Supreme Court Rejects Ohio Man's Bid To Sue Police Over Arrest of Facebook Parody (nbcnews.com) 83
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away an Ohio man's claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested and prosecuted for making satirical posts about his local police department on Facebook. The justices' rejection of Anthony Novak's appeal means his civil rights lawsuit against the Parma Police Department cannot move forward. With its decision, the court again declined to consider revisiting "qualified immunity," the contentious legal defense that lets police officers and other government officials off the hook in civil rights cases if constitutional violations have not been "clearly established" when they occur. At issue was whether a lower court correctly granted the police officers qualified immunity under the rationale that previous court precedent had not clearly established that Novak's actions constituted protected speech under the Constitution's First Amendment.
In March 2016, Novak set up a Facebook page that purported to be that of the Parma Police Department. He published six satirical posts in 12 hours, one of which claimed there was a job opening to which minorities were encouraged not to apply and another that warned people not to give food, money or shelter to homeless people. The police department, claiming the posts had disrupted its operations, launched an investigation and ultimately searched Novak's apartment, arrested him and jailed him for four days. Novak was charged under a state law that criminalizes disruption of police operations but acquitted at trial.
The police officers, Kevin Riley and Thomas Connor, say they had probable cause to arrest Novak because they genuinely believed his conduct was disrupting their operations. Novak sued the officers and the police department, saying they had violated his free speech rights, as well as his right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. After lengthy litigation, a federal judge dismissed Novak's claims. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling in April that "the officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law" even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. That's because there was no court precedent saying it's a violation of the Constitution to be arrested in retaliation for satirical remarks when the officers have probable cause, the court said. Novak's appeal was backed by satirical news sites The Babylon Bee and The Onion, which filed a lighthearted brief saying its writers "have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists."
In March 2016, Novak set up a Facebook page that purported to be that of the Parma Police Department. He published six satirical posts in 12 hours, one of which claimed there was a job opening to which minorities were encouraged not to apply and another that warned people not to give food, money or shelter to homeless people. The police department, claiming the posts had disrupted its operations, launched an investigation and ultimately searched Novak's apartment, arrested him and jailed him for four days. Novak was charged under a state law that criminalizes disruption of police operations but acquitted at trial.
The police officers, Kevin Riley and Thomas Connor, say they had probable cause to arrest Novak because they genuinely believed his conduct was disrupting their operations. Novak sued the officers and the police department, saying they had violated his free speech rights, as well as his right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. After lengthy litigation, a federal judge dismissed Novak's claims. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling in April that "the officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law" even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. That's because there was no court precedent saying it's a violation of the Constitution to be arrested in retaliation for satirical remarks when the officers have probable cause, the court said. Novak's appeal was backed by satirical news sites The Babylon Bee and The Onion, which filed a lighthearted brief saying its writers "have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists."
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're saying. People satirize the U.S. Capitol all the time.
Re:Thought experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure what you're saying. People satirize the U.S. Capitol all the time.
I was referring to the Jan 6th incident. It's kind of ironic, you can use social media to post sincere statements which incite an actual riot, and so far, not even be charged with anything. All it requires is being president, and not being some random guy who makes a few clearly satirical posts because he doesn't like his police department very much. The latter will get you arrested.
I'm sure if the Jan 6th thing makes it to the SCOTUS, they'll at least be consistent and say "the government doesn't have to follow the same laws as the people."
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. All of these politicians and news anchors need to be arrested and prosecuted as well.
https://thefederalist.com/2021... [thefederalist.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://nypost.com/2022/06/09/... [nypost.com]
If you go after one, then you need to prosecute them all especially Biden, Pelosi and Kamala Harris. You agree correct?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Why should they be prosecuted over some bad faith takes that pretends to be unable to distinguish between actual calls for violence that actually cause violence and were intended to cause that violence, and people using analogies that do not, actually, result in violence because you'd have to be a fucking idiot to interpret that text as a call for violence?
And "...peacefully and patriotically to make our voices heard" is obviously a call to violence? I hope you're being sarcastic and I just missed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. If that's not an example of Trump-derangement syndrome then I don't know what is.
When Trump says it metaphorically; it's because he meant it.
When everyone else says it metaphorically; your argument is that only an idiot would take them seriously.
