Slashdot Mirror


Man Arrested For Parodying Mayor On Twitter Files Civil Rights Lawsuit

mpicpp (3454017) writes with an update from Ars Technica to this story: "The Illinois man who made headlines when he was detained for parodying the town's mayor on Twitter sued the Peoria politician and local police, claiming on Thursday that his civil rights were violated. As part of the April raid, the authorities seized the mobile phone and laptop of the 29-year-old prankster, Jonathan Daniel, and reviewed their contents, which he says was in violation of his First Amendment rights. Daniel, the operator of the @peoriamayor handle shut down by Twitter after the city threatened a lawsuit, was initially accused of impersonating a public official in violation of Illinois law. The authorities never lodged charges, however."

90 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there a crowdfunding site where I can donate to his legal fund? I can't stand Illinois, and any time somebody scores a victory against the government there it brightens my day.

    1. Re:Shut up and take my money by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Funny

      you could mock the mayor on twitter. sounds like he deserves it.

    2. Re:Shut up and take my money by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      I'm at 1060 w addison come and get me

    3. Re:Shut up and take my money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case, it's an Illinois Republican. Elected with 100% of the vote, yet apparently has somewhat thin skin.

      And he's a numb skull if he thinks arrest is going to fly with higher courts. It's perfectly legal to parody a public official in the US.

      In fact, I'm pretty sure most of our elected officials are parodies of public servants.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Shut up and take my money by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you'll need to fund it. If you haven't read the PDF of his complaint, the listing of facts is surprisingly strong.

      Seriously, it is short, just read the few pages in the middle. Complaint in PDF.

      The claims include that there are written documents (probably email) between the mayor and the chief of police, where the mayor tells the cops to do something, the police chief says there is no legal basis, and the mayor tells him to do it anyway. Then the claims include that the cops made written statements (again, probably email) that show officers were ordered to arrest him, they balked saying there was no legal basis, but the police chief ordered it anyway. If he has those emails, that is rather damning.

      The list of claims continues by citing court records, where the police filed an empty form citing no probable cause even though the law requires proper documentation. Granting a warrant based on a blank probable cause statement is also pretty damning for those involved.

      If he actually has those papers, city officials and court officials declaring that they knew it was illegal but did it anyway, that is going to be hard for the individuals to deny.

      A few of them are likely just CYA papers, but if accurate, the exchange boils down to this: "Do this illegal thing." "Sorry boss, it is against the law." "I know it is against the law, do it anyway." If the allegations can be substantiated (and since the suit says those are all public official records, it should be easy to validate) then this case will be a quick settlement.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    5. Re:Shut up and take my money by Frobnicator · · Score: 2, Informative

      you could mock the mayor on twitter. sounds like he deserves it.

      The mayor already resigned. He's still being sued, but he is no longer in office.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    6. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Same here, born in Pekin, moved to Peoria then realized the whole state sucks and left for Troy Michigan.

      After living here and then revisiting IL for Christmas every few years I realize how bad it really is there. I'll only be in town for like 2 or 3 days yet I'll be harassed by cops, have them randomly floor their cars screeching their tires while riding next to me then slam on the breaks and then speed back up next to me and stare at me.

      For no reason besides that I drive an Evo which is a very fast Turbo AWD rally car. I'll just be cruising and instantly get all sorts of harassment. North Pekin and Marquette Heights are the worst. Had a car fly up on me when a car was next to me.... Car behind has high beams on, I figured I'd speed up a tad to make room to move right so he could get past, soon as I did I get busted for my first speeding ticket at 18yrs old. He refuses to budge even after commenting that I "got away from them for 2 years so I must have it coming". Mind you this was my first ticket ever back when I drove a 95 Ford Escort and I have zero police records or interactions. All I did was politely move forward with my signal on to let an apparently faster car with high beams on by.....

