Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'

from the this-deputy-should-be-neutered-and-assigned-a-caretaker dept

Let us gaze again in shock at the pathetic weakness of powerful people, unable to handle targeted criticism without resorting to violating people's rights. That's right, we're talking about cops again.

Certain states have added law enforcement officers to the list of protected groups that can benefit from hate crime laws. Cops are historically a very powerful group. They have not been oppressed in any way since the inception of law enforcement -- an idea that really took off when slave owners wished to see their dehumanizing, minimal investments protected.

Hello, Utah. What the actual fuck? (via C.J. Ciaramella and Reason)

A 19-year-old Utah woman has been charged with a hate crime for allegedly stomping on a "Back the Blue" sign in front of a police officer, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

According to an affidavit obtained by the Tribune, a Garfield County Sheriff's deputy was conducting a traffic stop at a gas station in Panguitch, Utah, on Wednesday when he saw the woman "stomping on a 'Back the Blue' sign next to where the traffic stop was conducted, crumble it up in a destructive manner and throw it into a trash can all while smirking in an intimidating manner towards me."

"Crumbled [sic] it up in a destructive manner." YE GODS! Surely the anarchist apocalypse is upon us. Behold this deputy and their inability to handle being "smirked" at in an "intimidating manner."

After reading the woman her Miranda rights, the officer stated she gave “inconsistent stories” about where she found the sign, eventually stating she found it on the ground.

“Due to [the woman] destroying property that did not belong to her in a manner to attempt to intimidate law enforcement, I placed her under arrest,” the affidavit says.

OMFG. This is the reaction prompted by the "defacement" of a sign that contains nothing more than a pithless catchphrase popular with the nation's bootlickiest demograph. Grow up, Deputy Dawg. If you're intimidated by crumpled signs and smirks, you shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun and enforce laws. Bad things will happen. This bullshit arrest might be, unfortunately, the best case scenario.

Destroying property to "intimidate or terrorize" is a crime in Utah. But it doesn't appear offended cops are specific beneficiaries of this law.

According to the code, the act “must be accompanied with the intent to cause or has the effect of causing a person to reasonably fear to freely exercise or enjoy any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

I doubt this act infringed on the deputy's constitutional rights. The officer could not have possibly felt threatened to the extent their rights would have been curtailed. The evidence is right there. If the deputy felt so threatened they could not exercise their rights, this arrest wouldn't have happened. The perp (as it were) would have left the scene, still smirking and commenting on the ineffectual nature of this 21st century Barney Fife.

This pathetic horseshit all began with a traffic stop, as law enforcement horseshit normally does.

On Wednesday, a Garfield County sheriff’s deputy pulled over a car at a gas station in Panguitch for speeding. After the driver was issued a ticket and the traffic stop was completed, the deputy noticed several friends consoling the driver, according to a police booking affidavit.

Looks like someone unlawfully extended a stop to exact revenge on people the deputy felt weren't properly respectful of law enforcement.

“I stated to (the woman) that our sheriff’s office produced those specific signs and that I believed she had acquired it in our community,” the deputy wrote, adding that he checked with gas station employees who said the sign was not theirs. After reading her Miranda rights, the deputy said the woman provided “inconsistent stories” and eventually said she had found it on the ground.

Hey, maybe get out of the sign-making business, you clods. This sounds like the misuse of taxpayer funds. The sheriff is there to enforce the law, not ensure the populace is properly cowed by artisanal bootlickery. That this ever resulted in criminal charges is ridiculous. That these charges came with hate charge enhancements because of some crumpling and smirking is farcical.

Hopefully, the charges will be dropped before any other Garfield county government agencies embarrass themselves any further. But who knows? This is Utah, a state where legislators want to strip protections from social media services and consider porn to be something as harmful to public health as the coronavirus.

This is a lawsuit in the making. Given the courts' full-blooded support for criticizing police officers via even the crudest of gestures, this deputy appears headed for a reckoning that can't be swatted away with invocations of qualified immunity.

Filed Under: back the blue, free speech, hate crime, police, utah

Georgia Governor Passes Law Granting Cops Protected Status For 'Bias-Based' Crimes

from the saving-the-protectors-from-the-protected dept

Georgia governor Brian Kemp -- last seen here trying to turn his own election security problems into a Democrat-lead conspiracy -- has just proven he's unable to read the room. The governor can't read the room in his own state, much less the current state of the nation. Less than a month after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis triggered nationwide protests against police violence, officers in Atlanta were involved in a controversial killing of a Black man in a fast food restaurant parking lot.

The state of the nation is pretty much the same as it is in Georgia. Now is not the time to be offering police officers even more legal protections, considering how much they've abused the ones they already have. Idiotic bills touted by legislators saying stupid things like "blue lives matter" come and go. Mostly they go, since they're either redundant or unworkable. These laws try to turn a person's career choice into an immutable characteristic, converting some of the most powerful people in the nation into a class that deserves protection from the public these officers are sworn to serve.

