Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Peoria Mayor Sends Police To Track Down Twitter Parodist

Posted by timothy on from the how-is-this-playing-in-peoria? dept.

New submitter rotorbudd (1242864) writes with an article at Reason about Jim Ardis, mayor of Peoria, Illinois, who ordered police to track down whoever was responsible for a parody Twitter account mocking him."Guess the good Mayor has never heard of the Streisand Effect. 'The original Twitter account had a total of 50 followers. The new account has over 200.'"

169 comments

  1. Isn't parody protected in the US? by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Canada you can parody anyone. For example Justin Turdeau instead of Justin Trudeau (leader Liberal party Canada). It's funny and you can't get sued never mind have the police come after you. It's called freedom of speech.

    1. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by vajrabum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have it here too, but it's enforced by the courts not by the police.

    2. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American political class is absolutely untouchable, and the police are their Pinkertons. Diddle some kids? Whatever. Parole. I'd really love it if someone were to take the law into their own hands and start shooting these motherfuckers.

    3. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the summary doesn't specify for what reasons they were allowed warrants but it's for slander.

    4. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Down here, we also have rules that say the police aren't allowed to arrest you for parody.

      Newsflash: it turns out that rules written on pieces of paper don't actually stop the police from arresting you for parody.

    5. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In Canada you can parody anyone. For example Justin Turdeau instead of Justin Trudeau (leader Liberal party Canada). It's funny and you can't get sued never mind have the police come after you. It's called freedom of speech.

      Legally, yes; but none of that kicks in until after some sort of legal proceeding actually occurs. If the cops just break down your door, shoot your dog, and seize everything that looks evidentiary and/or worth 'losing', and then no charges are filed? Well, if you have the resources to lawyer up, you could probably make a civil case out of it; but otherwise you just got protected and served.

    6. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't tweet slander. It would be libel. If that.

    7. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by machineghost · · Score: 0

      Ummm ... that's disturbing.

    8. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      apparently you can't parody in US... the the original account in question, @peoriamayor has been suspended. but a thousand flowers are blooming, including this guy, who's profile reads "Welcome to Peoria, bitches! My house, my rules. Check those civil liberties at the door and bow down to your leader. Humor and Parodies punishable by death."

    9. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if you have the money to defend yourself in court you have free speech. Sounds about right.

    10. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you parody Muslims, too?

    11. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, parody is protected in the US, and parody against public figures has a long history of protection. However, once you piss off a politician, you can expect to be raked over the coals no matter what your rights. It's going to be expensive unless you can get the EFF or someone similar on board.

      Now wait, did I just hear that some guy named Ardis likes to slob knobs in a McDonald's restroom?

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    12. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Ummm ... that's disturbing.

      How is that disturbing?

    13. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US does have a rogue government at this point, and they and the police have ruled themselves above the law. If this continues, a bloody revolution is inevitable, except with all the nutjobs hoarding guns, screaming about "that nigger muslim needs to show his birth certificate!" things could end up even worse. The likelyhood of the US being broken down into a bunch of smaller territories run by local warlords is pretty high. The US we used to love might never exist again.

    14. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      How is that not disturbing?

    15. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by cerberusti · · Score: 2

      It should also be civil, not criminal. Libel is hardly worth of raiding someone and confiscating all of their stuff.

      The charge is impersonating an officer anyway, which is so far out there in this case as to be clear abuse of power.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    16. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      The likelyhood of the US being broken down into a bunch of smaller territories run by local warlords is pretty high. The US we used to love might never exist again.

      I see they have internet in the Idaho backwoods now.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Guess the good Mayor has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

      Uh, yeah. And how is that relevant here? Doesn't seem like he's actually taking much heat, except here at Slashdot and a single Left leaning web site. Maybe a little heat in his home town paper. But seriously, "Streisand Effect"?

      People like to pontificate "Streisand Effect", but in most of the cases where it is used, it has not actually occurred.

      "Streisand Effect" is a *WAY WAY* over used Intertube meme.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    18. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      No we dont, free speech is only allowed in free speech zones. Doing it outside a designated zone means you get tazed in the junk by police.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a very big effect in this case, but it does appear to be an example of the effect (to recap, the effect is when an attempt to suppress a piece of information has the reverse effect). His original site had 50 followers, it now has 200 and likely growing - that's an audience growth of 400%. Now some of that growth might have been happening anyway, but the story has got wider coverage than it otherwise would have done. I pretty much guarantee I would never have heard of the mayor of Peoria or anything about him if the parody site had just carried on and he'd laughed it off. Now I know he's an asshat. That probably doesn't matter because I'm in the UK, but I guess he's getting somewhat more well-known (for the wrong reasons) in the US too. Sadly it still probably doesn't matter: the way he's behaving appears to be just how you expect your elected officials to behave. I doubt you expect his rivals would be any better, so it doesn't become a voting choice razor. It would probably be the same here. Sigh.

    20. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the sad reality of things; the government will revoke your freedoms whenever they wish, and make up some bullshit rationalization ("You still technically have free speech, but only when you're in free speech zones!") to try and fool idiots into accepting it. Try getting onto most planes in the US and you'll have your rights violated by our good friends at the TSA, and the justification for that is something very similar.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    21. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The police should refuse to obey the orders from a mayor to follow an illegal order, but most won't do it because they either don't know the order is illegal or because they know they will likely get fired if they refuse depending upon how much power the mayor has in the town.

    22. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Slander and libel are civil matters that don't involve the police.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    23. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Actually this is a classic case of the Streisand Effect and it seems like you simply don't know what it is. Many many more people now know about the account and have read it. Followers went up 400% as a result of his actions. I now know of a guy in Illinois who is clearly an idiotic douchebag. One whom I certainly never would have heard about if he hadn't made it an issue.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    24. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by edibobb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hate to break it to you, but there was much more police and political abuse in the U.S. 40 years ago. There was just no efficient internet or cell phone communications that we have today. Most misdeeds in the 1960's and 1970's were largely unknown beyond a few dozen people. Things have improved immensely. Most police and even a few politicians are honest today.

    25. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad I am an expat. Perhaps I should set up another Twitter account mocking this joke of a man. I'd love to see him abuse his authority and try to sic his crony thugs on me. The police here would beat the shit out of all of them. They are far more fair than American cops, but also far more hardcore when shit hits the fan.

