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".
Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
with a Godwin Law violation...
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
I believe this story has Godwined itself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How do you propose to violate Godwin's Law? Do you even know what Godwin's Law is?
(For those interested in the subject, Godwin's Law states that as the length of any discussion approaches infinity, the probability of a reference to Naziism within that thread in any context approaches 1. It says nothing about who wins, who loses, or even when the event occurs, only that the probability goes up with time. You could substitute any word or phrase you like into that equation and it would still hold true. In an i
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:4, Interesting)
This doesn't follow at all.
Liouville's constant is not only irrational, it's transcendental. But it only contains the digits 0 and 1.
Tim.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Funny)
> Only if the thread is irrational
What discussion thread isn't? The empty thread?
c.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Guess you were wrong. At this point, we can posit the existence of at least one female on Slashdot. Given the lack of a second downward moderation, however, we can likely bound the number at less than 2 * (1 / p) where p is the probability of a given user getting mod points today, assuming a normal distribution.... :-D
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Funny)
I know you're referring to rational and irrational as numerical concepts, but do you seriously expect to be able to describe any slashdot discussion thread (never mind an infinitely long one) as completely 'rational'? ;)
Godwin's law is likely to be invoked pretty quickly in any debate where both sides dislike each other, a lot quicker than my law at least: "as any discussion continues to infinity, the probability of a man on horseback lighting jelly babies on fire, tossing them up into the air and catching them in his eyes being mentioned approaches 1".
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The most commonly seen form of Godwin's law in the wild is closer to "As thread length approaches infinity, the probability of someone making an unjustified comparison with nazi germany goes towards 1. The first person to do this is usually considered to have lost the debate."
That might not be the original form, but I've found that it's often useful to use the same meaning for things as the majority of the audience.
Incidentally, quoting Godwin: "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
so then whats the law for soviet russia
In Soviet Russia, the law breaks YOU!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try reading the The Godwins Law FAQ [faqs.org]
The point of Godwins Law is that once a thread degenerates into comparisons with Hitler that thread is effectively over, and can be killfiled by the participants without risk of losing any useful information.
This leads to the tradition that mention of Nazis in a thread by a participant automatically makes them lose the argument (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Informative)
Try reading the article at the top of the page you're on [slashdot.org].
"Memphis Police Director, Larry Godwin, is suing AOL"
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Funny)
Try reading the The Godwins Law FAQ [faqs.org]
The point of Godwins Law is that once a thread degenerates into comparisons with Hitler that thread is effectively over, and can be killfiled by the participants without risk of losing any useful information.
This leads to the tradition that mention of Nazis in a thread by a participant automatically makes them lose the argument (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html)
What if the whole point of the article is about real world Nazis? Is there no point in reading it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the sound of my head exploding.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, if I compare your informative dialect style to that of Hitlers, does that mean you can't reply to me? In a conversation between 2 people Godwin's law would work, but in a place like /. filled with know it alls and trolls who are free to interrupt any thread, you might be ruining a perfectly good discussion just because some idiot has come along and made comparisons with the Nazis..
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Informative)
That was an excellent post, except you dodn't add any links. From the Nazis at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
From the Uncyclopedia [uncyclopedia.org] death camps:
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
"When I see professional clowns, mimes, or people who makes balloon animals, I think of their relatives and how disappointed they must be." - Jimmy Fallon
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
I think you mean 'meme'. Unless there's a whole other level of slashdot interaction that I am not aware of, where people mime each meme.
In any case, I propose a Meta-Meme-Mime Meme: I feel a great disturbance in the air, as if every slashdotter in the world suddenly mimed the meme 'whoosh'.
What's the sound... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
No, with Bush it's a little different. I believe it's something like "The longer Bush remains in office the probability of his dying in a bunker in Germany approaches 1".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First of all - expecting /.ers to stay on one topic? Even if it's not the topic of the summary/article? You must be new here ;)
Comparing the chances of something coming up in an infinite discussion (and note that no /. discussion is infinite, they are locked after a week or 2) to the odds of throwing a 6 in one throw is spurious. Out of 6 fair throws it is reasonably probable you will get at least one 6. Out of 12 fair throws it is even more probable you will get at least one 6. Out of an infinite number of
Re: (Score:2)
you must be proud of yourself, having took the time to study and explain a concept that you yourself acknowledge is fundamentally useless
Hey, if it's acceptable to give geeks sex education using taxpayer's money, why isn't it acceptable to explain other useless concepts to us?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
with a Godwin Law violation...