It's now possible to commit a hate crime against a cop in Georgia, thanks to Kemp and his party-line voters.

Gov. Brian Kemp signed a proposal into law Wednesday that Republicans pushed to grant police new protections despite stiff opposition from critics who said it creates a messy tangle of legal problems.
[...]

In a statement, Kemp said he took action because he has attended the funerals of too many law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, and he called the measure a “step forward as we work to protect those who are risking their lives to protect us.”

“While some vilify, target and attack our men and women in uniform for personal or political gain, this legislation is a clear reminder that Georgia is a state that unapologetically backs the blue,” Kemp said.

The standalone bill was a concession to state Republicans, who refused to help pass an actual hate crime bill without being able to give more protections to already-very well-protected police officers. Not only does the law make it a crime to engage in "bias motivated intimidation" of police officers and first responders, it gives them a way to exact revenge on anyone they believe has wronged them. From the bill [PDF]:

A peace officer shall have the right to bring a civil suit against any person, group of persons, organization, or corporation, or the head of an organization or corporation, for damages, either pecuniary or otherwise, suffered during the officer's performance of official duties, for abridgment of the officer's civil rights arising out of the officer's performance of official duties, or for filing a complaint against the officer which the person knew was false when it was filed.

Critics of the bill believe this addition to state law would give officers a way to sue anti-police protesters for whatever harms officers feel they've suffered while policing demonstrations. And it would affect more than protesters. Anyone interacting with a police officer runs the risk of being sued because "damages suffered" is limited only by the officer's imagination and the court's tolerance. Even if the suit is baseless, the defendant still has to show up and defend themselves, using their own money while officers play litigation roulette with the taxpayers' bankroll.

Then there's the heart of the law, which makes certain acts hate crimes:

A person commits the offense of bias motivated intimidation when such person maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate, harass, or terrorize another person because of that person's actual or perceived employment as a first responder:

(1) Causes death or serious bodily harm to another person; or

(2) Causes damage to or destroys any real or personal property of a person because of actual or perceived employment as a first responder without permission and the amount of the damage exceeds $500.00 or the value of the property destroyed exceeds $500.00.

Those acts are punishable by five years and/or a $5,000 fine. And the acts described are already crimes. Doubling down on crimes to make cops feel special may actually make things more ridiculous, as the ACLU has explained.

According to the bill, anyone found guilty of the death, serious bodily harm or destruction of more than $500 worth of property of a first responder, specifically because of his or her occupation, would face between one and five years in prison and/or a fine up to $5,000.

Currently, the punishment for murder includes death, life in prison without the possibility of parole or life in prison.

Since the targeted killing of a police officer could be considered “bias motivated intimidation” of a first responder, the ACLU says a legal argument called the “rule of lenity” requires courts to pursue the charge that is the most favorable to a defendant.

And the most lenient charge is the new law, which calls for only a five-year sentence (maximum) for killing a cop if the crime appears to have been motivated by anti-cop bias. Prosecutors who want to do the most damage to cop-killers won't be pursuing bias charges. They'll ignore the new law completely. Legislators were apparently made aware of this conflict prior to the bill's passage but apparently figured it would sort itself out once it became law.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jesse Stone, a Waynesboro Republican and attorney, said he was made aware of a potential problem with the legislation late Friday.

“I think if they were charged with bias motivated (intimidation), that might be a concern,” said Stone, who voted for HB 838 and is retiring this year. “I haven’t studied it, but I think it’s something that should be looked into.”

Yes, the best time to look into potential problems with legislative proposals is after they've become law. Everything about this new law is terrible, including its path to the governor's desk. It passed with one vote, divided entirely along party lines. And it shows one party is far more concerned with pandering to its powerful law enforcement voter base than protecting citizens from their public servants.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, blue lives matter, brian kemp, georgia, hate crime, police, police rights

Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A 'Hate Crime'

from the let's-do-the-stupid-thing-again dept

Another stupid, pointless effort to turn protectors and servants into professional victims is being mounted in Alabama. Cops can barely be bothered to educate themselves on the laws they're enforcing, but they're usually all over the ones that allow them to turn things they don't like into criminal activity.

It's (yet another) "blue lives matter" law being foisted upon citizens by legislators who are altogether too certain they're in the right. Here's the backer of the proposed law that would turn cops into a protected group making a claim that's proven false before the end of the article at PoliceOne.

“Everyone agrees that it should be a hate crime to shoot a police officer,” said state Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, and chairman of the Alabama State Senate Judiciary Committee where the hate crime legislation is reviewed. “I don’t know anyone who opposes that. The question is, ‘What gets tacked on?’ Yes, you can find a bipartisan solution.”