    26. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by anagama · · Score: 2

      Add to that, the internet doesn't forget. This mayor has just arrested any potential upward mobility he may have had on the political ladder.

      Also, as of this moment, @NotPeoriaMayor is up to 688 followers.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    27. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by bielcosmo · · Score: 1

      Nope. Reasonable benefactors of humanity like Bloomberg have donated large sums to disarm the rabid lunatics, so it might take a bit, but we will actually have children live in schools with guns off the street.

      Warlords will not happen. Revolution is impossible (look at Syria) with the technology governments can bring to bear. One canister of Sarin gas on a town square of revolutionaries, and all the "three percenters" with all the nutty gun talk will be surrendering by the thousands like Iraqis in Desert Storm.

    28. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to the United Corporations of America, where our communications are censored, our community governments are contracts and our government leased with the option to buy.

    29. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by cusco · · Score: 0

      The left made a serious mistake creating gun control laws that nibble at the edges of the 2nd Amendment rather than do the heavy lifting going head-on to revoke or change it. It opened the door for the Right to attack other portions of the Constitution from the side as well.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    30. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ahh... in a clear case of a government attacking its citizens, some douchebag shows up to bitch about corporations.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    31. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      That's not parody. Parody is not simply trying to be funny. This is why Weird Al actually goes out and gets permission to do the songs he does, because despite the popular thought, most of what he does isn't parody. Parody requires that the new work is used in such a way to comment on the original. Replacing a few words or singing something in a funny voice isn't parody in itself. Depending on how the account is being run it may not be parody either. As time goes on, it's easy for people to misunderstand things, like those "in soviet russia" jokes.. it wasn't simply a matter of swapping two things, the jokes were used in a way, with specific things to comment on the government. Nowadays people just swap something in there with no thought and it doesn't make sense.

      Likewise people simply think "If I draw something funny, or make a stupid version of the name, it's fine I can do whatever I want". That's not true.

    32. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm ... that's disturbing.

      How is that disturbing?

      Its disturbing that people are wishing death upon others. That it needs to be explained to you is also disturbing.

    33. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, what do you expect when that's who runs the government?

    34. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have it here too, but it's enforced by the courts not by the police.

      That quote, I'm guessing was piss poor attempt at humor?

      who ordered police to track down whoever was responsible for a parody Twitter account mocking him.

      And here I thought we lived in a free country! Oh wait that never did really happen... This why people who vote should be banned from voting. You have politicians like the Republicans [I could find this idiots political affiliation] who are bitching and moaning the same rhetorical nonsense about over taxing, and too much spending, and yet they waste tax payers money, to do things like this, or waste tax payers money to have court battles over ACA. --Affordable Health Care Act---

      I want to know how much money was spent on this incident, and money spent over fighting against the ACA!

      That doesn't mean I agree about how the ACA is being implemented.

    35. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What events transpired to make those thoughts crop up in the first place would be more disturbing (not that advocating executions or proposing insurrection isn't condemnable).

    36. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither party gives a damn about the constitution or individual rights.

    37. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We lost Iraq in the end, despite our massive technology advantage, you dumb fuck.

    38. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird Al doesn't have to get permission. He does it voluntarily to not piss people off.

    39. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Weird Al gets permission because being right and getting sued sucks. Getting permission prevents such issues. It's expensive to win in court, even if you are clearly right.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    40. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      A lot of people know about this now that he tried to supress it.

      Now let's google streisand effect and see what it says...

      "The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet."

      Peoria seems like a definitive example to me.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    41. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      John Titor, is that you?

    42. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by JDAustin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What part of the constitution is the right attacking?

      Its the left who attacks the 1st amendment via free speech zones and wanting to limit who is considered a reporter. Its the left who has limited the 4th amendment with there militarization of local police forces. Its the left who has attacked the 10th amendment via increasing the power of the fed over the states.

      Yea, the right has some serious issues, but more and more people on the right are seeing the results and moving back towards the constitution.

      Oh, and Jim Ardis was re-elected with 91% of the vote in Peoria ILLINOIS. Hint....he's a DEMOCRAT.

    43. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected....this crook is a Republican. He needs to be kicked out of the party and ostracized.

    44. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      That's what he says, but the reality is that most of his songs wouldn't be defensible in court. Most of them simply do a funny spin on the name and change the lyrics but the often don't change the lyrics to comment on the song itself or the creator.

      I remember one R Kelly song he did clearly commented on the song and R Kelly himself. that one would have been fine, but some of the other ones, like "white and nerdy" awesome song, but doesn't really do much to comment on the original or the performers who made it.

    45. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      well..

      the mayor shouldn't been giving orders to the police in the first place.

      anyways, that's how it's supposed to be in democratic countries. the mayor can make a report of a crime and the police could just then say that "hey man, that's not a crime."

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    46. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Megol · · Score: 1

      I'll not read the linked article but there is a difference between parody and impersonation. Trying to impersonate a person and therefore skewing the public image of them isn't something that should be allowed but do a parody of them should always be allowed.
      Don't know how it is for this specific case but I have seen here and elsewhere that some people think one can do whatever they want under the protection of "it's just a parody". I'll wonder if they would say the same when a fake facebook account pops up with their name spreading hints of drug abuse and pedophilia? It would just be a parody, right?

    47. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1995, Ardis was arrested for indecent exposure in the wooded area of a Peoria park known for homosexual activity. Dressed in drag at the time, he told police he wasn't gay and was just returning home from a costume party.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Ardis

    48. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We lost Iraq in the end, despite our massive technology advantage, you dumb fuck.

      I know, but they can't even see the cognitive dissonance.

      Don't you love how a leftist can simultaneously believe we lost the war on Iraq due to "brave Iraqi insurgents" (hell, don't forget Vietnam) while also believing the same US military would completely crush any domestic revolution?

      Which is it?

    49. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The image I have in my head right now is Boss Hogg with a big cigar is his hand shouting at some policemen to "do something".

      --
      No sig today...
    50. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      No doubt this "revolution" will be organized on Facebook

      (and the police will be waiting with tanks when they arrive to take over the mayors office... Internet surveillance, bitches!)

      --
      No sig today...
    51. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: it turns out that rules written on pieces of paper don't actually stop the police from arresting you for parody.

      ...especially when the person you're parodying is a self-important asshole who happens to have the chief of police in his pocket.

      --
      No sig today...
    52. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      What part of the constitution is the right attacking?

