiShaman]

Just remember. Outrageous results require outrageous actions. It's all in where you move the sliding scale that can be deemed acceptable to most people.

Re:He's A Jerk

[ImYourVirus]

I for one would like a free extridiation to europe at their cost, then when I'm done (with my vacation) they can send me back to my home country, first class both ways of course. Some spending money would be awesome too!

Re:He's A Jerk

[maharb]

No, a speed trap is where a officer sits at a change in speed limit in order to enforce the change in speed limit. It is often viewed as a way to trap people unfamiliar with an area who don't see the sign of the lower speed limit. Often regarded as bullshit Most often speed traps are used in smaller towns as a source of outside revenue.

It seems big cities have tried to hijack the definition to include a bunch of other bullshit but the real definition is nabbing people at a change of speed limit that is large, unwarranted, or easy to miss. Anything else is not a trap, it is just plain speeding.

Re:He's A Jerk

[couchslug]

"there are estimates that human trafficking has almost a million victims "

Sources? Prostitution arrests should provide supporting demographic data if indeed the problem is that vast.
"Almost a million victims" is the population of a good-sized city.

Exaggerating a problem is common when one is part of an organization offering a "solution", or when one wants to sell newspapers, get page hits, etc.

Re:He's A Jerk

[DigiShaman]

Texas is basically the worst state in the nation for speeding tickets.

I can't vouch to it being the worst, but it's certainly bad.

When I lived in Austin for about five years, I've learned to drive under the speed limit when going under a bridge. Those patrol bikes love to camp out under underneath them in the shadows and behind foliage. I've also had a few tail me for about 10 miles (from the HW all the way through many residential streets) just waiting for me to screw up somehow.

Houston is more forgiving per say, but just as sneaky. Just remember when driving in Houston, always slow down when at an incline. The cops camp out on the other side at the decline. By the time you spot them, you will not have the reaction time to slow down and thus it will be too late. Perhaps this is the same in most cities, but these guys in H-Town are good. Damn good!

Re:He's A Jerk

[maharb]

That explains why he was dumb enough to try and stop people from criticizing him. Every politician is well trained in letting people bash them to death because they know calling them out is worse because they are smart enough to realize the contradiction. How can you be a police officer, where your sole purpose is to protect citizens rights, and try to take away one of the most fundamental rights we have. Despite politicians being evil, they are at least smart enough to not try and do this in the open. They hide it in massive bills so by the time anyone reads it they are long gone but the effects are stuck.

Re:He's A Jerk

[LVSlushdat]

I believe you have your Texas geography a bit wrong... Austin sits astride I35 ONLY... San Antonio sits astride I10 and I35... Used to live in both cities a few years ago...

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Legalizing drugs will not allow you to eliminate 90% of the police force. My god people can't be this stupid.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

Ooops. Sorry. With all the traveling I've done, that's a REALLY stupid mistake. What can I say, besides I typed faster than I thought.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Jaysyn]

I'd vote for that platform.

Re:He's A Jerk

[whoever57]

No, a speed trap is where a officer sits at a change in speed limit in order to enforce the change in speed limit. It is often viewed as a way to trap people unfamiliar with an area who don't see the sign of the lower speed limit.

In the context of California, the GP is correct. California has a specific definition of speed traps and they are illegal. CA law restricts the speed limits that can be imposed (must be based on traffic surveys -- if not survey based RADAR can't be used to enforce) and the methods (does not allow time over distance measurements).

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

See post above, responding to AC:

"Ooops. Sorry. With all the traveling I've done, that's a REALLY stupid mistake. What can I say, besides I typed faster than I thought."

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

"Law enforcement officials have long described Texas as a major corridor exploited by human traffickers. According to the U.S. State Department, between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked into the United States each year, with nearly one in five victims of human trafficking traveling through Texas."

I snagged that from the Houston Chronicle. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6626053.html

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

I withhold opinion on all but #2.

Slow down dumbass. I would LOVE to see local police in my area start taking idiots speeding through school zones with dozens of elementary age children lining both sides of the narrow, alley like road. It is a school zone for a reason. And you are REQUIRED to be at the speed limit before entering the zone...not 200 feet into it...you know, after you already ran two six year old children over.

On the flip side, I'd also like to see these officers issuing tickets to children walking in the roads when sidewalks are available.

Re:He's A Jerk

[TapeCutter]

No it only applies if a "reasonable person" would take it to be true and of course I'm entitled to my opinion that the sherriff is a tin-pot dictator with delusions of granduer.

The libel/defamation laws in UK/AU are designed to make infuential people/organisations responsible for the consequenses of false accusations they make in public. Americans might see that as censorship. Like the OP I'm also a British born Aussie and see it more along the lines of enforcing common descency and keeping the highly politicised mass-media on a leash.

Sir Arthur C Clarke used the laws to force a tabloid to retract allegations of pedophilia against him. He refused to accept his knighthood for the 2yrs it took to clear his name through the courts. However these laws do not apply in parliment, "parlimentry privlage" means politicians can bullshit to their hearts content in the house.

In other words I can say I think the sheriff is a dickhead and quote him out of context to demonstrate it, but I can't put words in his mouth or lie about his actions. OTOH it's doubtfull a "reasonable person" would accept a random slashdot post at face value.

Re:He's A Jerk

[TapeCutter]

Great word!

define:phlebotomist
#1 - (Princeton): "Someone who practices phlebotomy".

Re:He's A Jerk

[denobug]

I'd pay the fine they want if they would let me select deferred adjudication without having to appear in person and/or having legal representations. I just want the tickets off my records!

Re:He's A Jerk

[richmaine]

...extridiation...

As odd as the British law in question is, I don't think it usually includes extra radiation as a penalty. :-)

Extradition probably wouldn't apply either. :-)

Re:He's A Jerk

[Reziac]

How many of those are coyotes' "clients" ??

I've heard of illegal aliens claiming that their coyote "kidnapped" them to sneak them across the border. Right.....

Re:He's A Jerk

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I believe drugs, pimping, child abuse and general law breaking are in fact against the law in Austin and Acevedo is ready to get your ass for it.

You fucker. You ruined a perfectly non-sensical rant. Why do you hate America?

Re:He's A Jerk

[ultranova]

While your post has some merit - you don't mention that the Mayor of Houston managed to get the city turned into something called a "sanctuary". Basically, if you're an illegal immigrant, the city ain't gonna fuck with you. They won't ask, if you don't tell.

So basically, this politician suggests leaving alone people who aren't causing trouble? Oh the horror!

"Bring us your undocumented, homeless, drug addicted, child pimping, low life scuzzy law breaking dregs - Houston will provide SANCTUARY!"

Are you just trolling, or do you have any evidence for any of these accusations? Besides being undocumented and thus in violation of immigration laws, of course - but then again, since we allow capital to freely move around the world nowadays, why not people too?

Hell of an election platform to run on, eh?

Common sense is indeed rare in a politician.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Barterer]

What helmet law? Last I checked, the helmet law in Texas had been repealed, and the Austin BICYCLE helmet law repealed about a week later. Did they reinstate some BS save-one-life/temporary-emergency helmet law just for the rally?

Re:He's A Jerk

[Achromatic1978]

2) Constant and aggressive speed traps all over the city (I recently observed motorcycle police tailing people into a school zone and nabbing them if they didn't hit the brakes immediately).

You mean "per the law"? That speed zone sign is big and readable from a distance. When a speed limit drops, you're supposed to begin slowing before it. Not hit the brakes once you pass the sign.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

Oh, wow - surely, you don't believe that the whole thing is a simple transaction, with every individual in every case being alike? So many complexities are involved.

Yes, OF COURSE almost every adult who crosses from Mexico to the states is a criminal, at least as far as he is attempting to bypass immigration laws. But, to dismiss anything and everything that might happen within that criminal underworld as equally wrong is - silly at best. That coyote has anywhere from 2 or 3 to as many as 100 people AT HIS MERCY. If he rapes, kills, or otherwise abuses his clients, it all happens outside the law. Kidnapping a pretty child or more, especially if he has already killed that child's parents, is no big deal.

Not to mention - that child didn't "choose" to put him/her self into that predicament. Their parents did that, for them.

While I'm not about to believe every sob story I might be peddled by this criminal population - anything they might make up is quite possible in the shady world they live in.

Once captured, no coyote should ever be free to walk under God's sun again. Some of them are soul mates to Attila the Hun. Since I can't differentiate between the better and the worst of them, I say imprison ALL of them for life.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

The drug that most reliably elicits agression in humans is alcohol, mix an alcoholic with anti-depressents (as many GP's) do and you have a legal but violent and parinoid arsehole. I'm smoking a splif right now and have a picture of Bob Marley doing the same thing on the wall (of the $500K house I own), I've had the picture for a long time, I first sucked down a joint in the mid-seventies.