Everyone?

[Sen. Vivian] Figures said she favors “of doing everything we can to protect our law enforcement officials.” But she said she’s unsure if a hate crime law is the right vehicle.

The bill, written by Senator Chris Elliott, is his second attempt to push a cop-friendly hate crime bill through the legislature. Elliott possibly figures he'll have a better chance this year because more cops have been killed in Alabama than usual. There have been six law enforcement officers killed by residents this year, which puts the state towards the top of the killed in the line of duty list.

The senator who spoke for everyone (while being wrong about what "everyone" agreed with) doesn't want this bill tainted with riders that would provide similar hate crime protections for others more deserving of these protections. Sen. Figures (who does not agree with Ward's assertion that "everyone agrees") may have been responsible for the death of Elliott's previous effort when she added an LGBTQ amendment to his 2018 "blue lives matter" bill. That's the sort of "tacking on" Ward is hoping to prevent here, in order to give cops more protections while leaving more vulnerable residents less protected.

Adding to the stupidity is the fact that police already benefit from a law that provides an extra deterrent to killing cops.

In Alabama, killing a law enforcement while they are on the line of duty is an aggravating factor that is punishable by the death penalty.

These proposals have made periodic appearances in the years following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting was a flash point in police-community relationships. With the current federal administration strongly pro-law enforcement, state-level legislators perhaps feel emboldened to pursue legislation that does little to protect cops, but everything to put more distance between law enforcement and the people they serve.

These proposals are reactionary in the worst sense of the word. They're legislative affirmations that might makes right and the people with most might will continue to consolidate power. There's little evidence that suggests these laws are justified at any level. Most killings of cops are impromptu, not planned assaults inspired by an insatiable hate for law enforcement.

The general public receives zero benefit from these laws. All that happens is a very well-protected group of government employees gets even more protections. The laws become vehicles for abuse and there's only so much courts can do to protect citizens if their "representatives" decide to serve fellow government employees rather than their constituents.

The upside here is these proposals -- at least here in Alabama -- can be neutralized by adding amendments that would extend protections to people who don't wear the blue -- especially members of the public that far too many legislators don't feel are worthy of any protection.

Filed Under: alabama, blue lives matter, hate crime, police

Congressional Members Decide It's Time To Make Assaulting A Police Officer A Federal Hate Crime

from the knock-it-off-with-this-stupid-shit dept

It's apparently time for a legislative update to The War on Cops. Apropos of nothing, legislators from both sides of Congress have flung some more "cops are more equal than others" legislation into the ring. Senators Orrin Hatch and Heidi Heitkamp have joined their House counterparts in attempting to make any crime against a police officers a hate crime. From Hatch's press release:

Protect and Serve Act of 2018:

The legislation adds a new section to Chapter 7 of Title 18 that:

Makes it a federal crime to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempt to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a law enforcement officer;

Prescribes a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment for a violation, or up to a life sentence in cases that result in death or involve kidnapping;

Requires that the offense have a federal nexus;

Requires certification by the Attorney General that a state has waived jurisdiction or that federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice; and

Requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of person as a law enforcement officer.

Why do we need this law? We don't. But don't let that stop the bill's sponsors from arguing otherwise.

“In rural and urban areas alike, law enforcement officers face heightened risk every time they put on their uniforms,” Heitkamp said.

They actually face historically low risks, with last year's death stats being even lower than the year before. But let's not let actual death totals get in the way of increasing penalties for anyone who has the misfortune of dealing with cops. It doesn't just cover murder -- even though "targeted killings" are the main talking point. It covers any bodily injury, which makes it perfect for stacking charges on arrestees. Anything from an aborted fist swing to an accidental bump can be turned into an assault charge and this law gives federal prosecutors the chance to escalate the side effects of resisting arrest into a federal prison sentence. And it's a great way to keep abused citizens from filing complaints, as Radley Balko explains:

What harm could come of this bill? An assault on a police officer charge is often used a cudgel — it’s a way of dissuading legitimate victims of police brutality from filing complaints. If such an assault charge could soon come with an additional federal charge punishable by up to 10 years in prison, that cudgel grows by about 10 sizes. It gets awfully persuasive.

Lest there's any doubt this bill is a "hate crime" bill, the press release makes it crystal clear.

Since May 2016, several states have enacted laws that make attacking police because of their occupation a hate crime. The Protect and Serve Act takes a similar approach and is modeled after the federal hate crime statute, 18 U.S.C. § 249.

