Austin Police Chief To Go After Anonymous Commenters
from the you-need-a-thicker-skin dept
Slashdot points us to the news that the police chief in Austin Texas is so upset about anonymous commenters, or commenters pretending to be police officers, on various internet websites that he's going to start going after them. His complaint? Those comments "erode public trust in the [police] department." Funny, I would think that wasting public resources going after a bunch of random internet commenters rather than focusing on actual crime prevention and solving would do a lot more to erode the public trust in the police department.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, austin, commenters, texas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If,,,,,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If,,,,,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If,,,,,,
More humorously, what happens when a police officer who is an anonymous commenter is assigned to investigate "The case of the anonymous commenters". Does he slap the cuffs on himself, march his ass into the station house, and proudly announce, "Book me, Danno"?
Does he get a commendation along with his prison sentence? If he has second thoughts about arresting himself, does he get charged with resisting arrest? In the court of law, could he confront himself as his own accuser?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If,,,,,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remember
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take the good with the bad is all I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is actually a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is actually a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why?
That is a crime.
It's up to the police to investigate these crimes.
What's techdirt got against this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why?
It's a Catch-22, babe. If you unmask them, and they ARE cops, then you've just violated their right to anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does nobody read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does nobody read?
You don't know that they are pretending. No one does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets be honest here...
I have absolute trust in my local police department.
It has been years since I had the adolescent distrust of those responsible for my protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
wow, thats the dumbest thing I have read today. Grats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
> > The police are just there to enforce the law.
> > Enforcing the law is not the same as preventing
> > crime.
> wow, thats the dumbest thing I have read today.
Not hardly. As a cop myself, I'd be the first to say you're hopelessly naive if you're relying on the police to protect you. The police are essentially reactionary. Unless we get extraordinarily lucky, we usually show up after a crime has been committed and try and find out how did it and arrest them for it. Doesn't do you personally much good if you've already been assaulted, raped, or murdered.
What the other guy said is true: you and you alone are responsible for your own protection. Don't sit by like a sheep and expect the government to do it for you or you'll inevitably end up disappointed at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
So you think all cops are perfect individuals who should be trusted at all times?
Let's ask a simple question:
You're driving, no conditions specified, a cop says "do you know why I pulled you over?"
do you answer or not?
The fact is, you trust officers, and you would answer, implicating yourself. 5th amendment doesn't stop you from incriminating yourself if you willingly speak out. How serious can that get?
See, I can play your strawman argument too, because I have complete distrust of officers. Some are polite, sure, but most are not trustworthy or even there for our safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
The maximum speed on that part of the motorway was 120km/h, the minimum is I believe 60km/h (unless otherwise indicated). I was doing 100km/h (according to my GPS device), by comparison trucks are only allowed to drive 80km/h on our motorways.
It was freezing that night, there were ice patches on the road.
And according to all public safety notices on the subject of slippery roads the advice is to lower your speed. Yet these fine police officers thought it necessary to pull me over.
Thankfully, they only gave a warning, otherwise I would have contested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the police or any authority should do is have an official channel and let the mess in the community be, what this will do is bring a lot of nut cases that will believe even more in what the other nut jobs were saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nyer nyer
*dingdong*
Oh wait, there is someone at the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I don't think that someone reading a comment has a reasonable expectation that a commenter is a certain person or type of person simply because they say they are. Impersonating a police officer is a crime because it enables you to exercise the powers of a police officer. On the net when making a "self identified" comment there is no way to exercise those powers. You might as well arrest the actors in police dramas!
The internet is really a kind of "stage".
If a stand up comedian dressed up in uniform and did a routine "as if he was a police officer" would you arrest him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the Internet, the only group more feared and respected than anonymous police are the grammar nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:Re: Lets be honest here...
"I feel sorry for you."
I am terribly insulted by this statement.
"It has been years since I had the adolescent distrust of those responsible for my protection."