At 50 I'm well aware most people have some sort of "vice", be it sex, dope, crack, grog, tabacco, chocolate, coffee, lsd, religion, the trick is not to let it fuck with your life. Sure there are plenty of people who do but you cannot declare war on a social problem without declaring war on society, it's the equivalent of cutting your head off to cure a headache.

So for fuck's sake, legalise it! I would much rather lead my normal productive life and pay a sin tax than hide and pay the exorbident prices I pay for...bribes?...mafia?...I don't know? ...I get it from a mate I've known for 15yrs. He's a truckie and sells it on the side to pay for his own smoke. I've grown it but never sold it, I'm a software engineer and better paid, we're both too old to be interested in raping and pillaging the neighborhood, and my home theater works just fine. OTOH my ancestors were "blue eyed giants of the north", so it's in the family I s'pose.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Achromatic1978]

but if people who were supposed to be here "temporarily" are still in my city committing crimes to this day

If they are paying rent or such, then I don't care if you're pissed off. All your post says is "we don't like those people in our town". Tell me why you think they have less right to stay and live anywhere they so desire than you?

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

No, I'm NOT trolling. I do expect that the law be observed.

First, crossing an international border without the approval of the sovereign states involved is a felony offense. Houston, like some other cities, is literally overflowing with illegal immigrants. I don't believe that any city has a worse problem - though I could be mistaken.

Second, a sizeable percentage of those people doing the border hopping were criminals before they ever hopped a border. Drug mules, drug enforcers, gang members, and more. A young girl was murdered recently 20 miles from my home. After weeks of investigation, it was found that the murderer was a wanted criminal already, under another name, as well as a fugitive from Mexico law, under yet another name. Check out the Houston papers - the same story is told month, after month, after month.

As for those people who DON'T cause any trouble - I might not care to much about them, except that they provide cover for the real low lifes. When the cops went looking for our local murderer, very very few people were willing to give any information. But, the girl's daddy disappeared from work, without notice. Turns out that he went home to Mexico, and was hunting the murderer in his own hometown. Daddy knew exactly where to find his daughter's murderer, but wasn't willing to tell the law anything.

Allowing foreign nationals free run of out country creates all sorts of hazards - it doesn't take a troll to understand that.

I wonder - are you a democrat, or an anarchist? You're certainly not a republican, a libertarian, or a neocon.

Re:He's A Jerk

[maharb]

That is not a functional definition of the phrase. Sorry. California is not the rest of the world.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Idiomatick]

Wanting cops to uphold the rule of law makes me a troll? damn... Didn't think there were that many anarchists on /.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Brian Gordon]

However these laws do not apply in parliment, "parlimentry privlage" means politicians can bullshit to their hearts content in the house.

Please, please, please tell me you're trolling.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assert that it is probably true that any neighborhood with any population with similar socioeconomic demographics (ignoring anything race or ethnicity based) to that of another neighborhood probably have similar rates of violent crime when compared one to another. I wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood with poor "white" folks any sooner than I would in a neighborhood with poor "black" folks. More well-to-do folks have their own dysfunctions, but I would imagine that it's more an issue of property crime as opposed to violent crime. (Note that I am treating domestic violence as a separate type of crime here, as I believe that to be pretty a pretty universal problem regardless of socioeconomic demographics.)

Re:He's A Jerk

[gd2shoe]

Or parents triple parking while they wait for school to let out...

(Sadly, I'm being literal.)

Re:He's A Jerk

[Brian Gordon]

Maryland is great. In my area they don't seem to mind you going about 5 over as long as you're not driving dangerously. And speed limits on I-270 north are a joke.

I guess we budget them enough money that they don't need to harass citizens on the roads to make ends meet. Quid pro quo.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Brian Gordon]

why not people too?

Yes we all share these ideals, but surely you've heard of the actual problems caused by illegal immigration.

They tend to form communities that don't integrate well with society because they don't know the language and customs. The communities foster crime because nobody can call the police without being deported. Victims of violence and abuse can't get help without risking deportation, and neither can exploited workers.

Deathly ill? Too bad, come in to work or you're fired (and good luck finding medical care). Filthy run-down apartment with no heat and asbestos insulation and that would burn to the ground killing dozens of people if someone was careless with a cigarette? What are you going to do about it.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Sulphur]

Our politicians bullshit like their jobs depend on it.

--

I must have been a camel in a previous life; I don't mind what I am doing, but I don't want to change it.

Re:He's A Jerk

[BitterOak]

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.

Yes, because when I'm driving through Austin with my family, I want the police to pull me over and question my kids about whether or not they've been forced to have sex. Nothing remotely like a police state about that.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Runaway1956]

Are you trying to be an orc, or a balrog? (just kidding - it's your sig, after all)

Actually, Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma already make use of roadblocks and checkpoints. Other states do too, I'm sure, but since I don't travel as much these days, I can't say what they are doing. These checkpoints routinely target drunk drivers, bootleggers, and drug runners. They are almost always set up late at night.

Now, I don't approve of these things - but since they are in use anyway, why not put them to better use? If they are going to pull you over anyway, why not talk to the kids? Maybe you've missed the Garrido case in California? Two female cops were alerted by the unusual behaviour of Jaycee's daughters.

Put more women into cruisers, and let them talk to kids during a traffic stop or roadblock. Most of us guys are to damned dumb to pay attention to the kids, unless they are broken up and bleeding.

Re:He's A Jerk

[RivieraKid]

The libel/defamation laws in UK/AU are designed to make infuential people/organisations responsible for the consequenses of false accusations they make in public. Americans might see that as censorship. Like the OP I'm also a British born Aussie and see it more along the lines of enforcing common descency and keeping the highly politicised mass-media on a leash.

While that may be how they were intended when initially created, unfortunately, now they are used as a tool for influential people/organisations to silence legitimate criticism.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Now, I don't approve of these things - but since they are in use anyway, why not put them to better use?

Definition of a police state right there. The only way they get away with those roadblocks today is by saying that they are stopping an immediate threat (drunk drivers) - drug searches only happen when someone is intimidated into giving permission to search their vehicle. You are willing to stretch that from an immediate threat to something completely indiscriminate.

Maybe you've missed the Garrido case in California? Two female cops were alerted by the unusual behaviour of Jaycee's daughters.

One female cop, and Garrido went to the police station on his own recognizance to get an on-campus event permit. Using that situation to justify roadblocks for such a tiny amount of human trafficking (article you linked to said 20% of ~17,500 per year, that's ~300 per month out of a guesstimated 100 million vehicle trips per month for a percentage of 0.0003% of all vehicles, less if more than one trafficee is in a vehicle) is just completely off-base and out of proportion to any feasibly achievable level of success.

Re:He's A Jerk

[bertoelcon]

Our politicians bullshit like their jobs depend on it.

Their jobs DO depend on it, they might not get reelected and get ostracized from ever being in politics again.

Re:He's A Jerk

[belmolis]

Authorizing police officers to draw blood on the spot, with or without your cooperation (using a contract phlebotomist of course) if you are pulled over under suspicion of DUI.

If it is only done when there is reasonable suspicion of DUI, this is not so bad, given that you are legally required to submit to a test anyhow (assuming that Texas is like almost every other state). The blood test is much more accurate than a breath test. It isn't susceptible to alcohol in the breath or other chemicals in the breath that fool breathalyzers, and the machines are better maintained and much less wonky. Getting a blood sample on the spot not only leads to stronger evidence for convicting the guilty but it protects the innocent.

There is, of course, the issue of what happens to the blood sample after it is tested for alcohol level.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Man Eating Duck]

the real definition is nabbing people at a change of speed limit that is large, unwarranted, or easy to miss.

The worst example I have seen was a police officer with a radar measuring people in the acceleration area after a toll booth. The limit was 50 km/h before the booth, and the sign with 90 km/h is situated about 200m after the booth. If that isn't just to fatten the government coffers I don't know what is.

Re:He's A Jerk

[canadian_right]

And the locals put up with because....

Anyone and everyone associated with such tactics, corrupt in my opinion, would all be voted out of office up here.

Re:He's A Jerk

[AlamedaStone]

illegal immigrants are helping our country the best way they can by you know not paying taxes

This is the point at which I stopped reading. The only taxes they aren't paying is income tax. I'm no economist, but I'd guess that we could make up the lost revenue of income taxes on every immigrant worker in the country by nailing no more than a handful of corporate executives. Those fine folks who use loopholes in tax law to dodge taxes and hide assets.

Meanwhile, the immigrants spend a vastly higher proportion of their income on things like sales and luxury taxes than most of the rest of us.

Get a grip.

Re:He's A Jerk

[ImYourVirus]

Everyone's a critic.

Re:He's A Jerk

[operagost]

Meanwhile, the immigrants spend a vastly higher proportion of their income on things like sales and luxury taxes than most of the rest of us.

How is that? Are they billionaire vampire* Mexicans tooling around in Bentleys?