      Every year I visit I tell my Fiance that something will happen somewhat mockingly.... then before our very eyes Illinois Police then start driving like thugs within our view. Running red lights and screeching their tires. Then they get behind some random car and then tailgate him about 1 inch from his bumper. After a few intersections they stop at 7-11 and spend 25 minutes there chatting it up. I actually stopped to watch them, then phoned in their car number to the sarge and explained to him what was going on. I've learned to fight fire with fire.

      Same night one comes up behind me in a drive thru which I had already been waiting at for nearly 15 minutes. I saw him coming down the road and suddenly he noticed my sports car. He whips 3 lanes to quickly turn at the intersection and into the restaurant parking lot to get behind me. Then he doesn't order anything, flies out right behind me as I'm done with my order and throws his lights on. I've literally moved like 10ft and haven't even had a chance to get up to 25mph. Then he rolls next to me, flips me off, then burns his tires back towards downtown and shuts his lights off....

      I swear it's like a freaking police state. literally. figuratively. essentially....... Then I go back to Michigan where everyone is friendly, non-judgemental, and most importantly I'm not guilty of anything by driving my Red Mustang Cobra or Lancer Evolution until I actually break a law. In IL I'm profiled and stopped before I can even break a law. Literally pulling me over out of a drive thru that I sat at for a long time. How could I possibly have deserved that?

      I've still yet to ever be arrested or actually taken to jail. Yet I've had like 10-15 police encounters in the years since living there and almost a guaranteed one every time I visit for 2 to 3 days ONCE A YEAR. Like clockwork they never fail to perform exactly as I mention.

      It's basically Jocks with guns at this point. Jackbooted thuggery,

    7. Re:Shut up and take my money by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Based upon that, the fellow is tackling the problem all wrong. First up should be a call to Federal Authorities to file a complaint for infringement of his civil rights and let them do all the heavy lifting. Once the Feds have successfully prosecuted the case, his civil suit then becomes a simple manner of negotiating out the value of the claim.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Shut up and take my money by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Two questions: 1. How long are you in town? And 2. How's the veal?

    9. Re:Shut up and take my money by pepty · · Score: 1

      I'll only be in town for like 2 or 3 days yet I'll be harassed by cops, have them randomly floor their cars screeching their tires while riding next to me then slam on the breaks and then speed back up next to me and stare at me.

      For no reason besides that I drive an Evo which is a very fast Turbo AWD rally car. I'll just be cruising and instantly get all sorts of harassment. ... I saw him coming down the road and suddenly he noticed my sports car. ...

      You're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback. Unless you've tarted it up with bric-a-brac (spoilers, coffee can exhaust, stickers, etc) or you're a leadfoot the police think you're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback.

    10. Re:Shut up and take my money by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I see this (like the insane Terry Childs situation) as yet another reason why having city police instead of just state and federal police is structurally unsound. A state police department could consider it as a request to arrest a potential lawbreaker while with city police it's an order from their boss with little or no oversight.

      And he's a numb skull if he thinks arrest is going to fly with higher courts

      I don't think he cares, the arrest alone is a punishment and a demonstration of "might makes right" Soviet style.

    11. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      His criminal charges were dropped, the only legal stuff he has left is his lawsuit against the city which the ACLU is taking care of. I would suggest becoming a member of the ACLU and donating to them so that they can continue standing up for everyone's civil rights.

    12. Re:Shut up and take my money by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback. Unless you've tarted it up with bric-a-brac (spoilers, coffee can exhaust, stickers, etc) or you're a leadfoot the police think you're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback.

      Evos come tarted up with bric-a-brac from the factory.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re: Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For a country keen on its seperation of powers, I'm constantly surprised there aren't independent police and prosecuting authorities. Appointments at the top are one thing, but direct orders from politician to police should be third world stuff.