      Both parties are attacking the constitution. Look at all the scumbags who voted for the Patriot Act (especially the first time around): Many from both parties, and most people the first time around. Who's trying to get rid of the TSA? A select few from both parties. Bush used free speech zones, too. Furthermore, we have DUI checkpoints, the TSA, constitution-free zones, unrestricted border searches, the NSA surveillance, etc., and none of those things were started solely by one party; it's a bipartisan effort to infringe upon our rights, and both parties are filled with evil scumbags.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    53. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as opposed to the spotless, violence-free and drug-free streets of the USA...

    54. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Douchebag is a democrat, oh he's such a typical democrat, see, this bitch is a typical bitch like all democrats. Dirty, dirty democrats".
      After discovering he's not a democrat but a republican
      "Douchebag is a republican, but he's not a real republican, he should be kicked out of the still totally awesome republican party".

      If somebody is part of the party you don't like, it's proof the that entire party is bad.
      If somebody is part of the party you do like, he's bad for the party.

      Hypocrit much?

    55. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's exactly the kind of modern republican the party wants. The left did not create free speech zones, that was Republican President George W. Bush. The militarization of the police and the fourth Amendment violations are typical of both parties, but the Republicans get the most points for egregious behavior.

    56. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I could stop reading this dismall shit after knowing there is at least one other person out there with a brain on their shoulders. Needless to say most people DON'T want these rights.

    57. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Bush was a leftist? Who knew?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    58. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      Glad there is someone else out there that(including AC) that realizes both parties are utter horse shat! Criminals and liars the lot of them. There are a few gems here and there, but they're few and far between.

      This is the reason I don't vote. You don't know who is going to do good or bad until it's too late. Mostly they do bad and I'd rather not be a part of it.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    59. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Likewise people simply think "If I draw something funny, or make a stupid version of the name, it's fine I can do whatever I want". That's not true.

      That's because the government is filled with evil scumbags who don't care about fundamental liberties such as free speech or the constitution they swore to defend. They, along with those who defend blatantly evil behavior, make me want to vomit.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    60. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPPP AC here. It seems accidentally I left out enough that I was misunderstood, so I'll take the chance to give small corrections.

      IF there is a revolution (which is inevitable if things continue the way they are), Washington DC will be crushed since thats the whole point, but all the nutjobs with guns will take that chance to create their own little kingdoms because they have absolutely no interest in anyone but themselves.

      Ideally, a legitimate revolution will include a significant portion of military people, including the National Guard, because the majority of them take their oath to defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic very seriously; the National Guard has armories in pretty much every town in the US (all of them have firearms, many have vehicles, and in the really large cities and in their state-funded training posts, they have tanks), and they and reservists make up like half of the US Military, and its kind of stupid to think that none of them would side with the rebellion, especially since the current rogue government is flat-out ignoring the constitution (remember the oath to defend it?).

      Hopefully if there is such a revolution, the only change will be the dissolution of Washington DC (while keeping the US Constitution and its guiding principles), leaving the states as they currently are. As the National Guard are State forces, under the control of each state's governor, they would hopefully be used to crush any aspiring nutjob warlord.

    61. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      score

    62. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      I believe he also gets permission, because in most cases he is copying the music as well, which is also copyrighted by who ever composed it, and media companies hold the rights to the music, even without the lyrics. So simply changing the lyrics doesn't change the fact that he is using the underlying copyrighted music.

    63. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left did not create free speech zones, that was Republican President George W. Bush.

      They were used before Bush for political purposes. Colleges and universities used them even before that. Bush is a scumbag, but he didn't actually create them.

    64. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh... in a clear case of a government attacking its citizens, some douchebag shows up to bitch about corporations.

      Almost as if every problem the americans have with government can be traced to the fact that you allow infinite amounts of money to come from corporations.....

    65. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech has to balance against people's right to protect the things they said and did as well. It's mostly about people being too lazy to create genuine parody because they don't really have anything to say beyond the level of a fart joke.

    66. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      There is no "balance"; you have no moral right to infringe upon other people's free speech because you're offended, feel your reputation has been damaged, or whatever other lazy excuse you use to justify discarding people's fundamental liberties like they're trash. I don't care if you feel it's "lazy" or whatever other subjective nonsense you want to call it; all that matters is free speech.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    67. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with being offended. Free speech is restricted all the time

      Hate speech, inciting riots, etc.

      You're free to say whatever you want. No one will stop you, but you also have to face the consequences of saying those things. It seems like someone doesn't really understand what freedom of speech actually means. That's typical, most people take the self-centered view that free speech means they can say whatever they want without consequence. That's false and has never been true. Free speech only means that you can say it in the first place. You're free to change warcraft to doorcraft and giggle yourself to sleep with how clever you are, but if you infringe on someone's copyright then you have to face the legal consequences of that.

    68. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of the constitution is the right attacking?

      First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Twenty Fourth, and Twenty Sixth Amendments.

    69. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with being offended. Free speech is restricted all the time

      Our rights are violated all the time. The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, draconian copyright laws, the drug war, etc., all show that. What's your point, other than to state the obvious fact that the government is full of evil thugs who do not care about freedom? It seems that's the way you want it.

      Hate speech, inciting riots, etc.

      You might be okay with that, but I'm not.

      You're free to say whatever you want. No one will stop you, but you also have to face the consequences of saying those things.

      You don't know what it means to be free. Using your logic, people from China or North Korea have just as much free speech as people in the US; sure, if they say the wrong thing, the government might severely punish them, but they're still technically free to speak.

      Hint: If free speech didn't mean being free from government thugs punishing you for your speech, the first amendment would be pointless, and the world would be far more unpleasant than it is now. You people are the ones who don't understand what it means to be free.

      Now, if by "consequences," you mean normal people forming opinions of you and perhaps criticizing you, then you're right; your speech can have such consequences. However, if you meant government interference, then you're wrong. Free speech is completely different from the mere ability to speak.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    70. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the reason I don't vote.

      I'm very saddened to hear that ... why throw away your vote? Vote for an independent, instead.

      Better yet, do what I do: try and convince as many family & friends to do the same.

      Let's chip away at those mongrels, one vote at a time.

    71. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It isn't disturbing because it concerns traitorous scum destroying the nation who are not subject to the rule of law.
      Do you feel disturbed when a serial killer is executed?

    72. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      This is the reason I don't vote.