* Food isn't usually taxed, so someone who doesn't eat would probably pay more sales tax per dollar (that's "progressive"). Since most Mexican immigrants live frugally, the exact opposite is true. Sorry to kill the joke explaining that.

Re:He's A Jerk

[jamstar7]

Food isn't usually taxed, so someone who doesn't eat would probably pay more sales tax per dollar (that's "progressive").

Here in La Zona, food is taxed, if it's prepared and served to you, like in a restaurant. But it's just the local sales tax being applied. Food you buy in the grocery store isn't.

Re:He's A Jerk

[dpastern]

Judging by what this particular police chief has made possible for the police to do, he deserves criticism and then some. It's really starting to look like a lot of places are setting up police states these days.

Dave

Re:He's A Jerk

[Chris Mattern]

Wow. First time I've seen 3,000 described as "almost a million".

Re:He's A Jerk

[ImYourVirus]

Yeah because somehow getting paid under the table is the same as paying all the other taxes. Federal, fica, medicare, state, etc, etc.

And no they don't spend more of their money on 'luxury' items than we do.

At any rate we should let the illegals live off of the rest of us that work here legally?

Re:He's A Jerk

[ImYourVirus]

Thats what he's talking about, food at a grocery store isn't taxed.

Re:He's A Jerk

[tthomas48]

1) Is true
2) Is called a "recession". If you were here during the dot-com bust you would remember this exact same environment under a different police chief.
3) He should harass them. There were I believe 3 fatalities during the ROT rally this year due to un-helmeted riders. The rallies do not increase crime in the city, no matter what business owners would contend. Therefore it's appropriate for the police chief to go after middle-aged white people aren't wearing helmets, over black kids who are being noisy and not causing any harm.
4) I live in South-East Austin. We're very thankful for the increased patrolling in our neighborhood and it's brought down crime substantially.

While I agree that number 1 is police-statish, the rest are just him doing his job.

Re:He's A Jerk

[WillDraven]

I'd like to point out that you're responding to a thread talking about a city where they do NOT deport people for simply being illegal so that they CAN call for help if they need it.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Exactly my thought too. But so much of the opposition to illegal immigration is based on tribalistic knee-jerk responses it means you can't even trust that the people who sound rational really are rational or are just playing back "talking points" they learned at "how-to-argue-against-illegal-immigration-and-not-sound-racist.com."

Re:He's A Jerk

[sixsixtysix]

how about taxing the churches instead and i'm on board

Re:He's A Jerk

[Uberbah]

Two problems with your holier-than-thou shpeel: speed limits are set by zoning, not by how fast it is to safely drive on any given road. And most traffic tickets have nothing to do with enforcing safety, but revenue generation.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Uberbah]

Project much? The vast majority of police action isn't investigating murders or pulling over drunk drivers, it's busting pot smokers and meeting their quota for revenue generation (traffic tickets).

Re:He's A Jerk

[plague3106]

Ya, well, thanks for your opinion.

Re:He's A Jerk

[plague3106]

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.

Oh the irony..

Crime is NEVER really a problem in any police state..

Re:He's A Jerk

[plague3106]

Tell me why you think they have less right to stay and live anywhere they so desire than you?

Because they are here in violation of the law, and thus are criminals? Because they then take jobs paid under the table, thus forcing down wages and losing other benefits that earlier generations FOUGHT to get? Because being an immigrant doesn't mean you get to distrupt the life of already established citizens?

Re:He's A Jerk

[Achromatic1978]

Feh. The original comment was about "refugees" from New Orleans. Apparently, somewhere, you've decided that they're all illegals.

Interesting extrapolation.

Re:He's A Jerk

[plague3106]

Opps, I replied to the wrong thread. Sorry about that.

Re:He's A Jerk

[Coren22]

You made a serious mistake in your post. You should have posted anonymously, since that is what he is trying to prevent. :)

Re:He's A Jerk

[atamido]

Most ERs won't report an illegal immigrant to authorities. This is actually part of the problem as illegal immigrants don't pay many taxes, but take advantage of things like free schooling and health care at the ER. One of the reasons that an ER visit is so expensive is to cover the cost of treating illegal immigrants that they will never be able to contact about paying bills.

I just want them to become legal citizens and start paying their bills and contributing to society.

Well, there is a problem here

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

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.

Re:Well, there is a problem here

[dougmc]

utter waste-of-space career political figures such as him don't like criticism

Actually, he rose through the ranks -- he's not a career politician. He's a cop, now doing a job that's largely political.

But yeah, cops never liked criticism. But who does? Cops (and politicians) often can do a bit more about it than the average citizen, however.

Re:Well, there is a problem here

[A Commentor]

Where did you find that quote, it definitely wasn't in the article linked to the story. Maybe you should take the time to read the story instead of basing it on the tainted summary. Right from the linked news article summary: "People who misrepresent themselves as officials in online comments could face civil, criminal penalties, Acevedo says." The problem is not the anonymous comments, but people posing as actual officers and stealing officer's identity. Here, from the first paragraph: "Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo says he and some of his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used in online blogs and in reader comment sections on local media Internet sites." Stealing someone's entity is definitely not on the same as posting anonymous comments. It falls under this new law: "State lawmakers this year passed a law that took effect Sept. 1 making it a third-degree felony to use another person's name to post messages on a social networking site without their permission and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten."

Re:Well, there is a problem here

[Newer Guy]

"Constitutional protections are just an inconvenience" Well you know, since the former PRESIDENT (also) believes this, the shit just flows downhill....

Is it a coincidence that they both are from Texas? Somehow, I think not...

Not surprising

[webheaded]

There are people like this everywhere. As long as there are police upholding the law, there will be police trying to abuse it, and it would appear no one ever really does anything. Maybe the citizens of that city will get lucky and the mayor will come down and tell him to knock it off if for nothing else other than the fact that he's wasting money. It's been proven that if eroding our civil liberties won't get a politician's attention, money will. That being said, I wish someone on one of those damn news networks calling each other UnAnmerican(tm) about this or that would come together and agree that things like THIS are un-American...but there I go again...being an idealist. *sigh*

Re:Not surprising

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:Not surprising

[nstlgc]

4. Never oppose an OCP officer

Re:Not surprising

[Yvan256]

What part of "classified" don't you understand?

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

NEXT!

   

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you expect a private corporation to do any of those things you listed? Bank of America? AIG? Walmart?

No, you wouldn't. If those companies had a list a mile long, you still wouldn't because you'd recognize those promises as marketing bullshit.

Do you not realize that the "municipal police" are private corporations contracted by the municipality to provide the service of statute enforcement?

So stop buying their bullshit. They have no duty real or imagined to protect you.

The only people that "fight for truth, justice, and the American way" are your elected county sheriffs and their deputies.

Re:Not surprising

[kitgerrits]

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

I believe the correct statement would be:
"You're fired"

Re:Not surprising

[Dhalka226]

would come together and agree that things like THIS are un-American...

What? Jumping to conclusions? It seems perfectly American to me.

Look, we don't know what's going on. Maybe it's a corrupt cop crying that people aren't respecting his authorati. Maybe he has a legitimate beef, but should just ignore it and be more thick-skinned. Maybe it's truly heinous, unprotected, libelous speech. The summary is so ridiculously slanted that it's obvious they already made up their mind without the bother of pesky facts, and frankly it sounds like you have as well.

Slashdot is the perfect example of both the values and the costs of anonymous speech; anybody here who doesn't believe it can be abused to spread horrible lies is delusional. So why are we so quick to jump on "corrupt cop versus anonymous defenders of civil liberties?" Why can't it be "douchebag cop-hater fucks hiding behind the veil of anonymity to libel?" Both seem perfectly likely to me.

It's reminds me of a saying that I can't find the exact wording for, but goes essentially like this: Nobody believes the official statement but everybody believes the anonymous source.

Re:Not surprising

[webheaded]

Did you even read anything about this article? This is about how the cops have been doing this consistently and being struck down in court for it. What is left to see? Even if this specific incident didn't do it, what about all the other ones that were already struck down? Is that not pretty obviously abuse of the system? I don't know really why you're arguing with THAT...we aren't waiting to see what happens with the other stuff because...it already has.

He proves their point

[Gothmolly]

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

Re:He proves their point

[Reziac]

Gothmolly points out: "People are posting anonymously because they have no trust in the police."

Agreed ... and it would be interesting to see if the cops had the balls to arrest someone who posted the same statements under their real name. It's a lot easier to denounce an anonymous 'enemy'.

=====
"Terrorists are attacking us!! We must stop this!"
"Which terrorists are these??"
"Uh, well, nameless terrorists..."

bad summary

[Mr. Slippery]

From TFA:

People who misrepresent themselves as officials in online comments could face civil, criminal penalties, Acevedo says.

...

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo says he and some of his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used

...