Only an idiot would take either side's call metaphors as literal statements. Yet here you are taking them seriously, just like the 12 unarmed morons who were let into the white house, which democrats thought would take over the nation somehow or start a revol
Re: Thought experiment (Score:1)
This is a terrible ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
There are valid reasons for "qualified immunity" but this was just abusive. This man's rights were violated and he has no recourse.
Re: (Score:3)
There are valid reasons for "qualified immunity" but this was just abusive. This man's rights were violated and he has no recourse.
Nice 'free country' you got there!
Re: This is a terrible ruling (Score:1, Troll)
"We value human life"
Another lie we like to tell. "bUt wE aRe aGaInSt aBoRtIoN!" Yeah more hypocracy, and I bet if there was a test to see if a kid was going to be born LGBT, abortion clinics will suddenly pop up all over the red states.
The US keeps talking out of both sides of it's mouth and it just makes the country look like absolute fools to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet if there was a test to see if a kid was going to be born LGBT, abortion clinics will suddenly pop up all over the red states.
If Republicans worried as much about kids getting shot at school as they do about kids learning about queer people, they'd round up every gun in this country and throw them directly into an industrial smelter.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you need to invent bullets that turn people gay.
Re: This is a terrible ruling (Score:2)
"For the children" is a favorite cheap tactic used by both the right and the left.
Re:This is a terrible ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've seen, MOST applications of qualified immunity are abusive. It's just one in a long list of overly-broad laws that are applied in more cases that they shouldn't than than they should. I wonder how long we're going to have to suffer before it gets struck down?
Re:This is a terrible ruling (Score:5, Informative)
I don't even think that "qualified immunity" is even a law. It's an invention of the courts. As with many such, it started fairly benign - IE we can't expect police officers to make highly technical decisions about the constitution when not even all supreme court justices can agree on such.
For a perhaps example - does the FBI setting up an observation point in a building across from where the activity they want to surveil count as "quartering" if they're in there for so long that, yes, FBI agents are regularly sleeping in the location?
That's something that could be argued either way.
But then it got silly. They started saying that you needed a court case to point to for EVERY circumstance. Yes, beating prisoners for the heck of it is against the constitution. But then even that became too general for the court. For example, it is determined that beating restrained prisoners on the ground with a "Billy Club" is against the constitution. But it's an entirely NEW case if they use an Asp(collapsible baton) instead.
The next step was that the determination of qualified immunity happened fairly late in a trial - only after the course of action was determined unconstitutional. Today, they're tossing cases out BEFORE determining unconstitutionality on the basis of "they have qualified immunity, they're getting out of it anyways", but the important point is this: the unconstitutionality is not determined because of this. This transforms police actions from a still bad but can be worked around "one bite per circumstance", where eventually the police would be constrained. But because the determination is no longer being made, the police can do the exact same thing, it gets to court in the exact same way, and is thrown out under the same premise that the determination has not been made.
And yes, this is an issue that comes up frequently when I write my representatives - I try to do so monthly. Just to keep them on their toes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Qualified immunity" is also a self-supporting legal doctrine. It is not possible to establish that some specific action is abusive if the interpretation of the law prevents you from finding it abusive. The precedent required can never be set. What is also abusive against the public is the absurd specificity that these rulings usually require - that the act has to be an identical repeat of a prior act down to small and (you would think) irrelevant details.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's why I mentioned dismissing the case before "unconstitutional but not prosecutable under qualified immunity" is a problem. The precedent is never set.
And the absurd specificity is my example, based on real cases mind you, where the court found the difference between "billy club" and "collapsible baton" different enough between two separate incidents of beating prisoners, for qualified immunity to apply again.
Re:This is a terrible ruling (Score:4, Informative)
Here's an important bit - qualified immunity is not a law. It's an invention of the courts.
The courts have ruled that it exists for the legitimate reason that things happen while on the job that might under normal circumstances be against the last, but necessary for the police to perform their duties. (Notice I said police - many other civil servants have tried to claim qualified immunity as well). This can include arresting or detaining people, destruction of property, and other things. Obviously it would be completely absurd if a convicted criminal is put behind bars only for them to turn around and sue the police for well, detention (this is different for an innocent person suing for false arrest). Thus, qualified immunity means the police won't get sued by criminals for doing their jobs.