      I'm very saddened to hear that ... why throw away your vote? Vote for an independent, instead.

      I've got to agree. A lot of people think that not voting for the Democrat or Republican is "throwing your vote away" because that third party candidate has a zero chance of winning. I do agree with the latter portion of the statement: Third party candidates, for the most part, don't have much chance of winning. However, this is *because* people vote for D or R (or don't vote at all) instead of voting for a third party candidate. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. People won't vote for a non-major party candidate unless they have a realistic shot at winning, but they won't have a realistic shot at winning unless people vote for them.

      Why vote third party then? To send a message. If a third party candidate gets a large enough portion of the votes, the major parties will take notice and will rush to coopt the issue as their own. They aren't stupid. If there's a groundswell of support for an issue, they'll tumble over themselves embracing it. In essence, voting third party can change the two major parties.

      Why not simply withhold your vote? Because not voting sends no message at all. You might think it's a grand gesture at the politicians but it's a gesture the politicians can't see. How do you tell the difference between "I'm protesting the two major parties" and "I just don't care enough about any issue to go out and vote"?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    73. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Twitter, last I checked, was not part of government.

    74. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Our rights are violated all the time. The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, draconian copyright laws, the drug war, etc., all show that. What's your point, other than to state the obvious fact that the government is full of evil thugs who do not care about freedom? It seems that's the way you want it.

      Not at all, but it seems like you'd like to create some kind of hippy utopia, good luck with that. Those of us that deal in the real world realize that you must strike a balance between the rights of one and the rights of another. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

      You might be okay with that, but I'm not.

      Good to have a benchmark for your lunacy.

      You don't know what it means to be free. Using your logic, people from China or North Korea have just as much free speech as people in the US; sure, if they say the wrong thing, the government might severely punish them, but they're still technically free to speak.

      In those cases the government specifically prohibits certain kinds of speech and directly punishes them, that isn't what we're talking about here.

      Hint: If free speech didn't mean being free from government thugs punishing you for your speech, the first amendment would be pointless, and the world would be far more unpleasant than it is now. You people are the ones who don't understand what it means to be free.

      Hint: shouldn't they be allowed some measure of control over the things they create? Would it be better that they didn't create because they knew that they would have no control over the product they make?

      Now, if by "consequences," you mean normal people forming opinions of you and perhaps criticizing you, then you're right; your speech can have such consequences. However, if you meant government interference, then you're wrong. Free speech is completely different from the mere ability to speak.

      the government doesn't interfere. The copyright holder uses the legal system to address your infringing on his rights. When you speak you can make choices about how you speak. You don't live in a freedom bubble getting to pass through the world pissing all over everyone else just because you ride someone else's coattails and can't be bothered to have an original thought of your own.

    75. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, the reason it is called the National Guard now instead of states' militia is that the federal government has control over it whenever it so pleases. The fact that the governors of various states have authority over their National Guard units is basically at the pleasure and forbearance of the feds.

      Of course, all bets are off during a revolution.

      I think you have a low opinion of individualists. However, perhaps what you perceive now is merely an allergic reaction to the insidious collectivism that has imbued itself in our society. I, for one, am more bellicose in favor of individual rights if only to offset yet more encroachment upon my rights.

      I would be more willing to consider compromise if I believed the other side was acting in good faith instead of just trying to turn the ratchet toward socialism. If the country hits "reset" on our government and returns to the plain language of the constitution, then I would be willing to abide by authority.

      Don't listen to those sophists who try to confuse you into believing the Constitution was written in opaque language that means the exact opposite of what it plainly means. They squint at it and see clear endorsement of corporate personhood, money as speech, abortion, federal control of everything, and absolute secularism (which are nowhere to be found in the document). Then they turn around and lie with a straight face and say that the second amendment isn't an individual right despite the clear language of the amendment, the private commentary of the founders about the individual right to keep and bear arms (such commentary was apparently good enough to justify separation of church and state, but whatever), as well as the armed individuals history of the nation.

    76. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Not at all, but it seems like you'd like to create some kind of hippy utopia, good luck with that.

      No, I just don't want the government to violate people's basic rights; that's all. You, however, would be better served by living in North Korea.

      Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

      Cool, but no one is swinging their fists. You're talking about imaginary rights that simply shouldn't exist, unlike free speech, which is a fundamental right.

      Hint: shouldn't they be allowed some measure of control over the things they create?

      Copyright is a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that creates artificial scarcity and infringes upon free speech and private property rights; it's unacceptable. So, no, because it's immoral. People should be able to copy data as they please. I do not think copyright assholes should have control over what others do with the data on their own equipment.

      the government doesn't interfere. The copyright holder uses the legal system to address your infringing on his rights.

      The legal system *is* government interference, you fool. Copyright itself is an abomination, as I just made clear.

      You say I'm a lunatic, but I say you're a lunatic for not giving a shit about freedom and then trying to rationalize this by saying that we limit these basic rights so other people don't have their imaginary rights infringed upon. Between copyright and free speech, I'd have to go with free speech. Anyone who cares about freedom agrees 100%.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    77. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      No, I just don't want the government to violate people's basic rights; that's all. You, however, would be better served by living in North Korea.

      Yes because acknowledging a need for a balance between competing rights is just like being in North Korea. You know you're an idiot right? You should probably start working on your next tinfoil hat. You're just that far gone.

      Cool, but no one is swinging their fists. You're talking about imaginary rights that simply shouldn't exist, unlike free speech, which is a fundamental right.

      I should have realized that analogies were beyond you. Define imaginary rights? Things which aren't tangible.. things you can't physically grab on to and count and control? You mean like speech. You're talking about a right to free speech, the right to use your speech as you see fit, copyright is simply making sure others can't use that speech in another way.

      The legal system *is* government interference, you fool. Copyright itself is an abomination, as I just made clear.

      You wouldn't happen to be from Montana would you?
      I would suggest you probably go separate yourself up a mountain somewhere, away from people. I don't know if what you have is contagious but you should probably wear some kind of mask or something when you go outside of your mother's basement.

    78. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Yes because acknowledging a need for a balance between competing rights is just like being in North Korea.

      There are no rights that deserve to compete with freedom of speech. Copyright is trivial and shouldn't exist. Hate speech laws are disgusting. Etc.

      You're just that far gone.

      It is you who's too far gone; you despise freedom.

      I should have realized that analogies were beyond you. Define imaginary rights?