    14. Re:Shut up and take my money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this stage he probably doesn't have much confidence in law enforcement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Shut up and take my money by pepty · · Score: 1, Redundant

      No a lancer evolution comes from the factory with 300 horsepower and 300ft/lbs of torque from as low as 3000rpm. That's V8 grunt. Except the engine a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder with a massive turbocharger breathing 23psi. In Europe the same car is available with up to 440 horsepower and 415ft/lbs of torque from the same 2.0 liter engine. It's called the FQ440. They also sell 400hp/360hp/330hp/ and in America only the 300hp version.

      All of which is housed in the body of a Lancer, which is what the police see unless you're a leadfoot.

    16. Re:Shut up and take my money by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      I've seen this type of behavior with cops in other places. Somebody has put the finger on you or maybe your family or past associates. They will continue to harass you and it can be dangerous. Sometimes this can start because you dated a girl that one of the cops liked. It can also be a false accusation made by an enemy. Another frequent source is a business that complains about lack of police presence or police behavior. In some cases the shift sergeant will actually instruct the shift to lean on an individual. Whatever you do simply do not allow yourself to get angry or be less than polite no matter how insulting they get. I once had a cop try to bait me into attacking him. There was a backup squad car hiding in the dark. If I had so much as twitched I would have been beaten down or arrested. Ex wife was dating a cop in a nasty divorce----

    17. Re:Shut up and take my money by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      I would not count on the Feds to help much at all. One tactic employed by the Feds is to take so long to open or investigate a situation that statutes can no longer be enforced. If it is a civil violation you may have a very short time to file a suit. The expense of such a suit may be crushing for you as well even if you win. On top of all of that state or county sovereignty rules may make such a suit next to impossible. This is the false promise of our legal system at work. How often do we see companies like Microsoft pay fines in the tens of millions of dollars. But these companies make more money than the fines cost them and it is actually an encouragement to keep on breaking the law. So you pay a 50 million dollar fine but you made 750 million by committing the illegal acts. Imagine a jury, composed of tax payers, who know full well that any significant law suit will increase their property taxes and other fees. In effect you are asking a jury to take money out of their own pockets. That rules out a big win.

    18. Re:Shut up and take my money by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

      Wow.. so adding IL to FL on my "do not visit" list due to their infantile and corrupt police.

    19. Re:Shut up and take my money by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

      The real question is where the fuck are the indictments? This is *criminal* behavior and yet the taxpayer is going to shoulder "justice." Until cops and elected officials get put in cuffs when they break the law this sort of BS will continue to happen.

    20. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      > The mayor already resigned. He's still being sued, but he is no longer in office.

      That is false. Jim Ardis is still in office.

      It is the Chief of Police who resigned to take a job as head of north american security for Caterpillar where he is surely making even more money.

    21. Re: Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      dammit both of you it's http://soylentnews.org

    22. Re: Shut up and take my money by rochrist · · Score: 1

      And six more stories so far today.

    23. Re:Shut up and take my money by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      That petition is a bunch of socialist BS. The real victims have already been compensated - AI is just making a shameless cash grab.

    24. Re:Shut up and take my money by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Tried to source your statement, did you pull it out of your ass?
      Google searches show this guy is an independent, does not being a democrat sycophant mean republican to you?
      For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    25. Re: Shut up and take my money by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Or it could be old-fashioned racism. There are plenty of places in the US still where, if you're driving a Japanese car, the locals will see you as some kind of commie mutant traitor.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    26. Re: Shut up and take my money by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You can wipe cookies and local data at will. You can also run with a variety of browsers, VMs, etc, so that you possibly could never be tracked. Use TOR on top of it all, and now you might, just might, reach tin foil hatter stage.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    27. Re:Shut up and take my money by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      The ACLU is amazing. Anonymous Coward has no idea how much the ACLU stands up for him.

    28. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At this stage he probably doesn't have much confidence in law enforcement.

      At this stage, who does?

    29. Re:Shut up and take my money by tapi0 · · Score: 1

      You're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback. Unless you've tarted it up with bric-a-brac (spoilers, coffee can exhaust, stickers, etc) or you're a leadfoot the police think you're driving a Mitsubishi compact sedan or hatchback.

      this is a factory Evo: http://images.pistonheads.com/...