Now, the problem with it, and the reason why the courts cannot strike it, is because of a catch-22. You see, in order to say qualified immunity isn't valid is you have to provide a precedent that matches the circumstances exactly where it was not valid. The problem is the "exact" part, and the "precedent" part. The exact part means if a detail is changed, the precedent can be deemed to not apply to your case and thus qualified immunity stands. The problem with precedent is well, how are you supposed to get it? You can't get precedent until a court rules against it. But a court can't rule against it without precedent. Hence the catch-22.
Right now, qualified immunity is quite a broad rule of the courts. The only way it can be diminished is if a law takes precedent - several cities and states have passed laws that limited qualified immunity. However, it's under constant threat, especially by "Law and Order" types who mean well, but greatly ignore the general abuses of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that someone has at least made an attempt to do this, but I suspect tha
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad the USA is not part of the American Convention on Human Rights, therefore it is not under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Citizens of member states have the right to present their cases when there is no recourse in their respective countries.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights [corteidh.or.cr]
Re: (Score:2)
It is arguable that the site in question was satire though. Novak did everything possible to make sure that the site wasn't identified as a satirical site. He actually removed/blocked posts that stated that the site was a satire and that people shouldn't confuse it with the real Parma Police Department Facebook page.
When you go through the amount of effort Novak seems to have gone to to make sure people don't know that the Facebook isn't legitimately the Parma Police page you kind of lose the whole "satire"
when the Babylon Bee and the Onion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is NOT going to be one of the supreme court's top 10 greatest hits. So, if the cops don't like my satire internet post, they can arrest me, hold me for a week in a cell, and charge me with ALL the crimes. Sure, I can win the case in court, but I got no other recourse? I'm out tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, and too bad so sad? That's pure and utter grade A horse manure.
I consider myself a police supporter, but I sincerely hope comedians and satirists hammer on this one without mercy.
Re: (Score:3)
I consider myself a police supporter, but I sincerely hope comedians and satirists hammer on this one without mercy.
Better still would be comics satirizing as many other thin-skinned police departments as they can find. Additional, perhaps better test cases will emerge.
Re:when the Babylon Bee and the Onion (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the court system and the judges should also be more the focus of satire?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, if the cops don't like my satire internet post, they can arrest me, hold me for a week in a cell, and charge me with ALL the crimes. Sure, I can win the case in court, but I got no other recourse? I'm out tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, and too bad so sad? That's pure and utter grade A horse manure. I consider myself a police supporter...
Honest question: given the constant train of abuses of authority, corruption, and worse we see out of police in this country, WHY would you consider you
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The wife beaters? Let the cops deal with it. If you're getting assaulted, the cops are the first on the scene and deal with it. The crazy drugged out tweaker driving down the wrong side of the road at 100 mph? Let the cops handle it. If a single bystander gets a scratch? It makes the evening news and people blame the cops.
U
Re:when the Babylon Bee and the Onion (Score:5, Insightful)
and if they make a single mistake ever, we expect them to serve 50 years in prison.
Yes, that typically happens when a civilian shoots another civilian. Why are cops exempt?
Re: when the Babylon Bee and the Onion (Score:4, Insightful)
Which isn't exactly a controversial opinion. Even the most staunch ACAB cop hater will likely have the same opinions. The problem comes when the system you have arguably causes more harm than good. Or realistically, causes more harm than what is expected of the average citizen, because any civilised society understands that the more power you grant someone, the more they should be held to account.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live anywhere near those cunts. I could post funny doctored photos of cops and racist job postings all day and they couldn't apply their bullshit disruption law to me in any way.
Someone needs to demonstrate the Streisand Effect to them up close and personal.
Re: (Score:2)
If Novak had just made a satire Facebook page the Parma Police probably wouldn't have cared and most likely wouldn't have even known about the page. Instead Novak did everything he could to make the site look like it was legitimately the Parma Police Facebook page. He blocked/removed all comments that stated that the site wasn't the Parma Police page.
Novak deleted comments that called the page fake, and when the police department posted to the real page warning about his page, he made the same warning on his.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
IANAL, but my understanding is as follows: (Score:2)
While this might very well be true, if their belief was in fact incorrect, then why aren't they being held liable for false arrest?