It's true. Several stupid state legislatures have decided to elevate some of the most powerful public servants in their jurisdictions to the status of "protected victim." Never mind the reason most hate crime laws are enacted is to bring more power to the powerless -- a (clumsy) way to address criminal acts predicated on hatred of someone's race or sexual orientation. Police officers are neither a race nor a sexual orientation. There is no conscription involved in a law enforcement career. It's strictly voluntary, unlike the personal traits involved in most hate crime laws.

It's not as though there's a lack of aggressive prosecution when officers are killed or injured. There's never a shortage of charges to be brought or a dearth of zeal to see this criminal act punished. Many states already provide sentencing enhancements if the crime victim is a police officer. This bill simply gives the federal government the option to swoop in and punish certain criminals more harshly, ignoring any lack of "Blue Lives Matter" state statute.

It's a stupid legislative proposition built on the ridiculous delusion that there's a War on Cops being waged day in and day out when it's really a lot of isolated incidents scattered across an ever-moving timeline. Being a cop in America is safe. Officers do not suffer for a lack of physical or legal protections. They are some of the most-protected individuals in this nation. A law like this is more than redundant and needlessly punitive. It's an implicit message sent to all Americans, telling them their public servants -- at least these ones -- are better and more deserving of protection than they are.

Filed Under: congress, free speech, hate crime, police

NY Senate Passes Bill That Would Add Cops And Firemen To List Of Protected Classes Under State's Hate Crime Law

from the those-poor-underprivileged-authority-figures dept

Because good ideas are rare but bad ideas eternal, the New York State Senate has just given its blessing to a stupid bill aimed at protecting people armed with guns, power, the weight of the law, and numerous immunity options. The "justification" for New York's addition of cops and first responders to the state's hate crime law is this:

There has been an increase in mortality rates of law enforcement officers, firefighters, corrections officers and emergency medical services personnel, within the past decade. In a report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in 2014, statistics showed that approximately "126 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers died in the line of duty" which exhibited an increase in comparison to 2012 and 2013. The increase in the death toll has been in part, due to offenses intentionally aimed to harm first responders.

This is followed by a bunch of anecdotes about officers and first responders being on the receiving end of supposedly "targeted" violence. It adds nothing to the "justification" but a few presentation-worthy stories to sway emotions of fellow legislators. It doesn't make the preceding statement any more correct. It's actually misleading and wrong in equal parts.

First off, an increase in "mortality rates" is not the same thing as an increase in violence directed at law enforcement officers. The stats legislators are attempting to point to include all deaths in the line of duty, whether they were at the hands of civilians or not. So, this stat is already sort of misleading, albeit only because of the way this bill's sponsors have phrased it.

Second, the stats the justification quotes are wrong. There were 136 deaths in 2014, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. That's more than what's stated here. Worrying? Not even close. It's 20 more than 2013, but one less than 2012's total. In other words, the stats show no sort of increase that might justify giving police officers more protection. If these legislators weren't trying to cherry pick, they might have included 2011's total of 178, which is fifty more deaths than the supposedly-shocking number quoted in the bill's justification.

Just so everyone's aware who's pushing to make an abusable law even more easily-abused, here's the bipartisan group of sponsors.

Fred Akshar [R] - Longtime law enforcement officer, having served as undersheriff for Broome County before turning to politics.

Patrick M. Gallivan [R] - former Erie County Sheriff (1998-2005), preceded by 15 years with the New York State Police, and followed by a stint on the state parole board. One of several state legislators found to have faked leadership positions in the Senate to get a little unearned extra pay added onto their paychecks.

Tony Avella [D] - Last seen at Techdirt killing off his horrendous "Right to Be Forgotten" bill… but not in an honorable way. Rather than remove it from consideration, he simply revoked his sponsorship, leaving the orphaned bill to wander the Senate halls unattended.

Martin J. Golden [R] - A retired NYPD officer who has been instrumental in adding even more New Yorkers to the state's sex offender registry, as well as expanding the state's DNA databank to include people convicted of nothing more than a misdemeanor.

John J. Bonacic [R] - Former assistant district attorney and one of those guys who thinks something must be done about "anti-law enforcement rhetoric." Apparently, this bill is part of the solution -- a bill that could conceivably be twisted to turn "resisting arrest" into a felony-level hate crime. (Because what is "resisting arrest" if not "targeting" of law enforcement for abuse/violence/etc.?)

Here's the pertinent wording of the bill, which adds cops, firefighters, and EMTs to a long list of groups who have historically been victims of discrimination.

section 1, states that a person has committed a hate crime, when he or she commits a specified offense and either intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed to, or in part because of a belief or perception regarding race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation of a person, or because of actual or perceived employment as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel.

Guess who doesn't fit into that list: the shorter list of occupations that have long been revered, respected, and given considerable amount of leeway to perform their duties. Unlike those who have been singled out for abuse because of their age, disability, ancestry, race, color, national origin, or sexual orientation, the new protected class is entirely composed of voluntary "traits."

