Slashdot Mirror
Austin Police Want Identities of Online Critics
An anonymous reader writes "The police chief in Austin, TX is not happy that people are voicing their disapproval of him via anonymous blog posts and comments. He claims that 'such posts erode public trust in the department.' The chief wants to find out who these people are and investigate and prosecute such posters for statements he deems defamatory and libelous. Interestingly, the article notes, 'the Associated Press has reported that most of the cases fail because statements of opinion are protected under the First Amendment.' One wonders if this is a legitimate problem that warrants public money to investigate, or whether it's that the people who deserve the most public scrutiny don't like it when others take issue with their job performance."
That police chief in Austin, Texas? - He's a Jerk. So sue me!
but the problem is not the one the police chief is making it out to be.
The problem is that it is utter waste-of-space career political figures such as him don't like criticism. There are laws and processes he can follow to make a case for someone's identity - if he can show reasonable grounds that they have committed libel or deliberate defamation.
He says, "There ought to be a law against people saying nasty things about me."
I say, "Get lost you ignorant pigfucker. Don't go into politics if you can't stand being publicly criticised. Oh, and expect to have to pay for legal advice before you make yourself look like a rube hick crying to the press about what your critics say."
Honestly. If they're not litigious bastards, they want the laws changed or fabricated out of fictional whole-cloth to engineer the political landscape most suited to their aims. Constitutional protections are just an inconvenience.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
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*
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
People are posting anonymously because they have no trust in the police.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
From TFA:
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Ummm,,,,public trust has to be earned too. Acting like a f***ing crybaby won't help.
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?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that one.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
----
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.
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
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.
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
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They're using their grammar skills there.
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.
file:
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
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.
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.
...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.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
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".
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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.
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
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
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:
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.
He doesn't need any help eroding the trust of his office. He's doing fine on his own.