In March, the social networking site Twitter shut down a fake account that pretended to issue official Austin police bulletins after the department and the Texas attorney general's office complained.

...

State lawmakers this year passed a law that took effect Sept. 1 making it a third-degree felony to use another person's name to post messages on a social networking site without their permission and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten.

...

A police commander has had his name falsely used as the author of comments about the department.

The main issue here doesn't seem to be people posting "cops suck!", which is of course protected speech, but rather low-grade identity theft.

Re:bad summary

[timmarhy]

yep he is totally justified in wanting to find these people - they are breaking the law pretending to be police officers online.

leave it to /. to not get the facts straight.

Re:bad summary

[drinkypoo]

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo says he and some of his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used

These are separate things. And their claims of "harassment" could well be people sharing uncomfortable truths (likewise "lied about") which are inconvenient to the police. I've got no personal beef with the Austin police, but then, I'm (more or less) white.

You are making assumptions without any basis. If I wanted the identities of a bunch of commenters, could I use tor (or similar) to connect to a website and make comments under my name, then claim they weren't made by me, and get the true identities of all commenters under subpoena?

Police are licensed gangs. They are not there to protect you. They are there to make sure that the status quo is maintained. That is all.

Fun, paranoid moment: I had to post the link to the story to my fb twice because the first time, it failed to appear on my wall even AFTER a link I posted 30 minutes later.

Re:bad summary

[Jared555]

How do you know they are pretending?

Re:bad summary

[buddyglass]

If the posts are in fact libelous, then the department has a firm platform to pursue the individuals responsible and I support them in that effort. If the posts are not libelous then they're being idiots and should grow a thicker skin. I haven't seen the posts so I can't say either way.

Re:bad summary

[kd5zex]

Police are licensed gangs. They are not there to protect you. They are there to make sure that the status quo is maintained. That is all.

Exactly. In fact, the SCOTUS even had a little something to say on the issue. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales or DeShaney v. Winnebago County if you are interested. The latter is a social agency but still a state agency tasked with "protecting" people.

While not all cops are bad, there are plenty that are. The main duty of a modern police officer is to keep the city coffers stuffed with fines imposed on the citizens (their employers). I once thought we were a free people until I did a little research on the dangerous violation of public intoxication. Turns out that you (in Texas) can be arrested and fined for doing anything, at anytime in any place, other than submitting to the "order" of a police officer. Hell, if you don't submit properly you can be arrested and fined, if you are lucky you won't even get tazed.

A big problem down here is the practice of hiring of former military personnel by police forces often "right off the boat" who have had the common sense portion of their brains removed. One of my personal favorites is the police referring to citizens (their employers) as civilians.

Re:bad summary

[TechnologyResource]

Article says, "his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used." If they are being "lied about," that's different from what you are saying. There's not a lot he can do about that part of it if there are no threats involved. I believe this Slashdot article is accurate.

Re:bad summary

[Shark]

Police are licensed gangs. They are not there to protect you. They are there to make sure that the status quo is maintained. That is all.

You must have seen this then...

I'm not entirely sure just how much bias this thing has as I am not in the US, but I must admit it makes me scared to have to deal with the police there if I ever visit.

Re:bad summary

[wvmarle]

If those allegations are true then what is in the way of starting a john-doe kind of law suit, or at least try to convince the judge that libel is taking place or something else illegal (imposing as police officer or so), subsequently get a warrant, and get the information the legal way. I don't think there are more laws needed for that, or are there?

Then with that warrant the identity of a poster may be revealed, after which this poster may or may not be found guilty. Maybe the poster they suspect of imposing a police office is the actual officer in question... now that would be fun.

Anyway we are talking about the police here, they certainly know how to do a proper criminal investigation. After all that is one of their tasks. And just because this involves computers and not traditional media to spread alleged libel doesn't mean traditional laws can not be used any more.

Re:bad summary

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Sounds to me more like someone made a parody posting as acevedo himself and it embarrassed the crap out of him.

Regardless of what really happened, even if it was the absolute worst case suggested, they are still ignoring the most important point -- the medium contributes to the message - you impersonate a cop in a newspaper or on a television news interview where there is the expectation of editors doing fact-checking and vetting that gives your impersonation a whole lot more weight. You post online and say you are a cop where no one can see you, no one ever does any vetting or fact checking, well, that carries no more weight than a feather. As the cartoon said - on the internet no one knows you are a dog, they also don't know you aren't a dog either.

Re:bad summary

[infolation]

Preseumably the poster wouldn't know whether they're genuine, but a Police Officer that finds comments attributed to him/her that s/he didn't make would know they weren't genuine and would raise a complaint.

That the Austin Police want the identities of people who post libellous statements or who claim to be police officers when they're not isn't contentious. You'd expect incidents where that happens to be investigated by the Police. But that's aside from any possibly nefarious reasons the Austin Police might have for wanting to uncover the identities of their critics.

Re:bad summary

[mishehu]

Yeah, that's the title that I saw on the Austin American Statesman's print edition yesterday. It clearly stated that he wanted to out people posing to be officers on "online forums". I did not have time to read the whole article, but I figured that if the Statesman had that level of detail just in the headline, that it was probably straight to the point.

I do know it's illegal to impersonate an officer in real life, but I'm not sure how that applies to the Internet. Of course, I always take it with a grain of salt even when somebody here does in fact say IAAL... Hell, I even took Ray Beckerman with a grain of salt until I read more of his postings over time. So I would give similar consideration to somebody claiming to be an officer on an anonymous forum... Call me a skeptic...

Re:bad summary

[gd2shoe]

... If they are being "lied about," that's different from what you are saying. There's not a lot he can do about that part of it if there are no threats involved...

If a lie is provably false, damaging, and written then it's libel. In other words, illegal. (If it's spoken then it's slander, and still illegal.) No threats are required to start civil proceedings.

Public trust is eroded

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Double-edged kick me sign

[SystematicPsycho]

This article appearing on slashdot with user comments is a double-edged kick me sign - for those who post against the chief and for the chief himself.

Vicious cycle

[neurogeneticist]

So a bunch of people who don't like the way the police department is being run post anonymously what they don't like (i.e. "The Chief blows goats"). While this may not be particularly constructive, what kind of message do you send by "out-ing" these posters publicly? You basically give the dissenters a Streisand effect, and prove that you actually do, in fact, blow goats -- thereby increasing the pool of dissenters.

erode public trust?

[petes_PoV]

surely that's down to public officials who do stupid and arbitrary things (such as trying to censor, prosecute or shut down his critics), not the people who criticise them for it.

Maybe if this guy wants to be respected, he should start acting respectably.

He just proved them right.

[TranceThrust]

A police chief who wants to use the law to shut up those who criticize him. If this doesn't ring "police-state" alarm bells then I don't know what will. This chief should go.

Re:He just proved them right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:He just proved them right.

[ancient_kings]

I think he and his entire deparment should be fired, and their pensions revoked for complete incompetence...

Re:He just proved them right.

[crtreece]

It's been stated in multiple other posts.

Without information identifying posters, they may or may not be with APD. What if the posters really are APD? I don't know what information is in the posts, but if the chief is this riled up about it, I don't expect it would benefit the posters career if they truly are in law enforcement.

Re:He just proved them right.

[dcollins]

FTA: "Acevedo said that in several cases, he thinks department employees were responsible for comments that appeared on sites such as Statesman.com. Officers and civilian workers who were responsible for the comments could face disciplinary action."

Actually, I see more space in the article devoted to this item above. Smells pretty clear to me... what he really wants is to smoke out the whistleblowers, under the guise of "maybe, possibly they're impersonating officers".

Too little, too late.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

He claims that 'such posts erode public trust in the department.'

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that one.

Re:Too little, too late.

[fredjh]

It's like the "do these jeans make my ass look big?" question... no, you're big ass makes your ass look big.

Do these posts erode public trust in the department? No, the department erodes public trust in the department.

Re:Too little, too late.

[Idiomatick]

I'd watch yourself, I hear Mr. Acevedo is sensitive about his weight.

Re:Too little, too late.

[Runaway1956]

It's a safe bet that he's even more sensitive about tiny penis allegations. There's a reason that so many cops like to carry big guns. My retired state cop sister never carried one of those huge assed magnum cannons - instead, she learned how to hit her target. How many people do you know who have survived a .38 police special hitting center of body mass? I haven't met any, personally.

Re:Too little, too late.

[Reziac]

Yep... by the time such comments CAN erode public trust in any meaningful way, the boat is already well out to sea.

If an official has confidence in their own actions and their own department, it makes more sense (and does less to trigger the Streisand Effect) if they just ignore such comments, or direct folks to make their own observations rather than believing hearsay -- then let their actions, and their department's actions, speak for themselves.

Re:Too little, too late.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people do you know who have survived a .38 police special hitting center of body mass? I haven't met any, personally.