    30. Re: Shut up and take my money by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      "politically motivated"? like how the ACLU sued Verizon, as its customer, for selling out its customers to the NSA? You must be a fox news viewer--i can't find any other way to explain your profound ignorance.

    31. Re:Shut up and take my money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Tried to source your statement, did you pull it out of your ass?

      Your google-fu is very weak.

      The very first line of his Wikipedia entry:

      Jim Ardis is the Republican mayor of Peoria, Illinois, a position he has held since 2005. He served on the Peoria City Council from 1999 through 2005.[2]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:Shut up and take my money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And yes, had PopeRatzo said Democrat, I would have made the same joke.

      So would I.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:Shut up and take my money by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Maybe he doesn't want to bankrupt the defendants before extracting maximal settlement value. They can go to prison after they pay him off.

    34. Re:Shut up and take my money by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I would suggest becoming a member of the ACLU and donating to them so that they can continue standing up for everyone's civil rights.

      I wouldn't. Not that they don't do good stuff, and they certainly trumpet it on their front-page. But it isn't until you're a member that you start getting the full story. It seems the overwhelming majority of their cases are dedicated to suing every municipality that doesn't immediately take down any even vaguely religious symbol that someone else put on anything that even smells like public land. Or fighting even the most reasonable laws that impose some minor and sane restrictions on late-term abortions, and whatnot.

      I'd suggest sending your money to the EFF, instead. No bait-and-switch there. They advertise what they actually do, and they do plenty of good.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    35. Re:Shut up and take my money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I don't see much there to support the claim that he's a republican though except one line in a wiki article.

      Not one line, the first line.

      I don't care enough to look it up.

      You could have looked it up in less time than it took to write your stupid post.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:Shut up and take my money by Altus · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you cover up all the EVO badging and take off the stock body work that differentiates it. It may not be that different but I can spot them (or BMW M series cars, or Audi R series cars) without much trouble. I'm sure a cop who spends all day driving around and pulling over cars would also get pretty good at it.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    37. Re:Shut up and take my money by Altus · · Score: 1

      You know the score, pal. If your not cops your little people.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    38. Re:Shut up and take my money by Druegan · · Score: 1

      I seriously have to wonder about Cat's decision there. If it weren't for the high likelihood of the job being given to Settingsgaard as a reward for "looking the other way" when some Cat Exec's kid (or the Exec themself) got caught with hookers and blow at some downtown hotel, I'd think they were insane.

      No well-heeled global corporation would go hiring for a "security professional" at the Peoria Police Department, primarily because "encouraging lazy acts of random thuggery" and "complete failure to do your job except for covering your ass by collusion with the media" aren't exactly traits that one wants to encourage in one's security department..

      Yes, I've had the misfortune of living in Peoria most of my life, and yes, the PPD *are* that bad. When you see cops, prosecutors, and judges all snorting coke together in the back of the Judge's Chamber (bar) downtown, you know your city is rotten to the core.

    39. Re:Shut up and take my money by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      My parents.

  2. A plague of lawyers seems appropriate by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Funny

    punishment for officials who abuse their power. Sort of a use your enemies to fight each other strategy

    1. Re:A plague of lawyers seems appropriate by Quixote34 · · Score: 1

      And they will be quick to point out that the mayor has merely taken his cue from America's leading criminal-satire case, celebrated almost in the manner of a witch-hunt in New York and on "bible" blogs around the country. See the documentation at: http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpr... Despite being widely reported on in the press, the case — including the dissenting opinion (on free speech grounds, figure that) of the chief judge of the New York's highest court — has been largely ignored by legal commentators, so it's not surprising that thugs with badges now feel free to go after the creators of Twitter accounts embarrassing to wealthy and powerful members of the community, whether they be politicians, university presidents, or anyone else ordinary people might choose to mimic and mock on the Internet.