So, in the past, you have distrusted law enforcement? Calling my distrust 'adolescent' is basically saying "I'm not listening because you're a kid, despite the fact that I have in fact held this very opinion in the past."
YOUR protection? If I were to guess, I would say you still support the Bush administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE:Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE:Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:Re: Lets be honest here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:Re: Lets be honest here...
I'm pretty sure you should be.
So, in the past, you have distrusted law enforcement?
ya, back when I was a teenager. It's an adolescent thing.
Calling my distrust 'adolescent' is basically saying "I'm not listening because you're a kid, despite the fact that I have in fact held this very opinion in the past."
Not at all. I said basic distrust of police is adolescent behavior. Which it is. And I was an adolescent when I distrusted the police. Go figure.
YOUR protection? If I were to guess, I would say you still support the Bush administration.
I have no idea how you arrived at that logic. It makes no sense whatsoever. I am a citizen. The police are indeed here to protect citizens. What's your problem with my thinking the police are here for my protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE:Re: Lets be honest here...
ya, back when I was a teenager. It's an adolescent thing.
Recently I heard the tale of Michael Mansfield's mother on the radio (Michael Mansfield is a famous defence/civil rights lawyer here in the UK). She was a fine upstanding citzen who always trusted authority until a policeman issued her with a parking ticket when she was parked perfectly legally. She fought the case herself in court, called her disabled husband as a witness and won the case. The policeman had been lying. She never trusted or respected them after that and the incident inspired her son to his legal career.
For her it was the trust of the police which turned out to be an adolescent thing that she outgrew!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reputation has to be earned by those that speak or take action in the name of themselves or an organization and thus require an identity for recognition. If the police chief wants to preserve the character and image of the department, force all those who post to provide a name and badge number on each post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The way police operate, some cop could post the truth ('Hey guys, I extorted $50 bucks from this spic I pulled over for no reason and then threatened with arrest and a ticket, what a moron...') and Big Chief Cop could see it and have it rub him the wrong way. Goes against his egotistical image of all cops being angelic supermen keeping everyone safe.
The reality of cops is that there are a few good ones, but that doesn't mean they'll be there when you actually need them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will people learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will people learn
Thank you. You made my day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has been years since I had the adolescent distrust of those responsible for my protection."
Absolute trust in any organization taken as a whole is childish. There is no category of human beings that is worthy of absolute trust. Not priests. Not doctors. Neither teachers nor senators nor judges. And certainly not police officers.
Even a smattering of historical knowledge will bear this out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just an Idea
Oh and "Impersonating a police officer is sometimes committed in order to assert police-like authority in order to commit a crime. Posing as a police officer enables the offender to legitimize the appearance of an illegal act, such as; breaking and entry, making a traffic stop, or detaining." so says the mighty Wiki.
I don't think any posters are trying to commit an illegal act as a result of a comment claiming to be an officer. Going after commenters is trivial and will only be perceived as petty and wasteful of time and taxpayer dollars.
If there are no murderers, rapists, drug dealers, kidnappers, etc. on the street, sure, go keep yourself busy. If not, time to replace the chief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
libel against specific officers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Lord
Secondly, this is happening quite often lately and its really, REALLY disturbing. A small town council member was recently on a talk radio show out here in Seattle because he demanded a local newspaper give him the email address of a commenter on their website... and the newspaper did. The council member then sent an email directly to that poster demanding he recall his information.
I'm pretty sure government stifling speech is UNCONSTITUTIONAL but our country stopped caring years ago. This is getting outrageous. I don't care if some guy from a Texas police department disagrees with it but going after a citizen for a constitutionally protected right should be punishable by death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's rich. So I guess all those Austin cops who wear black tape over their badge numbers while they bust undesirables on trumped up charges...They are all cowards according to Acevedo...
...And I agree wholeheartedly with Acevedo on that point.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words you have free speech so long as your free speech doesn't say anything that the government or big corporations disagree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Austin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]