One does not violate Godwin's Law, one invokes it.
To violate it would mean that the subject of said Law is never mentioned in an infinitely long thread, which as jd mentioned earlier, would be impossible.
Except, as others have pointed out, JD got to that correct conclusion through an incorrect argument. I could write a script that would generate an infinitely long thread that never mentioned Nazis (because every post in the thread would just say "Hello, Cowboy Neal!") but because it could never run to termination the infinite thread with no reference to Nazism would never actually exist. Of course, somebody else could post to the thread with a reference to Nazism, so unless it did run to termination (or som
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.
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:You've missed something important (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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: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: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:You've missed something important (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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:You've missed something important (Score:5, Informative)
Yes dictatorships and their like tends to be much better at misappropriating funds for personal interest but US is a democracy
Actually, no it isn't. The US is a republic, not a Democracy. It isn't even a democratic republic; if it were, before any bill became law it would have to be voted on my the citizens.
We have "almost" democratically elected legislators. I say "almost" because we are more of a plutocracy than a democracy; usually the candidate with the most money to spend on his campaign wins. This allows the corporates, who own the media, to marginalize all but two of the political parties and "contribute" to those two, making whoever wins beholden to them.
I truly wish we were a democratic republic, where nobody could contribute to more than one candidate in any given race, where nobody could contribute to a candidate he wasn't eligible to vote for, where all laws expired after ten years and had to be relegislated, and where no bill became law unless voted on by the citizens.
I'd like to be rich, too, but that's about as likely to happen.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Send Larry the legal bill (Score:4, Interesting)
if they are merely critical of Larry then they should be encouraged at their efforts to improve the police service.
But that's not the American way, sue sue sue is how its done these days
read the blog itself (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Now your just being moronic. If you would have been paying attention to the feds recently, you will know that they have stepped in at several time in several areas. Zanesville Ohio, comes to mind, there has been more in other areas too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know whether to be amusingly or annoyingly about the quality of the editing round here.
Links (Score:5, Informative)
I notice that they haven't even linked the blog [blogspot.com] directly.
Does anyone care about the stories, or it it just "another libertarian story that they'll love"?
Granted, it wasn't hard to click through from the article, but it's not as if blogspot as going to get slashdotted, and free speech needs examples, not just meta-waffling.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
mmmm meta-waffle
do they come with irony icing and sarcasm syrup?
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: (Score:2)
Here, I've fixed it :
"Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this and is interestingly illiterate ; the complaint is sealed."
Oh, no. That would be whoever posted the article. ...and, no, I don't know in what way his illiteracy might be interesting, though I can probably think of one or two ways, if I put my mind to it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps it was sealed in an interesting fashion?
With ear wax, for example. Or by a team of weaver ants.
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interestingly [merriam-webster.com]
Interestingly.
ADVERB
Either there's a word missing in the sentence, or it should be rewritten:
And, interestingly, Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this. The complaint is sealed."
- or -
Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this, and, interestingly, the complaint is sealed."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You must be under some mistaken impression that Slashdot has "editors" that vet the stories.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
Grammar is for Grandmas -- it's so 20th century.....
I thought Grammar was for Grampar !
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As somebody who was born in the middle of the 20th century, I got to correct you. It just ain't so. Nobody never used proper grammar back then, neither.
Grammar is so ninteenth century.
A link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A link (Score:5, Informative)
They make some pretty serious allegations in this blog. Including possible murder cover-ups and tolerance of rampant sexual harassment directed at females in the police force.
I'm not sure I really believe everything I'm reading here, but if much of it is true, then I can see why the MPD would want to shut them up.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read the blog.. So I don't know how specific it gets, or if it names names.. but you can't assume that this is just to "shut someone up".. it could very well be that they might want to do something with these allegations.. There is also the fact that this blogger has knowledge of alleged crimes.. and this can go either way.. he could find himself a criminal, or a witness... I would think at this point, he needs to take what he knows to whatever authority (justice department ?) for investigation..
Re:A link (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's not true, then it's probably libel, then the blogger should be stopped.
read it (Score:2)
Re: (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: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.