  3. Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is open-and-shut case, and the only question is what the settlement and payout to Jonathan Daniel would be.

    1. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      I don't think it is open and shut... perhaps for illegal search but they detained him legally, I believe, and released him without charge. The question is whether they had grounds to detain him. He can claim parody but there's not much indication of that. He used actual pictures of the man, made slanderous statements, and may have made claims to be the real mayor (not sure on this as I've not read the tweets). Very little of it seems parody-like from what I've read. I'll bet there will be a counter suit for slander if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

    2. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right - they never lodged charges, but they stole his stuff, and read his private papers anyway. That's sorta the whole point.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Coligny · · Score: 1

      " As part of the April raid, the authorities seized the mobile phone and laptop of the 29-year-old " You are either an idiot or a contrarian troll... Either ways, go back to your cave...

    4. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Did they..................have a warrant? That's the due process, described in the Constitution. You know what the Constitution is, right?

    5. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the question is not if they had grounds to detain him. You can FIND grounds to detain anyone. Searching his phone without a warrant though is (should be) serious trouble. The cops should have known better. And if you'd seen the tweets, it was pretty obvious this was NOT the mayor.... I think it has good standing as Parody, but IANAL.

    6. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Shush. You're interrupting the Two Minutes Hate.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fourth (warrant) doesn't really matter (and yes they did have one). This guy is claiming 1st amendment US constitution and article 1 section 4 of the Illinois state constitution here.

      He is saying he has a right to mock politicians. Even if they filed charges, his first amendment claims simply becomes a defense but it appears that the only charges they could file is if the fake account attempted to impersonate a government official in their official capacity. The problem here is that the comments or tweets were about smoking crack, eating pussy, and crap like that in response to the mayor's actions. For the law in question to apply, he would have had to say something like the mayors office is supporting the Gay KKK rally or something of the sorts that would make the public believe government was taking an action or position on something. But it appears to have all been personal degradation and character assassinations (which may open a civil suit but still would have no net effect on the first amendment claims).

    8. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was listed as being a parody account several days before the raid.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    9. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it appears to have all been personal degradation and character assassinations (which may open a civil suit but still would have no net effect on the first amendment claims).

      Libel laws have much tighter requirements in the case of a "public figure", where actual financial harm has to be proven. The (real) mayor can't simply claim "his false statements made me embarrassed, so I want $10,000 in pain and suffering", he has to show real losses, as in "when he claimed I smoked crack, my boss filled out an HR form that said they had to fire me because they couldn't have a drug user driving forklifts, so I was fired, and lost $10,000 in wages."

      --
      John
    10. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Sabriel · · Score: 2

      He's not arguing they didn't have a warrant, he's arguing they didn't have the "probable cause" you bolded and they performed the "unreasonable searches and seizures" you didn't bold: in other words, that they didn't follow due process to obtain the warrant they used against him.

    11. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the Judge that signed the warrant gets in some shit as well.

    12. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      I was hoping this might occur to someone else. In fact the judge is guilty of a far greater crime and deserves jail time.
      blocking AC's is censorship.

    13. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They had a warrant, but it was granted with no probable cause. Due process includes all of the above (affiant giving probable cause, place and things to be searched, warrant granted). If you have a warrant without probable cause, it's still a violation of the 4th Amendment.

      dom

    14. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they detained him legally, I believe, and released him without charge

      False arrests need to be treated as felonies and the police responsible need to be placed in prison like other felons.

      With all of the thousands and thousands of laws which were designed to allow police and 'officials' to create charges out of thin air, none of them applied to this person. This person did absolutely nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, yet an armed paramilitary wing of the city government came to kick his door in. The problem with this paramilitary wing coming to kidnap you is that they have a checklist where they can start shooting you for 'officer safety' and get away with it. This checklist includes things such as 'he looked like a drug crazed domestic terrorist who had a firearm somewhere in the house' and 'he owned a dog'.