      Rights that I believe should not exist. I do not consider copyright as something that should exist.

      I would suggest you probably go separate yourself up a mountain somewhere, away from people.

      I would suggest that you stop trying to ruin this country with anti-free market, anti-free speech nonsense like copyright.

      but you should probably wear some kind of mask or something when you go outside of your mother's basement.

      I'm not going to tell you to get out of your mother's basement, but I will tell you to move to somewhere else and start your own authoritarian piece of shit country.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    79. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter, last I checked, was not part of government.

      But the mayor and police of Peoria, IL, last I checked, was.

    80. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      It is you who's too far gone; you despise freedom.

      No, like most grown-ups I realize I'm part of a society and that the world doesn't revolve around me and my delusions.
      That building a functioning society requires everyone to work together. That means give and take. I realize that's probably hard for you to understand but I'll see if I can't work it into some kind of puppet show so you can wrap your warped little mind around it.

    81. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      No, like most grown-ups I realize I'm part of a society and that the world doesn't revolve around me and my delusions.

      You seem to act like the world revolves around you and your delusions of safety and false rights. I guess caring about freedom is the same as being selfish and deluded, but in a world where principled people are extremely rare, that's to be expected. Your use of the term "grown-ups" and your mention of popularity (as if they're relevant) only further reveal your own stupidity.

      That building a functioning society requires everyone to work together.

      Therefore, slavery is okay; accept it. Therefore, the TSA is okay; accept it. You could justify any infringement upon people's liberties by spewing forth this status-quo-worshiping bullshit. You've done nothing to justify the specific rights violations you're defending, and indeed, there's nothing you can do to justify them.

      You have no brain, and mindlessly worship the status quo and try to justify it by saying that everyone needs to work together. In a world where keeping your freedoms (Not a high priority for you, obviously, but freedom is what's most important.) depends on your ability to question absolutely everything the government does, your mentality is the most dangerous of all.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    82. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      You've done nothing to justify the specific rights violations you're defending, and indeed, there's nothing you can do to justify them.

      Actually I did no such thing. I said such a balance was necessary, i never said we had the right balance now. You only assumed I did because you haven't figured out that your nose was put on your face as a passage for air. In your completely unhinged knee-jerk reaction you failed to actually read anything and decided to launch into your latest manifesto. I expect we'll be seeing you up a clock tower before long.

    83. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Actually I did no such thing. I said such a balance was necessary

      You did nothing to justify that, either.

      i never said we had the right balance now.

      On a number of occasions, you attacked me for saying that a number of rights violations were bad. Forgive me for ever thinking that you were defending them.

      If you don't want people to think you're defending rights violations, state your point in such a way that it doesn't make it seem as if you're doing exactly that. You have no one to blame but yourself.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    84. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      You did nothing to justify that, either.

      There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.

      On a number of occasions, you attacked me for saying that a number of rights violations were bad. Forgive me for ever thinking that you were defending them.

      No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference. One you can't quite grasp which isn't a surprise.

      Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll get you far.

    85. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.

      Nice job showing that such "balance" is necessary. "Well adjusted individuals" all accept what you have to say, even when you don't provide any proof whatsoever.

      No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference.

      There is no use lying; your posts are there for all to see. If you did not intend to attack me for saying that I am opposed to these rights violations, then you should not have done exactly that.

      You're a truly worthless individual. You can't even comprehend my power.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    86. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      In Canada you can parody anyone

      It's the same in the US*

      (*) but in the US someone might (TM) plant drugs in your house at the same time they're invading it whilst investigating your commitment of an act which is their right under the constitution.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    87. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should set up an account ironically parodying the parody account?

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    88. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Ireland a dreadful editor got twitter to shutdown an account parodying her. Courts and police not needed. (bungle!)

    89. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Bush CREATED free speech zones. The blame lies at the Republicans feet. if the "tea party" people had any brains they would be going after the congress members that are taking away freedoms instead of being distracted by inconcequential tax bills.

      This is why I have ZERO respect for the Tea Party. They are just a distraction that has no real american goal. Fight for the frigging constitution, demand the PATRIOT act get repealed. Stop your baby whining about a 0.00001% tax to save the bees.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    90. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nope. Reasonable benefactors of humanity like Bloomberg have donated large sums to disarm the rabid lunatics, so it might take a bit, but we will actually have children live in schools with guns off the street."

      Keep deluding yourself into believing that guns are the problem. And keep deluding yourself into believing Bloomberg's money is doing anything more than being pissed away.

    91. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I mentioned more than just free speech zones. And no, Bush did not create them; they were in use in colleges and universities before Bush, and were even used for political purposes at times. As far as I know, anyway. Doesn't change the fact that both parties are scum, or that Bush made use of free speech zones.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    92. Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong local politician. You're thinking of Peoria's congressman, Rep, the Schlock sucker.

  2. How appropriate... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hasn't Peoria been a cultural touchstone for humorless reactionary behavior since whenever "Will it play in Peoria?" was coined?

    Also, can they not afford enough legal advice to tell them that basically every step of this plan is practically a textbook case of 'How to incur legal exposure in absurdly obvious ways'?

    1. Re:How appropriate... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I mix up "Peoria" and "Pretoria" all the time. Is there much of a difference?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:How appropriate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Peoria's population closely resembles the national average in many demographics. It is, and historically has been, a little microcosm representing a healthy cross-section of America. So it early entertainers, and now corporate marketing divisions, use it as a test bed to see what will work and what wont before deploying on the national stage.

    3. Re:How appropriate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Petoria!

    4. Re:How appropriate... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I mix up "Peoria" and "Pretoria" all the time. Is there much of a difference?

      Nobody marches to Peoria.

    5. Re:How appropriate... by Druegan · · Score: 1

      I can't really say that Peoria has been a cultural touchstone for humorless reactionary behavior..

      I grew up in a small suburb of Peoria.. lived in the area most of my life, so I know a few things about the city. The "Will it play in Peoria" statement dates back to the Vaudeville days, where Peoria was, at the time, the measure of "average joe american" entertainment preferences.

      The town is many things.. some good, some bad. I can't say "humorless" though (we did give the world Richard Pryor). or even terribly "reactionary" compared to some places..(I haven't heard of any 5 year olds getting expelled or suspended for drawing a picture of a gun or a knife here yet..)

      I will say one particularly negative thing about Peoria that materially impacts understanding the story in question.

