Police Director Sues AOL For Critical Blogger's Name 282
Pippin writes "Memphis Police Director, Larry Godwin, is suing AOL for the names of the authors of the Enforcer 2.0 blog. The blog is rumored to be authored by a Memphis police officer, and is critical of the department, Godwin, and some procedures. Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this and, interestingly, the complaint is sealed".
Send Larry the legal bill (Score:5, Insightful)
If the bloggers are leaking information that harms investigations then Larry is doing the right thing; if they are merely critical of Larry then they should be encouraged at their efforts to improve the police service.
Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Great idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of you may wonder about the long-windedness of a such a simple point. The thing is, I was trying to pre-empt essentially useless replies from other Slashdotters that get modded Insightful. Say I had written it much simpler without the commas and brackets, like this:
"I don't actually think there's anything intrinsically "technological" about this story, be it the fact that there's an anonymous whistle-blower or that the boss is trying to hunt him down. But the Internet was supposed to free us and allow us to share knowledge and information freely and that includes opinions. Since that obviously is no longer here I think it's time to find or create something else."
The first reply to this would have been "There is something fundamentally different about whistle-blowers on the internet. They can attract far more attention and spread their views to more people than in the past. It would have been modded Insightful.
The second would have said "The internet is not free, lulz, read Slashdot and The Register more. You must be new here" etc. It would also have modded Insightful.
And finally, "The internet was never free! Was built and designed by corrupt organisations and is much a scam for our money and freedom as is anything else." You guessed it. Insightful.
Then, obviously, you get the expected three replies to each of those posts and the thread exponentially drifts more and more off-topic until the initial point is lost amongst a haze of Natalie Portman's and gritz.
You've missed something important (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, what you say is true, but you forget that this America! We are KINGS of misappropriating funds to defend politicians and law enforcement, and our legal system is all for supporting such practices (since it helps protect them as well). Screw what is right, what about the status quo!
Yes, this statement is perhaps pandering, but it's also painfully true (dammit).
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct action is to give Larry Godwin as much rope as he wants. Record everything. Document everything. Ensure this pooled information is made accessible to the blogger somehow - someone'll know who it is. People who are upset make mistakes. Pushing them deeper into their paranoia and neurotic state of mind will cause them to make bigger and bigger mistakes. It's not entrapment, as nobody is making Mr Godwin do anything illegal, they're not even suggesting it. It would be his choice, with the alternative being to back off. He has total free will. Once he has done something openly illegal, provided immunity doesn't cover him, arrest him for it.Even if immunity did cover him, this is election year and politicians aren't going to want to leave a loose cannon in a public position. He'll be removed from office.
The result will not be a court decision (which never helps anyone) but will give whistleblowers additional measures they can take.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In an infinitely long thread, you are absolutely certain to have at least one mention of every single concept, object, philosophy and idea ever known to humanity, because of the way probability works.
Only if the thread is irrational (just like you can find any combination of numbers in pi or e). In a nice, rational thread, you'll eventually get repetitions and the thread will loop back to itself.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hereby present you Godwin's Law 2.0:
As the internet grows and Godwin's Law becomes more and more famous, internet discussions will increasingly refer to Godwin's Law instead of actually mentioning Nazism.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You've missed something important (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we aren't. It happens here, yes; it happens everywhere. It's even a defendable proposition that it's been getting worse here. But there are countries out there that make us look like pikers. Burma, to pick a particularly egregious example.
Re:1st... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Why bother with Wikileaks, when there's innumerable blogs?
Personally, I'm glad that its not all funneled through the same site, that's when censorship is easy, Wikileaks is great, but its not perfect, and maybe the submitter didn't trust it, or more likely, doesn't even know it exists, or possibly didn't want to make a big stink about it, and was hoping a lesser known site/blog would only get the appropriate amount of attention, without making it into some big scandal, but he/they could still refer to it.
Disclaimer: I Haven't RTFA.
Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Though most policemen are good people... Most of these abuses are not reported by other cops because of guaranteed retribution
In my book, that makes those "other cops" bad policemen.
We need the anonymous blogs...
Or more Policemen that respect their badges and what they stand for?
Re:You've missed something important (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern dictatorships usually exists to enrich the dictator but democracies claims that they exist to protect the general population and hence your comparison is not very fitting.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech in Europe? Try promoting Nazism in Germany. Try denying that the Holocaust happened in Austria. Try insulting Ataturk in Turkey (okay, let's not argue whether or not Turkey is in Europe).
Free speech is more free in the U.S.
Re:You've missed something important (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah "protect" like in the phrase "protection racket".
Besides which, democracy is not designed to "protect" the general population - it is designed to allow governance that is representative of the majority's wishes. No "protection" or safety inherent in that. The police aren't there for your safety, they are there to catch criminals. The military aren't there for your safety, they are there to protect the government from outside aggressors.
This repeated tagging of government activities as "for your safety" is a load of bollox, and leads to interception of your communications, categorisation of certain groups of people as undesirable, and a virtually unlimited line of credit from your pocket.
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed - you even have such highly protected rights like "free speech zones". Not to mention how you have the FCC decide what can and cannot be said on public airwaves. And of course the FCC is an elected commision, answerable to the voters as well as congress, right?
Arguing that Free Speech is more free in the US vs Europe results in some interesting argument, especially as the things you're pointing out are individual countries, not the EU.
Hell, I can mention an EU member who up until a few years ago had a nationally funded Nazi radio station until the politician changed the funding law in a way that hurt I think 50 other radio stations. The result - they're still on the air through private funding. Aditionally, this country came under attack from Turkey for not banning ROJ from broadcasting sattelite TV.