      Put the police in prison where they belong.

    15. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Judges cannot be held liable no matter how badly they disregard the law. The city officials might be on the hook for damages, maybe, if they *knowingly* violated this man's rights (but there would need to be supporting evidence, such as emails, otherwise it's an ordinary lawsuit challenging a government practice rather than going after officials for damages)

    16. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      This is open-and-shut case, and the only question is what the settlement and payout to Jonathan Daniel would be.

      Normal people aren't allowed to pay their way out of jail for their crimes.

      Why are there settlements instead of sentences when a business or any other type of organization is involved?

    17. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      It's actually the opposite. Libel and defamation laws offer public figures virtually NO protection. Otherwise any politician who lost a race could sue the winner for defaming him through those nasty attack ads, etc etc.

    18. Re: Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's Sarten. the establishment trolls are here, now? But where's cold fjord?

    19. Re: Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      To be a "troll" would mean that I make comments to bait others into angry responses. With very few exceptions, I don't do that. I do, however, hold opinions different than your own.

      I feel that the stability and predictability of following established procedures are more important than the immediate gratification of making exceptions for causes that were lucky enough to become the blessed champions of the Internet echo chamber. Sure, the so-called "establishment" makes mistakes, and injustices happen. The "establishment" is designed for that. That's why we have an appeals process and an ever-growing body of legal precedent. We make mistakes, but ultimately learn from them.

      When events as momentous as Snowden's leaks occur, I think it's important to use the situation to improve our laws, and by extension the country and world. I disagree with the calls to overthrow various parts of the government, because I don't see any long-term improvement in them. Snowden's might get freedom, but wht about the other whistleblowers who come after him, and what about genuine traitors who intentionally harm, then claim "whistleblowing" as a defense? Do we treat future situations similarly, or do we craft a new "justice" for each instance according to the whims of a capricious public?

      Ultimately, that's the question on which we disagree: do we, as a society, care more about the public being able to declare judgements, or to predict them? I choose the latter.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  4. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Didn't you know? It's FREE*

    *With purchase of power, results may vary. By reading this you agree to give up all your legal rights.

  5. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have they been stripped off by the Obama Administration, along with the Privacy of the citizens?

    They must have been, especially since the US had never ever seen any problems with corrupt local politicians before Obama became president!

  6. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What has happened to FREEDOM and LIBERTY ?

    Have they been stripped off by the Obama Administration, along with the Privacy of the citizens ?

    Bush happened. Obama promised change. He lied.

  7. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have they been stripped off by the Obama Administration,

    No. Rather they've been stripped off by the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, etc etc.

    And we all let it happen. Sometimes we switch it up and vote for "the other guys", only to remember a few years later why that was a bad idea too.

    We're not smart enough to vote for anyone but the main two, so on it goes.

  8. Ever seen a parody ? by tquasar · · Score: 1

    According to Aristotle it's OK to do stuff like this. Make a person look like an ass because they do ass-like things in a public place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... No due process in the streets.

  9. Let's hope its a section 1983 suit by dbc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Section 1983 lawsuits for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority allows piercing the immunity of public officers and going after their personal assets. In this case, the mayor, and any of the police that participated. Their. Personal. Assets. Not the taxpayers.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

    1. Re:Let's hope its a section 1983 suit by guygo · · Score: 1

      wonderful. that would be the only way to stop them, and it is certainly appropriate. and thank you for the education. I had no idea they could lose their OWN shirt. excellent.

    2. Re:Let's hope its a section 1983 suit by OurDailyFred · · Score: 1

      That was exactly my thought when I saw the paragraphs seven through 12 containing : "He is sued in his individual capacity," with section 12 using a plural instead of singular for the two defendants. Section 13 likely has a bearing on the "individual capacity" in case the judge finds they were not acting under "color of right" although I am not schooled in Illinois law. I do know that the state has incarcerated a sizable percentage of recent governors, but I do not know the statistics on former mayors.