Adding to the ridiculousness is the bill's name -- a self-righteous, heart-tugging melange of authority-worshipping words: Community Heroes Protection Act.

Very few bills of this sort have become law. Many have attempted to give more protection to well-protected powerful classes, but very few have garnered enough support to make it past the introduction stage. This one has moved forward, which is a problem because bills like this that have passed have immediately been abused by law enforcement.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, firemen, hate crime, new york, police

UK Parliament Takes First Step Towards Making Google & Facebook Censor Everything

from the this-is-a-bad-idea dept

Look, let's just start with the basics: there are some bad people out there. Even if the majority of people are nice and well-meaning, there are always going to be some people who are not. And sometimes, those people are going to use the internet. Given that as a starting point, at the very least, you'd think we could deal with that calmly and rationally, and recognize that maybe we shouldn't blame the tools for the fact that some not very nice people happen to use them. Unfortunately, it appears to be asking a lot these days to expect our politicians to do this. Instead, they (and many others) rush out immediately to point the fingers of blame for the fact that these "not nice" people exist, and rather than point the finger of blame at the not nice people, they point at... the internet services they use.

The latest example of this is the UK Parliament that has released a report on "hate crime" that effectively blames internet companies and suggests they should be fined because not nice people use them. Seriously. From the report:

Here in the UK we have easily found repeated examples of social media companies failing to remove illegal content when asked to do so—including dangerous terrorist recruitment material, promotion of sexual abuse of children and incitement to racial hatred. The biggest companies have been repeatedly urged by Governments, police forces, community leaders and the public, to clean up their act, and to respond quickly and proactively to identify and remove illegal content. They have repeatedly failed to do so. That should not be accepted any longer. Social media is too important to everyone—to communities, individuals, the economy and public life—to continue with such a lax approach to dangerous content that can wreck lives. And the major social media companies are big enough, rich enough and clever enough to sort this problem out—as they have proved they can do in relation to advertising or copyright. It is shameful that they have failed to use the same ingenuity to protect public safety and abide by the law as they have to protect their own income.

Social media companies currently face almost no penalties for failing to remove illegal content. There are too many examples of social media companies being made aware of illegal material yet failing to remove it, or to do so in a timely way. We recommend that the Government consult on a system of escalating sanctions to include meaningful fines for social media companies which fail to remove illegal content within a strict timeframe.

This is the kind of thing that sounds good to people who (a) don't understand how these things actually work and (b) don't spend any time thinking through the consequences of such actions.

First off, it's easy for politicians and others to sit there and assume that "bad" content is obviously bad. The problem here is twofold: first, there is so much content showing up that spotting the "bad" stuff is not nearly as easy as people assume, and second, because there's so much content, it's often difficult to understand the context enough to recognize if something is truly "bad." People who think this stuff is obvious or easy are ignorant. They may be well-meaning, but they're ignorant.

So, for example, they say that these are cases where such content has been "reported" on the assumption that this means the companies must now "know" that the content is bad and they should remove it. The reality is much more difficult. DO they recognize how many such reports these companies receive? Do they realize that before companies start taking down content willy nilly, that they have to actually understand what's going on? Do they realize that it's not so easy to figure out what's really happening sometimes?

Let's go through the examples given: "dangerous terrorist recruitment material." Okay, seems obvious. But how do you distinguish terrorist recruitment videos from documenting terrorist atrocities? It's not as easy as you might think. Remember how a video of a European Parliament debate on anti-torture was taken down because the system or a reviewer thought it was promoting terrorism? People think this stuff is black and white, but it's not. It's all gray. And the shades of gray are very difficult to distinguish. And the shades of gray may differ greatly from one person to another.

Sexual abuse of children. Yes, clearly horrible. Clearly things need to be done. There are, already, systems for government-associated organizations and social media platforms to share hashes of photos deemed to be problematic and these are blocked. But, again, edge cases are tricky. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that Facebook got mocked for taking down the famed Napalm Girl photo? Here's a situation that seems black and white: no naked children. Seems reasonable. Except... this naked child is an iconic photo that demonstrates the horrors of war. That doesn't mean we should let all pictures of naked children online -- far from it, obviously. But the point is that it's not always so black and white, and any policy proposal that assumes it is (as the UK Parliament seems to be suggesting) has no idea what a mess it's causing.