      "The town is a cesspit of corruption."

      Seriously. Most people in the world think Chicago is bad in terms of that.. Well, Peoria gives them a significant run for their money.. just on a smaller scale. Everything bad about government... graft, double standards, backroom dirty deals, criminal complicity of the police force and prosecutors, extortion, organized crime, members of city government and their friends getting free passes on criminal activity, journalistic collusion...

      It all goes on here in spades. You can't get a city contract unless you're buddy buddy with somebody with influence, scratch somebody's back, or hand them cash under the table. We have judges, prosecutors and cops openly snorting cocaine in downtown bars, sometimes with city council members.. parties at the big downtown hotels with hookers and blow and prominent citizens..

      The police dept and the media collude with city hall to underreport crime.. I know of at least a dozen murders that have happened since the first of the year that have received no mention in any of the local press.. all to reduce the damage that accurate accounting of the city's crime rates would do to the city's reputation..

      Why is that important? Because how how *filthy* city politics has been in Peoria for decades, nobody gets elected in this town without two things.. first, being dirty to the bone, and second, having a deep belief that they are entitled to a very different standard of treatment than the rest of society.

      It's very much a "Legal? Who gives a sh*t. I'm the law in this town." kinda thing.

    6. Re:How appropriate... by Bardez · · Score: 1

      As a Peoria, IL native: "Yup" to pretty much all of the above.

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
  3. Why won't the vote this nut out? by fred911 · · Score: 2

    Total abuse of power.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Before we get all silly, please remember that the police had a WARRANT to search the guys house. So any discussion of the "rule of law" needs to remember that the legeslative and judicial branches are also full of shit.

      No just bitching about the executive abuse of power.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    2. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by russotto · · Score: 2

      Before we get all silly, please remember that the police had a WARRANT to search the guys house.

      A warrant obtained from a rubber-stamp magistrate buddy of the mayor or through a falsely sworn affadavit doesn't turn a witchhunt into "rule of law".

    3. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      He sought said warrant didn't he? Whom should we blame if not the idiot who sought the warrant. Yes it never should have been granted, but it probably was granted because he's the Mayor and he has that kind of power. So again, I ask you, whom should we blame if not the guy who abuses his power to seek a warrant in a case where no such warrant was ... well ... warranted.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0

      No, it proves that the "rule of law" is a bullshit concept.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    5. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      The distinct branches of government are only of value to a free society when the branches oppose each-other to act as "checks and balances".

      Blaming the mayor is like blaming one dead hard drive for a failure of the raid-1 array. Sure, that one bad disk is a problem but if the overall system was doing its job, then the news story would just be about a mayor trying something stupid and failing (an email from the SAN about a disk that needs to be replaced).

      If cops showed up at this guy's house, it took all 3 branches of government to completely lose their shit.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    6. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      O_O that's a dorky analogy

    7. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before we get all silly, please remember that the police had a WARRANT to search the guys house.

      Does a caps-locked "WARRANT" grant police powers beyond those of a mere lowercase "warrant?"

    8. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If cops showed up at this guy's house, it took all 3 branches of government to completely lose their shit.

      No, only 2.

    9. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      O_O that's a dorky analogy

      And thus perfectly apt for /.

      --

      Enigma

    10. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I am talking about first instance causality. Clearly if the other people stood up to him and did their job it wouldn't have been a successful attempt, but even then you clearly admit that the story would be about the mayor and his actions, or more likely of course no story at all. The fact remains that he initiated the action. Yes others have culpability in the degree to which his actions succeeded, but it was his actions. He has the ultimate culpability in the matter. He is exactly as culpible as he would be if the Judge didn't grant the warrant. There is no difference from a "who's ultimately to blame?" standpoint..

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    11. Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? by Bardez · · Score: 1

      Well, he ran upopposed, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
  4. freedom of speech by turkeydance · · Score: 3

    does not include freedom after speech

    1. Re:freedom of speech by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes it does. Otherwise it's "freedom of talking". Freedom of speech means that no government entity can go after you for the content of your communications, whether broadcast or otherwise. Where exactly that crosses with Secret classifications, I don't know, but freedom of speech necessarily implies freedom from persecution (from government) for speech.

    2. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for indicating it is a parody account, how many people read the whole bio of a twitter poster?

      Just as many people as those that read the detailed information about how movies claim to be "based on a true story" when in fact they have absolutely nothing to do with reality. Or, how many people actually read the EULAs they agree to.

      I'm not sure what your point is. It is blatantly obvious that it is a parody. Even if this guy had committed a crime, which he didn't, they did not follow procedures in their handling of the situation.

    3. Re:freedom of speech by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      Freedom of speech means that no government entity can go after you for the content of your communications, whether broadcast or otherwise.

      Unless of course it has something to do with politics ("campaign finance reform").

      Because obviously the founders wanted to protect nude dancing, not that nasty political speech.

    4. Re:Freedom of Speech by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      WHAT!?!?!

      But the Amityville horror was a true story of an actual event!

      They said it was based on a true story! Not it was inspired by a true story they heard while drunk and can sort of remember.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  5. someone please beat Jim Ardis to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a sack of constitutions

  6. Twitter rolled by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So basically if a Jackboot^W LEO asks for account info on anyone without a warrant or even reasonable evidence that a crime has even been committed, Twitter will just hand over your private details to them without question.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Twitter rolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happens when you let CONservatives run companies. Instead, they should be Eich'ed like that idiot moron at Firefox. He publicly proved he considers gays to be subhuman, and the public won a great fight against his kind. The CONservatives at Twitter need to be shamed and fired at the bare minimum. Prison time for their racism would be an even more appropriate solution.

    2. Re:Twitter rolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow it must be comforting to live in a world where everything is black and white and conservatives are always the bad guys.

      I was a brainwashed liberal in college once too, hopefully you grow up someday.

    3. Re:Twitter rolled by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      So basically if a Jackboot^W LEO asks for account info on anyone without a warrant or even reasonable evidence that a crime has even been committed, Twitter will just hand over your private details to them without question.

      Why is this moderated insightful? Twitter (and Comcast) responded to a warrant signed by a judge, not to a simple request by police. Yes, the judge is a total douchebag who is abusing the power of his office just like the mayor but once he signs the warrant if Twitter doesn't comply they are breaking the law.

      --

      Enigma

  7. ..and now the slashdot effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few more followers incoming.