Woah you have a real talent for confusing the issue, first you equate not enforcing immigration laws with permitting child prostitution and illegal drug use, and now you go on to make a classic argument from ignorance. Just how many people do you know who have NOT survived a .38 police special hitting center of body mass? I doubt the number is higher than 5 - a completely meaningless sample size - and far more likely to be zero, which, just in case you were wondering, is not a perfect sample size.

Re:Too little, too late.

[metlin]

So, I can safely say that your sister has no penis at all, yes?

Re:Too little, too late.

[Runaway1956]

Uhhhh, I think she borrows one from time to time. Otherwise, I wouldn't have those two knucklehead nephews, right? Maybe I should ask the brother in law to clarify the matter?

Re:Too little, too late.

[Runaway1956]

Damn. I almost wasted my time responding to freaking anonymous coward. "Whoa" yourself, stupid. If you really want answers, you'll post with some other name.

Re:Too little, too late.

[Sulphur]

They can't have big belt buckles.

somewhat deserved?

[Dale512]

----
He claims that 'such posts erode public trust in the department.'
----

Perhaps the variety of bullshit crap they pull has eroded the public trust in the department. Many of the police in the jurisdictions around Austin end up on the poop list of most of the civil rights organizations for a reason.

The most recent story I recall had one of the news stations showing a ton of cops rolling through red lights over a 24 hour period (think one light had 13-15 cops run the light). None were responding to a call and only a handful actually flashed their lights. In any event, when not responding to a call they are forbidden to do what they did. Acevedo basically said he wasn't going to discipline anyone over it and the public should not worry about it since cops have a rough job.

Crap like this is what leads to the comments he doesn't like and rightfully so. If he quits acting like a tool maybe some of this will decrease.

If you read the article, it says something about them thinking some of it is departmental employees. It sounds more like they are on a witch hunt than any real "eroding of public confidence" claim.

Criticism is legtimate, defamation isn't.

[EWAdams]

Learn the difference or keep your mouth shut.

Re:Criticism is legtimate, defamation isn't.

[freedom_india]

Criticism is when i say "You suck at your work."
Defamation is when you claim my words "You suck at your work" prevents you from getting any work because people believe me more than you.
Its based on perception.
That is why in US, only a very few can win in courts on Defamation.
Constitution forces us to accept criticism and roll with the punches.
If you got a thin skin move to Europe.

This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[sirwired]

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

Re:This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[kdemetter]

"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!

But what if they do , but the cops make sure it can't be proven ?
If it's my opinion that that Austin cops routinely have orgies , based on why i consider evidence ( but what other people may not consider evidence ) , i still have the right to voice that , and i don't see why it should be libel .

So : " In my opinion , Austin cops routinely have orgies ..." , is not libel , it's just stating your opinion.

Re:This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[GaryOlson]

From a comment by "gohorns" on The Statesman comment section:

why do you immediately assume that the people who are posting as police officers AREN'T police officers? Think about it...Acevedo is saying how he is upset that people would get on and pretend to be officers so they can slam the police department. That implies he already KNOWS that they aren't officers. How does he know that? The story says that they would have to subpeona records to get the names. There's no way right now that anyone can know if they are officers or not. What if they ARE officers, and they're using the only way they can to let the public know the truth about Acevedo? No wonder he wants them shut down! He's got a leak he can't plug! It's driving him nuts!

Methinks the police chief may have internal strife and is incompetent at managing his people.

Re:This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[Jared555]

Is putting 'all of the content of this blog is my opinion even though I have seen some of it happen' against the law?

Re:This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[ancient_kings]

You don't even need to state "In my opinion" as it is implicitly defined when posting on most sites (like Slashdot)...

Re:This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[that this is not und]

Probably the best solution would be to change the law so that only eunichs can be police officers.

They can set up a little room at the Police Academy.... Have a special graduation ceremony....

Re:This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[dougmc]

Beware. Taking a statement that's worded as if it were a fact (such as `Austin cops routinely have orgies in the backroom with arrested hookers!') and prefacing it with `It is my opinion that ...' does not automatically mean it's can't be libel.

More details ... More ...

Re:This is a "case-by-case" scenario...

[bky1701]

This. Freedom has no strings attached. The "freedom comes with responsibility" saying is bullshit. If I give you a car "for free", but demand you give me 20$ every time you get on the highway, is it really free? Freedom does not come with responsibility. Rights are inalienable ALL the time, not just when you approve of their usage. Free speech is the right to say "you're a crack whore" for the same reason it is the right to say "Mayor Jimbob is stealing millions from the city treasury," when it is later proven he is. What reason is that? Freedom of speech is the ability to say what is seen as being wrong. You could say what was "right" in the Soviet Union. What if you actually are on crack, and I simply cannot prove it? How can saying such be in any way wrong?

All this does is further the wikipedia mentality, which is already horribly bad. People will believe anything they read, no matter if it is written with a marker on a toilet stall, in the constitution, or being yelled at them by a preacher, if they want to. Libel is not wrong, the fact that people believe things without reason is wrong. Libel laws just make it harder for those without the expendable income to use on lawyers to express their opinions, and god forbid, facts. Because it happens.

All laws can be abused. All speech should be free, without limitations. The fact that a few people may actually believe you fornicate with your mother is a small price to pay to live in a free society. Sadly, most people would rather be "protected" from freedom, so I'll just ask you; who do you think benefits from these laws? It certainly isn't 'we the people'.

If you read the article (I know I know)...

[fooslacker]

If you RTFA (I know, I know) he isn't saying he's going after everyone who posts negative stuff. He's saying he's going after people who pretend to be police officers or officials while posting and people who post libelous material.

All that said, the citizens of Austin should band together and get this idiot fired. This kind of ridiculous type of activity against citizens is an abuse of power if not is the legal meaning of that phrase then in the spirit of it. We shouldn't have to put up with public officials who when their feelings are hurt lash out using their offices and positions to punish critics, even the ridiculous ones. If the police chief wants to sue them in civil court with his own money and lawyers he should go right ahead. If he wants to hunt them with public resources he should be run out of town. GO DO YOUR JOB!!! and stop worrying about who is saying mean things in the school yard, sir.

Re:If you read the article (I know I know)...

[ghideon]

Was going to mod you down, but had to ask. In the first section, you say you RTFA'd, and he's going after those who say they are cops online (or spreading libel). If they are not cops, shouldn't they be pursued? It's a crime to do so IRL, why not online? Then you say the folks in Austin should have him bounced out of office. Why? Isn't he doing what a police chief should? I agree that civil court is the place to pursue libel, but what about people (possibly) misrepresenting themselves as law enforcement? At a minimum, doing so can cause harm, and is illegal correct?

Re:If you read the article (I know I know)...

[fooslacker]

He is within the law to go after these people but IMO that is a minimum standard for a public official. This is especially true of an official who has limited resources to enforce laws so he must make decisions on priorities. In my opinion he is prioritizing on personal agenda rather than public good and I believe this is an abuse of power and misuse of public resource (though I don't believe it to be illegal). When faced with these situations in a democracy the appropriate response is to replace him or force him to be replaced with a better steward of public trust and individual rights. Hence despite the fact that I think the summAry was misleading and he is legal safe I think the citizenry should take action.

Nothing to see here, carry on...

[c]

FTFA:

"If you want to criticize, critique, question actions, that's allowable under the First Amendment, and we encourage that," Acevedo said. "When you start actually representing facts, when they are absolutely outright lies, that can lead to civil liability and, potentially, criminal liability."

I'm thinking this means he has a grasp of the concept...

Re:Nothing to see here, carry on...

[the eric conspiracy]

Not necessarily. The police chief is a public figure, which means he also has to prove that the defamation was also accompanied by malice. That is notoriously difficult to do in a court of law.

The other question is who is going to pay for the legal fees. If I was a citizen I would seriously question this. In addition most lawyers won't take defamation suits on contingency because of the small settlements usually gained.

All in all I suspect that this is mostly an effort to intimidate.

The guy should be sacked.

Not before breakfast

[GaryOlson]

Did anyone else see the enlarge photo tag under Avecedo's picture and think "Ewwwww!"?

You can't blame Bush for this

[Vinegar Joe]

Mayor Lee Leffingwell and the entire city council are Democrats. Austin's chief of police is appointed by the city council......if they don't agree with his actions, they can dismiss him.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/default.htm

http://www.citizinemag.com/features/commentary/27-public-forum-to-debate-controversial-blood-withdrawal-policy-on-dui-suspects.html

Re:You can't blame Bush for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...now that you mention it, no one IS blaming Bush for this. You're the first one to bring it up.

Which I actually find surprising, considering Texas was mentioned, but alas...

Re:You can't blame Bush for this

[Reziac]

So, it follows that they, as Democracts, agree with and support his actions.

Remember that, next time you vote.