What's all the fuss about? (Score:4, Funny)
Posted by Dirk Diggler MPD
;)
Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
But "Natalie Portman's [sic] and gritz [sicker]" is the whole reason why I visit Slashdot.
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting part is that unlike a news paper the company hosting the site doesn't have a great financial interest in free speech.
Actually, they do.
Bloggers don't want their opinions and views to be silenced by "the man". If AOL gets a reputation as a company all too willing to help hush-hush bloggers (The people who bring traffic and revenue to their site), they'll experience a backlash.
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:4, Funny)
It's time to create something else that provides free speech? They already did, it's called Europe.
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:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Now, Grasshopper, THAT's a true demonstration of how Godwin's law works. :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
what about free speech in Mexico (okay, let's not argue whether or not Mexico is in USA)
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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
True, in the Dixie Chicks case it wasn't the government that did anything. Rather, a large radio corporation (not to mention names here) decided that they were going to be proactive and ordered their radio stations to ban the Dixie Chicks from their stations. Senators from both parties were troubled by the action. Senator McCain who disagreed with the Dixie Chicks' statement said:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow.. So many issues but I will only comment on one of them.
99% of the people weren't upset with what was said, it was the venue it was said in and where. When you wait until going over seas to open your damn mouth and speak ill of the country or it's leaders, you are unAmerican. The exception of c
Great idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great idea. (Score:5, Funny)
1st... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh I forgot about the First Amendment being repealed and the new laws forbidding freedom of speech... oh wait
Re:1st... (Score:4, Funny)
The point of being an Anonymous Coward is so the gangs of thugs don't know who you are...
Oh, and to troll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know who else (Score:4, Funny)
You know who else sued AOL for a critical blogger's name?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does this joke rely on me knowing the answer or on the fact that I don't know the answer?
just flame a little more carefully (Score:2)
Accusing someone of an illegal act without having that proven in a court of law puts you at risk of getting sued for libel, and that is as it should be.
Something like this is probably less risky:
No problem with that; it's the author's opinion, not a statement of fac
Re: (Score:2)
Whats wrong with libel?
Is it not free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Anything you say is protected as free speech as long its not deliberately false.
Libel is deliberate lie.
So suing this guy with a libel statement can make the blogger turn around and sue for libel.
Am sad that the city has to take the costs of the same when the police director's salary should be deducted for wasting people's money.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's a statement of fact disguised as an opinion.
There is nothing "disguised" about it.
"I believe he did something illegal." is an opinion. "He did something illegal." is a statement of fact.
If you can't tell the difference, you have a problem.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"I believe he did something illegal." is an opinion. "He did something illegal." is a statement of fact.
If you can't tell the difference, you have a problem.
The two statements say exactly the same thing - you are saying he did something illegal. Whether he did or did not do something illegal is not a question of opinion, but a question of fact.
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php [eff.org]
Can my opinion be defamatory?
No - but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
Re:just flame a little more carefully (Score:5, Interesting)
Everything I ever say is either my opinion (what else should it be?) or it is the opinion of someone else,
And it is your responsibility to make the distinction when you speak:
"He committed this illegal act." (Implies "in the opinion of the people making up the legal system", which is the opinion that counts.)
"I believe he committed this illegal act." (In your opinion, which probably doesn't count.)
"The NYT reports that he commited this illegal act." (The NYT opinion, let them worry about it.)
That's what it's all about: tell your audience whose opinion it is. That's your responsibility.
Most statements imply whose opinion it actually is if you don't qualify them, and it's often not the speaker's.
Forbidden... (Score:2, Interesting)
...where I live.
The police aren't allowed to try to find the source of information in cases like this. IF the blogger is seen as a journalist, which may or may not be the case. Not sure what the latest rulings say.
Anon blogs may be best way to curtail abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Though most policemen are good people, I've heard stories of various 'Rambos' and other scummy types in police departments that would give the Zimbabwe PD a good run for the money. Most of these abuses are not reported by other cops because of guaranteed retribution. We need the anonymous blogs to get this crap in the open and dealt with. This case needs to be unsealed (public office after-all) and dealt with fairly.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
This is yet another attempt at silencing freespeech.
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: (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.
Police need protection from the police (Score:5, Interesting)
So now the police need protection from the police. The privacy issues which they seek to deny civilians in the pursuit of justice they will adamantly defend for themselves. Of course there is a difference between Managers and Employees, but the symbolism is striking.