Next on the list: "incitement to racial hatred." This would be so called "hate speech." But, as we've noted time and time again, this kind of thinking always ends up turning into authoritarian abuse. Over and over again we see governments punish people they don't like, by claiming what they're saying is "hate speech." But, you say, "incitement to racial hatred" is clearly over the line. And, sure, I agree. But be careful who gets to define both "incitement" and "racial hatred." You might not be so happy. Here in the US, there are people who (ridiculously, in my opinion) argue that groups like Black Lives Matter are a form of "incitement to racial hatred." Now, you might think that's crazy, but there are lots of people who disagree with you. And some of them are in power. Now are you happy about handing them the tools to demand that all social media sites take down their content or face fines? Or, how do you expect Google and Facebook to instantly determine if a video is a clip from a Hollywood movie, rather than "incitement to racial hatred?" There are plenty of powerful scenes in movies that none of us would consider "polite speech," but we don't think they should be taken down as "incitement to racial hatred."

Then the report notes that "the major social media companies are big enough, rich enough and clever enough to sort this problem out." First off, that's not true. As noted above, companies make mistakes about this stuff all the time. They take down stuff that should be left up. They leave up stuff that people think they should take down. You have no idea how many times each and every day these companies have to make these decisions. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they don't. Punishing them for a mistake in being too slow is a near guarantee that they'll be taking down a ton of legit stuff, just to avoid punishment.

Separately, who decides who's a "major social media company" that has to do this? If rules are passed saying social media companies have to block this stuff, congrats, you've just guaranteed that Facebook and Google/YouTube are the last such companies. No new entrant will be able to take on the burden/liability of censoring all content. If you try and somehow, magically, carve out "major" social media companies, how do you set those boundaries, without creating massive unintended consequences?

The report falsely claims that these companies have successfully created filters that can deal with advertising and copyright, which is laughable and, once again, ignorant. The ad filter systems on these platforms are terrible. We use Google ads for some of our ad serving, and on a near constant basis we're weeding out terrible ads, because no company is able to and awful people are getting their ads into the system all the time. And copyright? Really? If that's the case, why are the RIAA/MPAA still whining about Google daily? These things are much harder than people think, and it's quite clear that whoever prepared this report has no clue and hasn't spoken to anyone who understands this stuff.

Social media companies currently face almost no penalties for failing to remove illegal content.

What a load of hogwash. They face tremendous "penalties" in the form of public anger. Whenever these stories come out, the companies in question talk about how much more they need to do, and how many people they're hiring to help and all that. They wouldn't be doing that if there were "no penalties." The "penalties" don't need to be legal or fines. It's much more powerful when the actual users of the services make it clear what they don't like and won't stand for. Adding an additional legal threat doesn't change or help with that. It just leads to more problems.

And that's just looking at two awful paragraphs. There's much more like that. As Alec Muffett points out, the report has some really crazy ideas, like saying that the services need to block "probably illegal content" that has "similar names" to illegal content:

Despite us consistently reporting the presence of videos promoting National Action, a proscribed far-right group, examples of this material can still be found simply by searching for the name of that organisation. So too can similar videos with different names. As well as probably being illegal, we regard it as completely irresponsible and indefensible.

So, not only do the authors of this report want Google to remove any video that is reported, no questions asked (despite a long history of such systems being widely abused), it wants them to magically find all "similar" content that is "probably illegal" even with "different names." Do they have any idea what they're asking for? And immediately after that they, again, insist that this must be possible because of copyright filters. Of course, these would be the same copyright filters that tried to take down Cory Doctorow's book Homeland because it had a "similar name" to the Fox TV show "Homeland." "Similar names" is a horrific way to build a censorship system. It will not work.

What's so frustrating about this kind of nonsense is that it keeps popping up again and again, often from people with real power, in large part because they simply do not comprehend the actual result of what they're saying or the nature of the actual problem. There are not nice people doing not nice things online. We can all agree (hopefully) that we don't like these not nice people and especially don't like the not nice things they do online. But to assume that the answer to that is to blame the platforms they use for not censoring them fast enough misses the point completely. It will create tremendous collateral damage for tons of people, often including the most vulnerable, while doing absolutely nothing to deal with the not nice people and the not nice things they are doing.

Filed Under: censorship, europe, hate crime, hate speech, intermediary liability, parliament, platforms, uk
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube

'Blue Lives Matter' Laws Continue To Be Introduced Around The Nation

from the BLM-mostly-DOA,-so-there's-that dept

How much do "Blue Lives" matter? More than non-Blue Lives, apparently, given the national legislative enthusiasm for generating stupid, easily-abused, redundant legislation.

Louisiana -- one of the few states where legislators have agreed to extend greater protections to an incredibly-protected group -- has already seen its newly-minted "Blue Lives Matter" law abused by law enforcement. It's been abused so badly that even law enforcement's best friend -- local prosecutors -- has refused to pursue charges under the statute.

But most state legislatures have yet to entertain this ridiculous idea to its illogical conclusion. As Julia Craven reports for Huffington Post, fourteen states have floated "Blue Lives Matter" laws -- a total of 32 legislative trial balloons.