      --
      If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  10. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Still blame him for the DMCA?

    Yes, a law that allows censorship without so much as a court hearing, and makes it illegal to break most DRM.

    Before the DMCA, pirate sites were shut down and stayed down. After the DMCA, pirate sites follow the takedown process and still stay up.

    Spurious correlations...

  11. Left something out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does the summary not mention the name of the mayor? It's pertinent, no?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Left something out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      the original poster didn't want to be arrested.

    2. Re:Left something out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So the name of the parodist is pertinent but not the name of the more notable person who got parodied?

      I don't understand journalism, apparently.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I sadly can't think of a better alternative, though.

    For a start, how about calling "campaign contributions" what they really are, "bribes," and make it illegal.

  13. May be Even Worse than First Reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is starting to look like this wasn't just a case of going after j random twitter user.
    Instead, it was probably an attempt to discredit the local newspaper.

    I bet he had a bug up his ass about the newspaper for some story they wrote in the past and so he convinced himself that the anonymous twitter user was really this reporter and that if he could expose the guy he would get even with the paper. That would totally explain why he had such an over-the-top reaction to the parody, he was already primed and looking for revenge on the paper and thought this was the ticket.

    I hope the loses big time, that kind of vindictiveness does not belong in office.

  14. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    Your suggestion will only result in a cycle of election of candidates who already have ever-increasingly large sums of money to spend on their campaigns. Are you sure you've thought this through?

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  15. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    I am thinking that rich men don't get rich by spending their own money on stuff if they can avoid it. If you are already rich you don't need to get elected to loot the country.

  16. The right to complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One of the surest signs of democracy is the open right to complain. Specifically about either elected public officials, public policy, or any business or person that has failed to live up to promises or contracts. The antithesis of this: the surest sign for a non-democracy is the objection to complaints directed towards either elected public officials, public policy, or any business or person that has failed to live up to promises or contracts. Clearly with the arrest of this man for bringing public scorn and criticism to the mayor, this man is not living in a democracy. Perhaps law enforcement where he lives is aping China, or the new government in Iraq. Lock him up and toss the key! Crap on the US constitution! Burn the Magna Carta! It all goes hand in hand with the cops that arrested this guy, and the politician who doesn't understand what democracy is. This *isn't* China. Its *not* an internal matter. Jon Daniel should sue the personal cops who were part of the raid, their boss who ordered them in, and the politician. Their collective houses are now his house, their collective bank accounts are now his bank account. It must be made clear to the politician and the cops that what they did --in a democracy-- is not allowed. Autocratic states can get away with this: 'autocratic' and 'atrocious' go hand to glove.

  17. Will there be an act 2? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    Given the genius level of legal reasoning in Peoria, I wonder if the defense will try and contact the judge by email and tell them that the city should be protected from financial liability because of taxes.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  18. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    I suggest you take a much closer look at how power is consolidated in politics, and at how many of your elected officials greatly benefit from "career public service" for the duration of their lives (and their children's lives, in many cases). These points aside, you also appear to have a limited understanding of the fundamental desire for power over others; this is a characteristic that is frequently presented as a desire to "help" fellow citizens, when the end results are all too often anything but helpful.

    I am certainly not opposed to people achieving great financial success, nor am I claiming that all or even most rich men desire elected office. It must still be noted that elected representatives, especially but certainly not limited to those holding certain federal offices, already heavily tend toward possession of far greater financial resources than the majority of the people they govern. The GGP suggestion that campaign contributions should be made illegal would only serve to further increase that trend, which is an outcome I believe NoKaOi would be unhappy with.

    "Boss" Tweed serves as an interesting case study in some of these points. Unfortunately, while the sheer magnitude of his transgressions outstripped those of most of his contemporaries, his behavioral patterns remain disconcertingly common among politicians in the present day. This is an unfortunate side effect of basic human nature having remained wholly unchanged in the interim.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  19. More: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quoting:

    The account had fewer than 50 followers, yet now "there are more than a dozen copycat accounts."

