Peoria Mayor Sends Police To Track Down Twitter Parodist

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.'"

Comments

Isn't parody protected in the US?

[slackware 3.6]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[vajrabum]

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

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[Noah Haders]

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."

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[ShaunC]

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?

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[cerberusti]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[edibobb]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[anagama]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[Austerity Empowers]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[gandhi_2]

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

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[gl4ss]

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."

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

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.

Re:Isn't parody protected in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

How appropriate...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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'?

Why won't the vote this nut out?

[fred911]

Total abuse of power.

Re:Why won't the vote this nut out?

[gandhi_2]

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.

Re:Why won't the vote this nut out?

[russotto]

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".

Re:Why won't the vote this nut out?

[gandhi_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.

freedom of speech

[turkeydance]

does not include freedom after speech

Re:freedom of speech

[Culture20]

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.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:freedom of speech

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Twitter rolled

[wiredlogic]

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.

Freedom of Speech

[jklovanc]

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?

Re:In Communist America

[whistlingtony]

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.

If the Stolen Valor Act Didn't Fly . . .

[Mr_Wisenheimer]

. . . 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?

Dat Streissand

[Anonymous Coward]

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

People almost care!

Re:Canada does not have free speech

[HiThere]

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

What an Ass, a troll got em by the short hairs

[Trax3001BBS]

"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.

Re:What an Ass, a troll got em by the short hairs

[Anomalyst]

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?