The good news is most of these have gone nowhere. The data compiled by Craven shows a majority of these have died shortly after introduction -- most likely due to them being both (a) bad laws and (b) redundant. All 50 states already have some sort of sentencing enhancement on the books for perpetrators of violent acts against law enforcement officers. Trying to twist legislation meant to protect underprivileged groups to include some of the most privileged members of our society hasn't found much support beyond police unions and others similarly self-interested.

For whatever reason, Mississippi's legislature is the nation's leader in failure and redundancy, as far as "Blue Lives" legislation goes.

Any bills that have managed to pass make things worse for anyone who has the misfortune of interacting with police. Existing laws already engage in book-throwing when it comes to violence against police officers. "Blue Lives" laws just add more severity, for no tangible reason.

[U]nlike hate crime laws, they don’t require prosecutors to prove motive.

“In the vast majority of states, you will get life or considerably less in prison for murder; but if you murder a police officer, you are almost certain to get death,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “So the truth is that including police in hate crime laws is merely a political statement ― and an unnecessary one at that.”

In most cases, "Blue Lives" laws add sentencing enhancements to normal violations. Crimes like resisting arrest (and assaulting an officer, which tends to be handcuffed to resisting charges) are treated as acts of "hate," rather than as the basic, bog standard criminal acts they are.

It's also important to point out -- as Craven does in her article -- that the "Blue Lives Matter" movement was borne of law enforcement misconduct and use of excessive force. As public confidence in law enforcement decreased, some people felt compelled to intercede on behalf of a pretty much legally-unassailable group.

The national focus on police violence has put officers and their more avid supporters on the defense. Supporters created the Blue Lives Matter campaign as a direct response to the Black Lives Matter movement and the growing protests against police violence.

The other aspect that makes these laws particularly ridiculous is the "hate crime" aspect of it. Hate crime laws deal with human traits that are mostly involuntary or unchangeable, like race or sexual preference. No one is born a cop and no one forces anyone to take the job. Hate crime laws themselves are generally redundant, but adding more layers of redundancy to shelter a certain subsection of Americans who are completely free to remove their "cop" status at any time is a solution in search of a problem. And the problem with problem-less solutions is that problems will be created out of thin air to fit them.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, hate crime, hate speech, police

Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers

from the blue-lives-so-frail dept

The Louisiana legislature decided to help out its most underprivileged constituents -- law enforcement officers -- by making it a felony to "attack" them using nothing more than words.

When New Orleans police officers arrived at the scene of a disturbance to arrest an intoxicated man for banging on a hotel's windows and harassing the employees, the situation devolved into the totally expected.

According to arrest documents, Delatoba was drunk and banging on a window at the Royal Sonesta Hotel, 300 Bourbon St. around 5:15 a.m. Monday, when a witness who heard the banging told him to stop. Delatoba's warrant says he yelled at the witness, "calling him a n-----."

That witness, a security guard who works at a nearby building's mezzanine, along with a security supervisor for the Royal Sonesta, flagged down two Louisiana State Troopers who then escorted Delatoba to NOPD's 8th District station, the warrant states. Once at the station, the warrant states, Delatoba began to verbally "attack members of the New Orleans Police Dept." The warrant states Delatoba called one female officer a "dumb a-- c---" and another officer a "dumb a-- n-----."

In a shocking twist, an intoxicated man was rude and uncooperative while being arrested. (Have these cops never watched "COPS?") So of course the New Orleans police took it upon themselves to be legally offended by the sort of invective they hear from arrestees all the time. The state's hate crime law expansion allowed them to tack on additional charge after the arrest -- a felony with a potential five-year prison sentence.

Fortunately, the district attorney isn't nearly as thin-skinned as the overprotected cops. This decision was probably preceded by some heartfelt eye rolling and several rewritten statements to eliminate every last trace of derision.

Assistant District Attorney Christopher Bowman, a spokesman for Cannizzaro's office, said Monday (Oct. 24) the police officers Raul Delatoba cursed at were not victims of the crime that prompted his arrest initially. Rather, the "disparaging remarks" to officers were made during or after he was apprehended. The office officially refused the charges about two weeks ago.

After a bit of hindsight, the police department officially agrees with the DA's decision.

Additionally, NOPD spokesman Tyler Gamble said Sept. 8 that after reviewing the case, it was "clear that the responding officer incorrectly applied" the hate crime law.

But it's important to note that wasn't always the case. When the "incorrectly applied law" first came up, the NOPD shrugged and said it was up to the DA to figure out how much bullshit was contained in the bullshit charge.

This is exactly the sort of ridiculousness everyone but the supporters of the bill saw coming. Give law enforcement a law to abuse and they'll abuse it. The New Orleans police can now arrest people for calling them names -- not really the sort of thing the power of law enforcement should be used for. What they can't do is tack a charge on if they feel insulted in the process of arresting someone for unrelated offenses. At least not in New Orleans. The law is effective statewide, and there's no guarantee every government prosecutor will view it the way Cannizzaro's office did.