Fascinating comments

[belthize]

      I don't know enough about the facts to really care but the comments on the article

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/18/0918comments.html

    are pretty fascinating. They're a fairly good reflection of the current mentality that "things I don't like = communism/fascism/scary thing".

Public trust in the department?

[Dracos]

Perhaps this is not as justified as the chief wants it to be. He and his subordinates are public servants, and should be held accountable. If the police are creating reason(s) for the public to distrust them, why should the public trust them?

What the chief is really saying: "I am a douchebag who thinks my position automatically entitles me to trust and respect."

Re:Public trust in the department?

[TRRosen]

What the chief is really saying: "I am a douchebag who thinks my position automatically entitles me to trust and respect."

hmmmm who else came from Texas and had that thought???? Hmmm

Re:Public trust in the department?

[Vinegar Joe]

hmmmm who else came from Texas and had that thought???? Hmmm

Sorry....you'll have to do better than that. Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo was born in Cuba but raised and educated in California.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/chiefs.htm

Re:Public trust in the department?

[Reziac]

As to this notion that Authority is *automatically* entitled to trust and respect....

I'm reminded that when someone finally got around to actually *studying* the issue of "self-esteem" (since there's been this hoo-rah about "teaching kids to have self-esteem" even tho it had never been studied), the very highest level of self-esteem was found in -- criminals!! In other words, in people who assumed they were automatically better than everyone else.

Re:Public trust in the department?

[TRRosen]

well the other guy I'm thinking of wasn't really much of a Texan either...or much of a man to think of it.

Actually

[justthinkit]

Actually, the police chief wanting to out A/C's who don't like him is eroding public confidence.

He wants to fire his critics

[mbone]

Let's see, people post on line anonymously, claiming to be police officers, and reporting various abuses.

The police chief "thinks some could be department employees" - translation, he thinks that they are police officers, or, at least, office employees. Implication - either they are telling the truth, or for some other reason hate his guts.

"Acevedo said he and other officers in recent months have faced allegations of sexual impropriety and suggestions that they engaged in quid pro quo behavior."

Translation : he is being accused of having sex with hookers, and letting them go free in return.

As I see it, accusing someone anonymously of these things is whistleblowing. It should be investigated, but by a third party. As it stands, it appears that the police chief is merely trying to find a legal means of finding and punishing whistleblowers. (Any trial would likely amount to the whistleblower saying, "I saw you and X, Y and Z doing this" and the police chief saying "No,you are lying, and here are officers X, Y and Z all willing to testify that you are lying, too." Good luck to the whistleblower on winning that one.)

Now, in a reasonable legal system, this would result in a special prosecutor being appointed. Pardon me for doubting that this will occur in Texas. I would be glad to be proved wrong.

Re:He wants to fire his critics

[MrMista_B]

So?

Investigate the abuses.

If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear.

Re:He wants to fire his critics

[mbone]

Yes, but expecting the APD to do that fairly is not realistic IMHO. It has to be someone independent.

So will he ?

[hebertrich]

Acevedo said he does not object to blogs critical of APD or himself--as long as they are based on factual and truthful information. "
Does it mean that the Sheriff will always gave/give/will give factual and truthfull information ?
Call me a cynical . i think NOT , he's already knee deep caught in the mud he's moving around himself :)
Note : After him coming out like this .. he's going to be criticised a hundred times more just for being
a cry baby :)

Here is one of those "Austin Police" lies

[paulsnx2]

Yeah, and who decides if people are posting lies?

We live in Austin, and my 22 year old daughter was studying for her college finals, in her own duplex, and got into an argument with her boy friend. Irrationally, she called the cops, and the boy friend left.

The cops come, demand to come to look for the boy friend. She refuses, and they end up tasering her twice, arresting her for obstructing an officer in his duty and resisting arrest.

This because, when they entered her home without a warrant, they refused to let her secure her great dane and she was beside herself that they would shoot the dog (which doesn't like anyone in a uniform). Luckily, the dog did nothing.

Then for her safety, they released her at 4:30 am in downtown Austin barefoot with no ability to call anyone (you can only make collect calls to land lines, and none of her friends, nor myself, or anyone local she knows has a land line anymore). So I get a call at 5:15 when she borrows a cell phone from a construction worker.

Perhaps these are the kinds of "lies" the Austin police doesn't like posting. Personally, I wish they were lies. Just like the Grandmother that they tased on hyw 71, there are times when people act like idiots, angry and irrational. But in these situations, it is the POLICE that are supposed to act like trained professionals. If they are not in danger from a person who physically cannot harm them (a 70 year old grandmother, or a 22 year old girl screaming "don't shoot my dog!"), then they have no reason to taser some one. They are going to kill someone, and there isn't any reason for it.

Oh, I'd post the Police video from my daughter's encounter with the cops. BUT it seems they "lost" it.

Right.

Re:Here is one of those "Austin Police" lies

[dex22]

Or, my experience with APD. Sitting in a restaurant, two APD cops are seated in the booth behind me. They start talking about their new laser equipment and how it's much better than the old radar equipment. One then describes how he likes to inflate speeds by, I quote, "I can easily add 20 miles to the speed of a car." Wow. Just wow. Then, they start talking about the problem of "knowing black people are guilty of something" and using "throwdowns" they'd have taken off people earlier in the evening, and the best places to keep those stashes safe without getting in trouble. Uber wow.

Obviously, in reporting this, I have something to fear from those officers, so I would be inclined to report anonymously. However, I'm not a chickenshit and am prepared to stand up in court and repeat what I heard, if forced by the police. It's very hard for them to coerce people who are willing to speak openly, and who have access to forums the size of /.

Re:Here is one of those "Austin Police" lies

[labnet]

I read a book called 'The Tipping Point', where an example was given where 'normal' college students were chosen for a week long experiment. Randomly, some were assigned as guards and some as prisoners. The 'gaurds' became so abusive they needed to terminate the experiment early.

This says to me, that human nature even for a relatively 'normal' person can become abusive given the right situational circumstance, and it's up to a minority of us to be vocal and bring back balance, which is why critisicm of public officials must be allowed.

I fear though the USA is trending toward fascism.

Re:Here is one of those "Austin Police" lies

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I read a book called 'The Tipping Point', where an example was given where 'normal' college students were chosen for a week long experiment. Randomly, some were assigned as guards and some as prisoners. The 'gaurds' became so abusive they needed to terminate the experiment early.

That's the Stanford prison experiment.

Re:Here is one of those "Austin Police" lies

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

And that correlates absolutely with my own half century of observations.

I have yet to see a group of people having power where the overwhelming majority don't abuse it.

It's why I assume that any cop is abusive and crooked until proven otherwise.

I can't see how anyone can operate otherwise.
I guess its just comforting self delusion to think of them as public servants.

Re:Here is one of those "Austin Police" lies

[Anonymous Coward]

But in these situations, it is the POLICE that are supposed to act like trained professionals.

Absolutely dead on!

I was recently at a dinner with some friends that go back 50 years in some cases. One has a son (Marine captain) who's been to Iraq and Afghanistan a few times. After getting out of the marines, he and his younger brother both recently went through the SF police academy. Another guy in the group did time in Vietnam in comms.

Between the two of them, you can't get a word in edgewise that says anything negative about cops or the military. Worst of all, the first guy is also a corporate lawyer.

I once mentioned an article about the different treatment given to John Walker Lindt, "the American taliban" and someone else swept up at the same time. The article, by his father, pointed out that the other guy off with hardly more than a reprimand and was sent back to his native Saudi Arabia. The son was jacked up to some 40 years in charges, all of which were dismissed (except for lying to the FBI). In the end, he pleaded down to just the lying part and 20 years.

I no sooner had the man's name out of my mouth than the lawyer went on a rant about lying to the FBI (who has never, ever lied to the people of America) and asserted that Lindt should have gotten the full 40 years.

No wonder, with that kind of support, that cops think they can get away with anything they dream up, no matter how abusive.

Re:Not to sound like a meme, here ...

[Hal_Porter]

In Soviet Russia, police criticize citizens in the media.

Chief needs a M I R R O R !

[redelm]

Most likely it is his own actions and inactions in disciplining his subordinates that is eroding public confidence. Stifling criticism is the last refuge of incompetents.

Possibly the chief is doing this "to protect his men" and improve dept "morale" and "efficiency". However, that is corrupt -- he is sworn to protect the public, not his men. And the Texas and US Constitutions, not "efficiency". The simple fact is the Constitutions are designed to limit police efficiency to reduce inhibition and promote happiness.

Given the rather extraordinary police powers and discretion, perhaps the public should have absolute privilige with respect to criticism. Zero liability for libel and slander. Or at least and entraordinarily high standard of proof even to start a case. Someone needs to watch the watchers.

Three words

[vehicle tracking]

Freedom of Speech!

Similar Thing Happened Here in Orlando

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090429/0244064692.shtml

It's as though these people think they cannot be criticized by average people, just by the media.