  8. In Communist America by Hategrin · · Score: 1

    Governor makes parodies of you. And people on Slashdot were just talking about how much more free the US is than Russia. Looks like we can't even criticize our govt anymore.

    1. Re:In Communist America by whistlingtony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This IS the exception, not the rule. We ARE more free than Russia. Comparisons can be made, and we're on a slippery slope, but lets be a little more realistic here. If I write a scathing article about my local mayor, I won't get killed in a dark alley. I'm in Portland. Scathing articles about Sam Adams were a party trick for a little bit. Poor bastard.

    2. Re:In Communist America by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Sam Adams aint a particularly bad beer, certainly nor one deserving of a scathing article. Now if you want to bad mouth Pabst Blue Ribbon ...

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    3. Re:In Communist America by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What? It doesn't GET any more American than Red Necks, White Socks, and Blue Ribbon Beer!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:In Communist America by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      If I write a scathing article about my local mayor, I won't get killed in a dark alley. I'm in Portland. Scathing articles about Sam Adams were a party trick for a little bit. Poor bastard.

      As a fellow PDX resident, I can second that... hell, Adams even starred in a few Portlandia episodes in what has to be the coolest self-parodies ever (he was the Mayor's assistant).

      I can't stand Adams' politics or ideology, but I damned sure admire the guy for being able to take a joke (and even to actively be a part of it.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  9. Freedom of Speech by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    Freedom of speech is not freedom to impersonate or defame. From this article;

    The @Peoriamayor account began in late February or early March with a photo of Ardis and a bio that stated he enjoyed serving the city and included his city email address.
    The content of tweets, or entries on the account, ranged from ambiguous to offensive, with repeat references to sex and drugs — and comparisons of Ardis to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as Ford’s drug use while in office became public.
    By about March 10, the bio of the Twitter account was changed to indicate it was a parody account.

    As for indicating it is a parody account, how many people read the whole bio of a twitter poster?

  10. If the Stolen Valor Act Didn't Fly . . . by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . then impersonating a public official is not going to either. The Supreme Court basically ruled that you can outright lie about serving in the military because that is your first amendment right.

    Now if someone is trying to lie about being a public official to get into a restricted area or hell, lying about being a veteran to get a free lunch at Denny's on Memorial Day, that might be a crime, but this guy defrauded nobody.

    The best case scenario for the mayor is a civil lawsuit for libel, but it is so blatantly obviously a parody account that it would just be a waste of everyone's money. But why use your own money to sue someone when you can send the police to unconstitutionally harass them?

    1. Re:If the Stolen Valor Act Didn't Fly . . . by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      . . . then impersonating a public official is not going to either. The Supreme Court basically ruled that you can outright lie about serving in the military because that is your first amendment right.

      Now if someone is trying to lie about being a public official to get into a restricted area or hell, lying about being a veteran to get a free lunch at Denny's on Memorial Day, that might be a crime, but this guy defrauded nobody.

      whats the stolen valor act? that makes no sense. who cares if somebody lies about being a veteran?

    2. Re:If the Stolen Valor Act Didn't Fly . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats the stolen valor act? that makes no sense. who cares if somebody lies about being a veteran?

      War veterans care and rightly so. Part of the remuneration they (should) get in return for going to war for their country is that the rest of the country treats them with a certain exclusive respect. Not all remuneration in society is monetary and those who fake being veterans devalue the "respect remuneration" for real veterans since it introduces an element of doubt in some peoples' minds regarding the veteran status of the real ones. And that's despicable.

  11. Canada does not have free speech by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, the US is not perfect, but it is one of the few western democracies that does not have hate speech laws or a state secret's act.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

    1. Re:Canada does not have free speech by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Are you certain about the "state secrets act"? It seems to me that National Security Letters cover the same ground...and then some.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Canada does not have free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the USA does not have Hate Speech laws, it has Terrorist Speech laws, and everyone seems to produce it these days.

    3. Re:Canada does not have free speech by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

      No, national security letters are just used to investigate. In the US, the first amendment protects you if you publish classified information so long as you were not the one with privileged access and you do not impede the investigation into how the information was leaked.

      See: Pentagon Papers.

    4. Re:Canada does not have free speech by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The Pentagon Papers was 30 years ago. The government has changed what it claims to be allowed to do in that period. E.g., it has "suspended" Habeus Corpus. And it has instituted a system where "law enforcement" officers are allowed to profit by confiscating the property of people on accusation of a crime without waiting for conviction.

      You can claim that "national security letters are just used to investigate", but since those very letters usually forbid the recipient from revealing what they demant, this cannot be proven. To say that they are only used in this way can only be based on what the government claims they are used for, and it has repeatedly lied.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  12. Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant... by datorum · · Score: 1

    Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant for such bullshit?

  13. Dat Streissand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > The original Twitter account had a total of 50 followers. The new account has over 200.

    People almost care!

  14. Re:Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "Republican", which is Ardis's political affiliation.

  15. Re:Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Warrants are about $1000 in cash handed to the judge before he enters the court room.

  16. Re:Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Who's going to tell the judge no? Who's going to enforce it?

    Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos. (And even then the "discipline" is generally trivial in comparison to the offense.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  17. Planted drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the end, they didn't arrest anybody for running the Twitter account, but they did charge a guy with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, so that should allow them to justify the whole thing'

    1. Re:Planted drugs by xushi · · Score: 1

      Isn't that considered fruit from the poisonous tree?

  18. What an Ass, a troll got em by the short hairs by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

    "Nevertheless, police raided this home and intend to charge whoever was responsible for the account for false impersonation of a public official."

    I have a hotspot up (as per EFF https://www.eff.org/), at this time 3 people are using it, I may have hassles over it but I've got the time.

    1. Re:What an Ass, a troll got em by the short hairs by Anomalyst · · Score: 2

      So a "true" impersonation of a public official would be allowed? Does it require poorly applied makup, a badly tailored suit and accepting bribes from local busnessmen?

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  19. Re:Democrat by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

    And you appear to have just lied. Ardis is an independent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    Might you be a Democrat?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  20. Re:Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant. by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    Who's going to tell the judge no? Who's going to enforce it?

    Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos. (And even then the "discipline" is generally trivial in comparison to the offense.)

    I'm curious - can you site one instance in which you "heard of" a judge not being disciplined because "he was acting to support the local politicos". It seems unlikely you actually have such knowledge. My guess is that you are generalizing, or guessing, or just wildly speculating.