As for insulting Ataturk? Have a look at the Dixie Chicks - sure, that wasn't government censorship, but you can't really have free speech when you have that many members of the public upset over someone making use of their free speech.
Re:A link (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's not true, then it's probably libel, then the blogger should be stopped.
Yeah, it was an interesting read (Score:4, Insightful)
But taking a side note, this blog really shows that news papers are doomed shortly. It really is important that blogs like this continue. I mean, if news papers were doing their jobs, this would be in the news. The fact that it is not, shows that even when a story is there, they ignore it.
Re:You've missed something important (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You've missed something important (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all because some jack ass started teaching kids that the word public servant means the public official serves the public instead of simply belonging to the public services work sector.
In fact, most kids graduating from schools today think the government is there to serve them in some way.
Re:read it (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked at it, and I don't see anything that is convincing that this is an "outing" or truthful vs. possible libel.
Re:You know who else (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
What Douglas Adams had to say about presidents in The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe [wikipedia.org] also pertains to cops: anyone who would want the job is unsuited for it. Good luck finding many cops that respect what their badges stand for.
Re:A link (Score:4, Insightful)
I've known several female police officers. If there wasn't sexual harassment going on I would be stunned.
Q: Why are most female police officers absolute cunts?
A: Because the ones who have a soul were driven off the job.
A large number of cops are exactly the pigs we refer to them as - they are bullies with badges with way too much testosterone and not enough brains. Female cops do not fit into their little world except as meter maids and clerks - and they have no objection to showing them exactly that.
One former female cop I know spent part of a shift bagging several hundred used condoms that had been dumped into her car. Another did the same with tampons & pads.
Propositions are a constant & threats are not uncommon following rejection.
Discipline for shit like this is usually an unofficial "don't do it again" or "sensitivity training" which just pisses them off more.
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
The outrage of the public over the Dixie Chicks is the perfect example of free speech, not an example of censorship. The DC were free to sing their song, and the public was free to react and let them know that it wasn't well received.
Please tell me where the government stepped in to curtail anyone's free speech rights in that situation?
(Hint: censorship is carried out by governments, not the public)
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be nice if they saw the blog and decided to look into corruption instead of trying to shut the blog author up. But it looks like it is just another case of cops protecting their own kind, even if that includes the scum.
Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American. (Score:2, Insightful)
dear god, is it even possible for people to bring up memphis without bringing up race. i live in memphis and i have my whole life, and every time something happens it has to be about race. this issue has absolutly nothing to do with race what so ever. this is at its most basic level a guy who's feelings have been hurt and is spending our money to make himself feel better. it has nothing to do with his race or the race of the bloggers.
Re:Send Larry the legal bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:0, Insightful)
Only about the "Wooosh" one.
It's often used to dismiss without even a thought any serious answer to a joke. Believe it or not, interesting stuff can come out of a serious point of view on things that at first seem ridiculous.
Re:Larry Godwin is an African-American. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first problem with your post is that you haven't even seen the blog in question. I am assuming this is the case since you use words like "if" when you describe the grammar and spelling. So you are just guessing at this point which is kind of strange. Also, you are stereotyping that white people can spell and black people can't. I guess I don't really have that stereotype in my head, but let's assume that that is accurate and the stereotype exists for some statistically significant reasoning. I could counter that stereotype by saying that most of the cops I know don't really care about their spelling or grammar regardless of their race so I fail to see how that would be so telling to you.
What's even more interesting to me is that you then post a story that has less to do with race and more to do with poverty. Did the public housing have a majority black population? Probably. But the section8 people all had poverty in common, not race. A black doctor living in a neighborhood is probably not going to cause the crime rate to go up in that area.
So, from all this I think you are probably racist. That's a harsh word to throw out there but that is the only reason I would think that you would associate race with your quoted article and also jump to conclusion about the Slashdot article without even seeing the blog.
As far as the liberal jab goes...what you wrote didn't bother me at all. Liberals see poverty as a large problem and are actually trying to address it. The section8 projects sounds like it didn't solve the problem (I don't know this for sure since we don't know if the overall crime rate went down or if crime went from being more concentrated to being more distributed). The crime rate may have gone up in new areas, but maybe those kids had a chance at a better education and it actually improved things overall. At least people are attempting to solve the problem. Republicans just want to help the rich because this supposedly passes the wealth on down to everyone else since they crate jobs etc etc trickle down economics garbage. Unfortunately that just tends to concentrate wealth and cause more poverty. And as the wealth becomes more concentrated at the top, there is less money for the middle and lower class to purchase with, thus harming an American's buying power and his/her ability to shop thus harming the economy. This stuff can be argued back and forth, but that is another side of that argument. I think having some rational social programs is humane and beneficial to the economy. To try to help and fail is better than to not try at all (as long as we are trying to learn and improve). Republicans (neo-cons) are a complete failure since they don't even hold to their conservative mantra. They just borrow and spend which is worse than any liberal Dem would do. I wouldn't mind Republicans if they actually cut spending and reduced taxation as it would help my bottom line. But they don't do that and just put us in huge deficits. So I have to be for the Dems. The redistribution of wealth (as inefficient as it is) is better than throwing the money in to stupid wars and a rising deficit. Hopefully the Republicans can find their conservative roots again...it doesn't seem like the Libertarians will be able to be a factor in this election where it seems like the true conservatism still lives. (wow, that went way out there but at least it has plenty of topics to discuss!)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)