Looks like a threat, quacks like a threat...

[secondbase]

As a couple of comments have said, the Chief has every right to go after anyone committing libel or pretending to be an official.

But from the article:

They have since researched their legal options and decided that from now on, they might launch formal investigations into such posts, Acevedo said. He said investigators might seek search warrants or subpoenas from judges to learn the identities of the authors -- he thinks some could be department employees -- and possibly sue them for libel or file charges if investigators think a crime was committed.

"A lot of my people feel it is time to take these people on," Acevedo said. "They understand the damage to the organization, and quite frankly, when people are willfully misleading and lying, they are pretty much cowards anyway because they are doing so under the cloak of anonymity."

Assuming the comments in the first paragraph are accurately paraphrased, the Chief certainly seems to be using the threat of legal action to quiet people who are making negative comments.

Reading between the lines (the whole purpose of /. :-), the whole thing seems more directed at his own department: he keeps mentioning department employees, and the article has a couple of mentions of regulations about posting on social networking sites. That would explain why he wants to learn identities, then possibly file charges.

The Austin PD must be a really happy organization!

According to police policy, employees are barred f

[Rasperin]

"According to police policy, employees are barred from criticizing or ridiculing the department" -- This needs to be changed, anyone in voting range should call state/city legistrators.

Art Acevedo is a Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . although a moderate. I guess in Texas that qualifies as a "OMG Flaming Lib'rul."

I hope the chief reads Slashdot

[TechnologyResource]

The way I see it is that police don't have anyone looking over their shoulder. Online comments may keep him in check. He must be a real idiot to stir this pot, which will only bring him more criticism.

So, where can we post?

[ProfanityHead]

So, where can we post?

What use is this story unless we can all enjoy the Texas tough guys coming after us!

Re:Wrong slashdot headline

[celle]

How does he know they're libelous posters? They might just be cops who otherwise might end up dead if discovered. Saying they're libelous doesn't make it so, just an excuse to roll back criticism protections. If the chief wants to deal with critics just increase accountability and make public all department financial and operational data and really advertise it. If he's got nothing to hide and as a public official he shouldn't, otherwise, he shouldn't be there. There's nothing criminal about stating an incorrect opinion or impersonating in public, just actionable on a civil level. If it were criminal, advertisers/marketers would be jailed for life, politicians/religious leaders would be on death row, and all potential lawyers/businesspeople would be executed instantly.

It's your fault if you accept unverified information. The only way to really fight without violating various legally accepted rights is to put out as much verified information as possible.

so glad

[TRRosen]

Its admirable that this police chief has eliminate all drug trafficking in Austin and put an end to all violent crime thus having the time to spend reading online forums.

PS I saw him rape a busload of underage retarded nuns while high on crack the other day.

freedom of speech

[DragonTHC]

Any opinion is protected by the first amendment.

If the police are trying to silence opinion, that's all the more reason for allowing it.

These tactics are applied in Iran and North Korea. And now, apparently Austin, TX.

Re:freedom of speech

[DragonTHC]

yep, since the police hold no jurisdiction on the Internet, there is no possibility of someone being caused harm by someone claiming to be someone else.

Your example is insufficient.

[EWAdams]

The law of defamation varies from state to state in the USA, and is spelled out in the statutes; these are then interpreted by the courts, and the outcomes of lawsuits set precedents.

The Constitution states that all rights not granted to federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, which includes the right to be free from defamation. Different states protect that right in different ways. The Constitution does NOT "force us to accept criticism." It protects freedom of speech in a variety of circumstances, but the courts have long since held that this does not include sanctioning defamation.

Also, the law is different all over Europe, as you really ought to know.

Re:Your example is insufficient.

[freedom_india]

There is NO Anti-Defamation law.

Re:Your example is insufficient.

[An Onerous Coward]

Are you sure?

Re:Your example is insufficient.

[freedom_india]

Saw it. Read it carefully.
It still says there is NO Federal law for it.
Various states, various judgements and customers dictate it locally.

Re:Wrong slashdot headline

[cheros]

How does he know they're libelous posters?

Umm, by proving the information posted is factually wrong? Don't get me wrong, as far as I can assess from the write-up the guy is a dick, but the first point to assess is if the information in question is justified criticism or plain lies - that someone doesn't like the guy doesn't automatically allow them to defame him, and I would support an effort to go after those people.

However, if the information is factually accurate, just not terribly good for the guy, tough luck. Any decent court (OK, nebulous concept) ought to reject stuff like this post Bush with the remark that he'll have to prove the information to be false. That's in principle a bit unfair (as he's guilty until he proves his innocence) but the one way NOT to address is by bullying. That has a tendency to turn into the Streisand effect..

Nope, it's still libel

[sirwired]

Prefacing a statement of fact with the words "in my opinion" is not a "get out of libel free" card.

Saying something highly illegal happens in the backroom of the Austin PD is not a statement of opinion at all (it's a statement of fact), and saying it an opinion does not make it so. If you have no reasonable basis for making the statement (and this is a pretty loose standard), and it is not true, then it is libel. If you DO have a reasonable basis, then it is "reporting", and you have 1st amendment protection.

SirWired

A WTF Moment

[kilodelta]

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.

Re:A liberal-hating quote from your hero:

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, but check what he said about Christianity in private: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs#Private_statements
It is clear from this that his public praise of Christianity was for the consumption of people whose support he desired, but that he did not agree with the sentiments expressed.

On the off chance you're serious...

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

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.

Re:On the off chance you're serious...

[MoralHazard]

Sigh. It's a very common misconception that the term "mother fucker" (two words, not one) denigrates a man who has sex with his own mother. Fuck Wikipedia, and fuck the ignorant idiots who spin whole fictions, and especially fuck the lazy dipshit readers who just assume that WP is correct, because it's easier than following up with their own research. Yeah, you heard me--Jimmy Wales can suck a fattie, while we're at it.

In reality, the term "mother fucker" refers to a man who has sex with SOMEONE ELSE'S MOTHER, specifically with a woman in some kind of tight spot (e.g., economically) who agrees to sex with that man only out of desperation. The woman doesn't really want to sleep with this man, and she isn't a prostitute in the professional sense, but this man presents an alternative to watching her children go hungry.

The term gained tremendous traction during WWII, originally amongst black American GIs, and was applied literally to American soldiers (black, white, or otherwise) in war-torn Europe who would trade food, money, or anything of value (cigarettes, chocolate, booze) for sex with desperately poor or starving French and German women. Many of these women were home-makers whose husbands had been conscripted away, killed, or imprisoned, leaving the women to support the couple's children alone. Many lacked trade skills, and the war damaged the local economies so badly that they had few, if any, alternatives.

So calling a man a "mother fucker" meant that he was A) taking advantage of poor and downtrodden people with no options, and B) incapable of seducing non-desperate women. Anyone with experience growing up in desperate poverty, or who saw his own parents humiliated by circumstances beyond his control, would probably consider that kind of behavior to be a pretty low thing.

In the last sixty or so years, the term has entered the popular slang as a term of derision ("That Richard Nixon is a real mother fucker, you know?"). More recently, it's been used as an indicator of extraordinary intensity, not necessarily in a derisive sense, but usually still carrying some implications of harshness ("I fell asleep out in my lawn chair, yesterday, and got a mother fucker of a sunburn.") or intimidating awesomeness ("That Shaft, he's one baaaad mother fucker.").

Do your part--fight the ignorance!

Re:On the off chance you're serious...

[waferbuster]

Nice summary, I wish I had mod points to give you. +1 informative.

Re:On the off chance you're serious...

[iphinome]

Citation needed

Re:On the off chance you're serious...

[roman_mir]

So calling a man a "mother fucker" meant that he was A) taking advantage of poor and downtrodden people with no options, and B) incapable of seducing non-desperate women.

- while your point A may have merit, point B does not logically follow. Someone can be taking advantage of poor and downtrodden while still being capable of seducing non-desperate women.

After saying this, I thought the following about myself: Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct.

Re:On the off chance you're serious...

[MoralHazard]

+1 Futurama!

And yeah, point B isn't actually proven by point A. But we're talking about the neurological and cultural prejudices of Home Sapiens, here, so we're pretty far from what I'd call "logical". As long as "swift-boating" and "borking" are effective political tactics, we really ought to admit that.

Re:Well, you're missing the point

[b4dc0d3r]

It's not anonymous commenters criticising the police. The summary suggests that's the problem, but the subheading says

People who misrepresent themselves as officials in online comments could face civil, criminal penalties, Acevedo says.

So it's actually people pretending to be officials. Would you set up your Slashdot profile with your real name and links to your personal websites, and then give us the password? Misrepresenting yourself as another person is one thing, but this goes beyond.

