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."
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.
punishment for officials who abuse their power. Sort of a use your enemies to fight each other strategy
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.
They must have been, especially since the US had never ever seen any problems with corrupt local politicians before Obama became president!
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
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).
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...
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
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.
the original poster didn't want to be arrested.