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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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'?

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: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.

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?