A public official needs to be trusted, and people are misrepresenting the official in a public forum. This is no different from impersonating a police officer. I could pretend to be Acevedo and give a bogus opinion on some case, and it probably would be damaging. You show up in court with a URL that quotes Acevedo, and now the question is - should a reasonable person have been able to tell that the poster is not representing the police force?

Not the first time...

[SurfCook1]

Police Director Sues AOL For Critical Blogger's Name.

Re:Not the first time...

[mschuyler]

This is the Memphis case. Godwin, the police chief, lost the case and 'Dirk Diggler' remains anonymous. Also, Diggler was able to force the complaint to be unsealed. Godwin made a procedural error and wound up filing in a different county where the case was not (un-)properly sealed. Diggler shut down his blog, which was getting really ugly with hate speech and internal fights, and now has a forum at URL:http://mpdenforcer20.proboards.com/index.cgi/).

Re:Not to sound like a meme, here ...

[dryeo]

America has always been a place where you had to be careful about criticizing those in power.
During the revolution if you criticized the revolution you could expect anything from tar and feathering to your property taken through a letter of attainment.
After the constitution was implemented you had things like the Alien and Sedition acts.
During the civil war Lincoln had quite the secret police who totally disregarded the rights of dissenters.
During the first world war people were thrown in prison for protesting the draft (supreme court likened it to yelling fire in a theater)
Then you had the first red scare, the second world war, the second red scare where you got blacklisted for your believes, the reign of Hoover who had no respect for rights and so on.

1st Amendment Ain't What It Used to Be

[MugenDraco]

Well he might get his way. The 1st Amendment is getting worn down these days. Down here in Florida a principal got put in jail for saying a prayer out loud during lunch. And a prayer is simply an expression of an opinion. It's not like he insulted another religion, or Atheism, or violated anyone's personal freedoms or beliefs. Apparently these days if you say something that offends someone, or they don't agree with you, you can get arrested for it.

The Supreme Court has spoken

[coats]

...in McIntyre vs Ohio: anonymous speech is a Constitutional right. The Austin police chief is trying to break the Law -- in particular, to break the Supreme Law of the Land.

A Surprising Non-Jerk

[coats]

Lester Maddox earned a well-deserved reputation as an extreme far-right-KKK governor of Georgia. Surprisingly enough, however, one of his first acts as governor was an anti-(town-)government action relates to speed traps. There was one of the small towns in south Georgia, on the route from Atlanta to Florida, which earned the most of its revenue from its speed traps -- speed limit 15MPH and all that sort of thing. I don't recall the name of the town at this instant; let's call it "X". As one of his first acts as Governor, Maddox had billboards erected just outside the town limits:

You are now entering X, Georgia, famous for its speed traps.
Please drive carefully! -- Lester Maddox, Governor.

Re:A Surprising Non-Jerk

[Internal Modem]

Here's a photo of the billboard. Ludowici Billboard

Suck it

[uvajed_ekil]

I have nothing but feelings of contempt and utter disrespect for the police chief of Austin, TX. I think he is dumb, and I heard that he pees his pants, when he isn't wearing a skirt. But I have done nothing illegal that should concern him, so he can suck it. We are entitled to free speech in the USA, which includes Texas, contrary to the belief of most Texans. He has no jurisdiction over protected speech, on the internet or elsewhere. Suck it, Chief. Did you stop beating your wife? Does she know about your male lover?

Re:Suck it

[John Hasler]

> We are entitled to free speech in the USA, which includes Texas...

But Austin, Texas, despite being the capital of Texas, is actually in California. Just ask any Texan. And in California you can go to jail for criticizing Scientology.

Austin resident here

[chrysrobyn]

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.

Identity fishing

[Wardish]

As with the majority of lawsuits that need to get the real identity of the poster, this one will not result in little to no legal battles. Generally the idea is to identify the people so that OTHER measures may be taken.

I'll leave it to your imagination on what Other Measures a Police Chief can use with relative immunity.

Ward

Re:Well, you're missing the point

[laughingcoyote]

Hello. I'm actually the chief of the Austin police force, and I want to tell you that all of you here are next! And you'd better watch it, you don't want to have some "evidence" mysteriously appear in your trunk! You keep your mouths shut!

Would any reasonable person actually believe what I just said?

Hi!

[IRoll11!s]

I'm the police chief of Austin, Texas, and I'm a PC!

Police Chief Leonid Breznev.....

[IHC Navistar]

I can't believe Texans, of all people, would stand for such authoritarian officials.

Someone should remind Chief Acevedo (read: Premier Breznev) what the Second Amendment is for.

He's a public figure, correct?

[Newer Guy]

If he's a public figure (and I believe he'd be hard pressed to claim he isn't) then any comments are protected by the First Amendment. Slander and libel don't apply-unless they are lying about him or his family's personal life.

So, pound sand, bucko! YOU were the one that wanted to be the big police cheese, and this is a fringe benefit that comes with the job!

Slashdotters in Austin: Join Your ACLU Chapter

[mgbastard]

Slashdotters in Austin: Join Your ACLU Chapter The Central Texas Chapter of the ACLU works with the police department to correct issues. I'm sure the chapter president there is already calling to express her objections.

Learning on slashdot

[phorm]

Really, you should probably add that to the wikipedia entry. It makes a lot more sense
Of course they'll probably be anal about citations, so if you have any that would help too.

A new standard for failing to RTFA

[sartin]

The Chief is trying to go after people who misrepresent themselves as APD officers and staff online. So this is either sets a whole new standard for failing to RTFA or a gross misunderstanding of the out of context quote:

"A lot of my people feel it is time to take these people on," Acevedo said. "They understand the damage to the organization, and quite frankly, when people are willfully misleading and lying, they are pretty much cowards anyway because they are doing so under the cloak of anonymity."

The cloak of anonymity here is that people are claiming to be (sometimes specific) APD officers in online postings, but are not and are hiding behind the anonymity of the place where they make the postings. Poorly phrased and easily taken out of context, but not the the same as going after anonymous posters ragging on APD.

It sounds like

[okmijnuhb]

He doesn't need any help eroding the trust of his office. He's doing fine on his own.

Re:Anonymous Responds...

[Sulphur]

Is the color scheme not arresting then?

what I find most scary is...

[JustNiz]

what I find most scary about them trying identify people to prosecute them for speaking their opinions is that the police chief either doesnt understand about the first amendment (which is ridiculous for a police chief), so (worse) does understand it but thinks he can go around it.

The Austin Police Chief is doing an amazing job!

[gearloos]

He is a great guy, personally, and he is the best thing that ever happened to..where was it again? Oh yeah..., Austin Texas!.. OK, can I have my money now? ohh, and I was promised Cheesy Poofs! Where are my cheesy poofs?

Only he can

[toyotabedzrock]

Only he can, by his own actions, "erode public trust in the department".

Re: Parlimentary Privilege

[RockDoctor]

However these laws do not apply in parliment, "parlimentry privlage" means politicians can bullshit to their hearts content in the house.

Please, please, please tell me you're trolling.

GP is correct, though using the perjorative "bullshit" is probably unnecessary.
If you are an MP, speaking in a quorate debate in the House of Commons, the laws of libel, defamation etc simply do not apply. Similarly, the official gazette reporting such statements, "Hansard", is utterly immune from those laws when reporting such statements. So, if the Right Honourable Mr Chinley Toothsworth alleged "on the floor" that Obama buggered Dubya on the night of moving into the White House, and Hansard reported it with the editorial comment that Dubya enjoyed it more than Obama, then the only person in danger of a lawsuit is the editor, as he's the only one not protected by "Parliamentary Privilege".
[In self-protection I should say that it's fantastic to think that a closeted redneck moron is likely to enjoy being sodomised by anyone, let alone Obama ; this is clearly parody. Then again, having seen the closeted redneck morons in 'Deliverance' ... ]
I am not sure if full ParlyPrivilege also extends to breaking court orders to not publicly discuss certain matters (e.g., giving the names of terr'st suspects appealing against their house arrest) ; from occasional reporting of such threats, I rather think it does.
I believe that the House of Lords enjoys similar ParlyPrivilege ; I'm not sure if it also applies to people giving evidence to official committees of Parliament. You need a lawyer to address those points.

But no, in short, the GP isn't trolling when describing the freedom of action that Parliamentary Privilege gives to MPs.

In part, it gives an MP the freedom to talk without fear of censure, save through the ballot box (or the car bomb) ; in part it stems from the assumption that all MPs (etc.) are "Right" and "Honourable" people.

Re: Parlimentary Privilege

[Brian Gordon]

No you have it backwards.

I'm hoping he's trolling that he thinks it's a good idea to bring libel laws into parliament.

I don't even think it's possible to explain this sentiment if you don't already understand it. It's just.. well to Americans at least it sounds insane.

Re: Parlimentary Privilege

[TapeCutter]

Just to be clear, I don't think it's a good idea to extend it to parliment, I do however think the laws as they are practiced right more wrongs than they create.