  21. Re:Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant. by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    I imagine the "site" would be a bar, jawboning with his buddies.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  22. Re:Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia is not always correct.

    Ardis, Jim - Republican (last modified 2011)

    "Funny because Ardis is a Republican Mayor, you would think that he would be concerned about everyone paying so that his city could remain fiscally responsible." (dated 2010)

    It wouldnt surprise me if Wikipedia was edited after this story broke to hide his political affiliation in order to support the narrative that only democrats are totalitarians. At any rate, its clearly wrong, and both of the above links predate this event from many years, preventing this event to influence what they say in an attempt to push an agenda or narrative. It may also be that he suddenly changed his affiliation from Republican to Independent in the last race for some reason, but even if thats the case, he was officially designated as a Republican for much longer than he's been Independent.

  23. Asshat Mayor by G4Cube · · Score: 0

    I'm predicting a $300,000 jury award to the guy and his ACLU lawyers.

  24. Re:Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wouldnt surprise me if Wikipedia was edited after this story broke to hide his political affiliation in order to support the narrative that only democrats are totalitarians.

    The history page shows that that is not the case and I think we can consider that reliable. However, if it were Conservapedia, I wouldn't trust the history page for a split second since their track record shows that transparency and accountability is a liberal concept.

  25. which ones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > even a few politicians are honest today.

    Which!?

    1. Re:which ones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > even a few politicians are honest today.

      Which!?

      Ron Paul. But he's truly honest, also called painfully honest. And he actually wants to get the gov't under control the only feasible way it can be done, by reducing its size. So he must be called names at every opportunity. That way the other would-be honest guys can see it and reinforce their decision to use propaganda tactics.

      Most voters would rather hear comforting lies than painful truth like "it took a long time and a lot of missteps for things to get this fucked up, the path back to sanity won't be easy and comfortable either but your other option is total economic collapse and regression to something more like a 3rd-world country".

  26. Downmods to hide ur b.s. Zontar the Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You said MY program's a spyware?

    Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!

    Now: Is YOUR SOURCE Computer Associates REPUTABLE? See here http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

    ---

    "for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You say my program's crapware?

    Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    "You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.

    You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.

    ---

    Per my subject-line above: Downmodding to *VAINLY* attempt to "hide" you're FULL of it too? Please -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (LMAO!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You FAIL, libelous troll...

    ... apk

    1. Re:Downmods to hide ur b.s. Zontar the Mindless by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmm... Could this be where your obsession with sockpuppets comes from?

      And here's more evidence to support my theory that whatever you accuse others of doing to you always turns out to be something you started doing first.

      The Internet never forgets, AlexAndy. The Internet never forgets.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  27. No, these are where (you sockpuppeteer) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You admit TrollingForHostsFiles (sockpuppet) was created by you to troll & harass me:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    You AGAIN admitting TrollingForHostsFiles Was created by you to troll & harass me:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    Your "plans" for trolling me FURTHER using "TrollingForHostsFiles":

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> Notice you won't TOUCH your own words quoted where you FALSELY & libelously accuse my ware of being a spyware, wrongfully -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ... apk

    1. Re:No, these are where (you sockpuppeteer) by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You've already demonstrated that you have absolutely zero comprehension of any sort of humour, much less parody. With this in mind, I created the TFHF account basically because I was pretty sure that merely learning of this account's existence would make you froth at the mouth, and because you've been due a good stiff dose of my mockery and derision for weeks on end.

      That account's made a grand total of 9 posts + 1 journal entry.

      In the same timespan you've trolled/crapflooded me something like, what, 500-600 times or more? Not to mention HUNDREDS of your trolls before that?

      And *you've* got the gall to complain about *me*? That's pretty funny.

      Yes indeedy, I created the account purely to mock you. Or, to put it in terms you might recall from your forays into 4chan: YHBT.

      Just *knowing* that this account exists so very obviously pisses you off, Sparky, and I can't begin to tell you how completely I enjoy just *knowing* that this is the case.

      Have a nice day!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:No, these are where (you sockpuppeteer) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You use sockpuppets to harass others. You libeled others. You got what you did in return. End of story.

  28. There was a report that just came out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That said the US was an oligarchy and that this was scientifically proven. This would provide ample evidence to suggest that corporate interests and the government are the same thing.

  29. Errmm might want to look in your own back yard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Patriot Act was a Republican deal, same with the clowns in the SCOTUS who said corporations can legally bribe law makers. The right has done far more damage to the country than the left, all in the guise of national security. I'm not saying that the left isn't without it's problems, but more and more people on the left are seeing the results and moving back to the intent of the constitution.

    RNC Free Speech zones: http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2012/06/26/tampa-announces-free-speech-zone-for-rnc#.U1VY5UrD-9I

    The only constitutional amendment I ever see anyone on the right talk about is the 2nd. I think you'd get far more friends on the left and be able to actually push some bipartisan rules across if we could stop this stupid ass bickering.

  30. Re:Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    What evidence would you expect to find?

    You are right, that I don't have anything in the way of good evidence. I have only the evidence of judges making decisions the are flagrantly illegal, and which are to the benefit of local politicians. And since I'm not a lawyer, my idea of "flagrantly illegal" doesn't carry much weight.

    So lets just consider the MS anti-trust case, where the first judge found against MS, was quoted by a journalist as saying things that weren't complimentary to MS *after he had pronounced judgement* and was then removed from the case and replaced by a different judge who gave MS only nominal penalties, which were actually even to their advantage.

    I'm sure it was purely coincidence that between the first judge's ruling and the appointment of the second judge, MS began making large political donations.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  31. In a guest post on Popehat, the Mayor himself... by unitron · · Score: 1

    ...addresses this issue

    Unless this is another one of them there parody things.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  32. Zontar the Mindless: Backup your libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You said MY program's a spyware?

    Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!

    Now: Is YOUR SOURCE Computer Associates REPUTABLE? See here http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

    ---

    "for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You say my program's crapware?

    Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    "You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.

    You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.

    APK

    P.S.=> You FAIL, sockpuppeteer troll... ESPECIALLY *trying* to effetely & VAINLY "hide it" via downmods on the 1st time I posted it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... exposing you...

    ... apk

  33. Re:Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant. by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    Ah, okay, you answered my question. You were talking out of your ass. You claimed "Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos."

    Yet you can't cite even a single instance. Thanks for clearing that up.