Hate crime laws are generally vaguely written and overbroad, but ones that append "blue lives matter" wording are even worse. They extend protection to historically privileged and powerful people and make it that much easier to slap "disrespectful" arrestees with felony charges. It's nothing more than a vehicle for abuse and does absolutely nothing to foster a healthy relationship between police officers and the communities they serve.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, first amendment, free speech, hate crime, new orleans, police

Texas Governor Latest To Ask For A 'Hate Crime' Law That Covers Attacks On Cops

from the red-tape-around-a-blue-line dept

Yet another politician can be added to the list of people who think police officers just don't have enough protections as is. Following in the footsteps of legislators in New Jersey and Minnesota -- along with Rep. Ken Buck (CO) -- Texas governor Greg Abbott has decided it's time to treat attacking officers as a "hate crime."

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) wants the targeted killing of a police officer to be deemed a hate crime in Texas and urged lawmakers to send him such a bill to sign during next year’s legislative session.

Abbott announced Monday his plan to lobby for adding his Police Protection Act to Texas law. Along with extending hate-crime protections to law enforcement, the measure would also increase criminal penalties for any crimes in which the victim is a law enforcement officer and “create a culture of respect for law enforcement by organizing a campaign to educate young Texans on the value law enforcement officers bring to their communities,” according to a statement from Abbott’s office.

Nothing "creates a culture of respect" like handing beneficiaries of a host of "extra rights" even more protection in the form of stiffer penalties just because the victim was wearing a certain uniform. As Fault Line's JoAnne Musick points out, "hate crime" laws are generally enacted to provide greater protections for historically underprotected classes, not those already in positions of power.

Are police an otherwise vulnerable group? Is violence against an officer intended to hurt or intimidate the entire police community? Are crimes against officers underreported and in need of encouragement to prosecute them? Plain and simple, the answers are no. Police are not particularly more vulnerable. In fact, they are better trained and greater equipped to protect each other and themselves. Crimes against police are rarely underreported. They are most definitely heavily prosecuted – as they should be. So, why is there a need to create a special class?

The Dallas shooting that left five officers dead is the only reason this call for legislation even exists. It's a kneejerk reaction that shifts even more power to the powerful. It's sure to gather support from legislators because who could possibly be opposed to punishing cop killers? Add to that the further consolidation of power it represents and there's very little chance someone won't run this up the legislative flagpole. After all, the governor himself is calling for legislation, so it's guaranteed to become law if it hits his desk. That's an easy win -- something legislators like almost as much as jingoism and "tough on crime" posturing.

Rather than address the issues that have led to this (seeming) flashpoint (despite the recent murders of police officers, numbers are still on track for another "normal" year in on-duty officer deaths), politicians like Abbott have decided to give law enforcement yet another tool to use to significantly harm anyone who doesn't immediately comply with their commands. And this is in a state that already adds years to sentences if the crime victim is a police officer.

[A] simple assault is a class A misdemeanor carrying a punishment of up to one year in jail; however a simple assault against a police officer is a third degree felony punishable up to 10 years in prison.

That's the current law. Abbott wants something above and beyond this. Simple assault, under current Texas law, includes simply threatening someone or "provocatively" making physical contact. Push back when being arrested? That's assault. Accidentally bump an officer's elbow while attempting to comply with a frisk? Assault. The law already encourages prosecutors to pile on. This would make it even worse.

The underlying issues, which have prompted a horrifically violent reaction, aren't going to be mitigated by giving law enforcement and prosecutors even more leverage. Greg Prickett -- a 20-year veteran of law enforcement -- points out that the current miserable state of affairs can't be blamed on anything other than law enforcement's own actions over the past few decades. According to Prickett, this is what's prompted the shooting of law enforcement officers.

It’s simple, really. It is militarization of the police coupled with a lack of accountability for their actions.

Law enforcement has shifted away from being an integral part of the communities they serve and opted instead to view themselves as an occupying force in a war zone. The weapons and vehicles are repurposed military gear. Officers' training goes heavy on force deployment. Very rarely are tactics like de-escalation or actual community-oriented policing given any priority. While there's no condoning the actions of people who kill cops, the reality is that law enforcement itself has shown over the years that its preferred method of communication is violence. It's the only thing it truly understands.

Governor Abbott may think he can reverse this course by throwing more prison time at certain criminals, but it's not going to stop people from killing cops. All it's really going to do is give officers and prosecutors a way to inflict maximum pain for the most minimal injury or perceived slight.

Filed Under: cops, greg abbott, hate crime, police shootings, texas