  20. section 242: send them to jail by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also section 242 makes it a crime to violate someone's civil rights under color of law, with sentences ranging from one year to the death penalty.

    During settlement negotiations, his lawyer could mention that she has an appointment with federal prosecutors to discuss the case. The mayor, judge, and chief of police may sell their houses and cars to pay a settlement which makes the Curtin happy enough that he doesn't feel the need to press for a federal criminal case.

    1. Re:section 242: send them to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What warrants the death penalty? Using the color of the law to get someone wrongly executed?

    2. Re:section 242: send them to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would guess that if the victim dies while being harassed ("stop resisting! stop resisting!" and dies).

    3. Re:section 242: send them to jail by dbc · · Score: 1

      The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was signed by President Grant to deal with the Klan and others in the aftermath of the civil war. So, yeah, if the sheriff is at the front of the pack wearing a white sheet when somebody gets hanged for trying to vote, that might get the death penalty for the sheriff.

  21. causing death, kidnapping, rape, attempted murder by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Here is the statute. Notice the race stuff is surrounded by the word "or" twice. That has been held to mean it applies if your rights or violated OR if you are punished on the basis of race.

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years , or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  22. Sounds like a stupid strategical mistake by Shlomi+Fish · · Score: 1

    Arresting a man for parodying a local politician on Twitter sounds incredibly stupid. I'm glad the politician in question did the right thing and resigned after that, and if I were the blogger in question, I'd stop being vindictive and make peace with the politician. Hopefully, he can later help pass a law protecting people similar to him from future abuse while remaining on good terms with his target of criticism.

    As a citizen and resident of Israel, I should note that something like that seems highly unlikely to happen here. I have been a humorist, writer/blogger and amateur philosopher for a long time, and my site and other sites and mediums where I've blogged features a lot of positively blasphemous stuff (or stuff that was formerly considered blasphemous) including: jokes about the holocaust, a reflection about holocaust denial, racist or nationalist cliches, sexism, sexualism, critiques of local politicians, critiques of a lot of the constitutional foundation of Israel, an in-your-face Illuminaty/Elders of Zion pan-historical conspiracy theory, and many parodies and criticisms of Judaism (including the Old Testament, the Oral Torah and later additions). I left almost no stone unturned.

    And almost nothing happened to me except some people who told me I Was being out-of-line (Often truly) or some threats from non-officials, or getting myself removed or banned from some Internet forums. The USA may wish to consider how much of a free country they are compared to other parts of the civilised world. The 2001 bombings made many Americans paranoid and paranoid people are miserable, and miserable people are insecure and unsafe. So if you want to be safe, be happy and don't be afraid. Israel now has much laxer national security, which makes us safer in the long run. And as opposed to popular belief, most of Israel since 1990 was never really a warzone, and certainly isn't now, and I believe that Jews, Palestinians and non-Jews mostly live in peace and even friendship even in the occupied territories. There's still a long way to go for close-to-100% harmony here, but we're much closer than before.

    Cheers from Tel Aviv, -- Shlomi Fish (a.k.a "Rindolf").

    --
    We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
  23. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

    You haven't had real freedom for a LONG time. Blaming Obama just makes you look like an idiot.

    Ask yourself how many wars we've been in since WW2. How many of them were fought for the freedom of Americans, and how many of them were fought for economic interests?

    Ask yourself if what the CIA did in South America from the 50's was about freedom, or economic interests?

    America hasn't been a bastion of Freedom for a long time. Don't blame Obama. Don't even blame Bush. We have less than 50% voter turnout. It's OUR fault.

  24. Please make youtube videos by Bardez · · Score: 1

    You can help by showing that this Mayor Ardis is prone to making unwise choices. He released a press conference where he actually read some of the tweets aloud, and this video is on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I think people know what needs to be done.

    --
    Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.