If I, say, walk out of a store and a security person believes (perhaps with all due good intention) that I stole something that had actually had always been mine, and I can later provide proof such that it
Re: (Score:2)
If I, say, walk out of a store and a security person believes (perhaps with all due good intention) that I stole something that had actually had always been mine, and I can later provide proof such that it turns out that they were wrong to charge me with shoplifting, I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to wrongful arrest compensation.
And you would be wrong. If the person legitimately believed, and could articulate the reason(s), they believe you stole something, they are not held liable.
This would fall under the
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sweet holy hell, your very quote demolished your own argument.
"Must personally witness the theft."
If the securitygoon's would-be victim did not steal the thing; then he never witnessed any theft because no theft took place. And what you have there is assault and kidnapping by the store's hired thug... Or an attempted assault and kidnapping; because while I'm no thief, I sure as hell know what angle to kick a knee or where to smash a solar plexus to put my attacker on the ground if he lays hands on me.
Re: IANAL, but my understanding is as follows: (Score:2)
Do you want CCTV in changerooms? But cause this is how you get CCTV in changerooms.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering this is supposed to be a site where people use critical thinking more than the average person, it's amazing how people fail so spectacularly at reading comprehension. This is what the OP said:
If I, say, walk out of a store and a security person believes (perhaps with all due good intention) that I stole something that had actually had always been mine,
This is what I said:
If the person legitimately believed, and could articulate the reason(s), they believe you stole something, they are not held liable
Explain how those two are different.
Re: (Score:3)
Because cops are big fucking babies backed by a very powerful police union. If a prosecutor comes down on a cop the whole department starts moaning how they can’t do their jobs properly. The mere threat of cops refusing to do their sworn duty is enough to scare any DA.
Cops regularly assault and murder people with impunity. It took nationwide protests and riots to finally get charges against the most blatant offenders.
Re:IANAL, but my understanding is as follows: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I understand your point, but I wouldn't use that analogy.
This is more a case of: store employee imagined and dramatized you stole something and store employee caused a large store disruption that resulted in loss of sales. They accosted you, arrested you, searched you, disrupted your life, messed up your house / apartment, damaged things, and you're out tens of thousands proving you were innocent all along.
My point is: the cops caused the "disruption" all on their own, based on their imagination and ludicr
Re: (Score:2)
What floors me is this:
Leaving aside the absurd notion that if that's actually the standard for making a ruling, then no precedents would ever get set, that doesn't change the fact that the arrest was app
Re: (Score:2)
The too many other points aside, I'm very troubled by the statement about "precedent"- their statement completely destroys the concept of court hierarchy. Is there some rule that Supreme Court can not set precedent?
And, that they need some kind of precedent, at all, to guide them when interpreting and applying laws?
Maybe it's more about the case being a state's issue, not a federal one, but they didn't clarify it that way?
I still say the core problem is that the cops emo-ed out, dramatized, whined, and bla
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
The above article says:
The police officers, Kevin Riley and Thomas Connor, say they had probable cause to arrest Novak because they genuinely believed his conduct was disrupting their operations.
The question is, _DID_ his conduct disrupt their operations. Not that the officers believed it did, but did they provide any evidence to show their operations were disrupted.
Not having read any of the case, maybe it was answered. Can someone clarify for this lazy bastard? To me that is the real question. If his actions did cause disruptions then the police had at least a tangential reason to arrest him. However, if no such disruption occurred, then no, they did not.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, _DID_ his conduct disrupt their operations[?]
This just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have a horribly corrupt justice system. If the cops claim to believe something is legal that turns out to actually be illegal (and this clearly was), the whole judicial system just shrugs. If you or I do the same thing, we face prison.
This case is a farce.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. What anyone does or does not believe should never have any bearing on any legal case, civil or criminal. Only provable facts should matter. And unless we evolve telepathy or invent a machine that can read minds then beliefs will never be facts; because anyone can make up any bullshit, say "I believed it." and you can never prove it one way or the other.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless police (Score:2)
I'm reminded of the old saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", but today we have to add "unless you're a police officer".
Re: (Score:3)
How does someone making satirical posts on social media disrupt their operations? If that’s all it takes what happens when they encounter real crime? These are literal Eric Cartman “respect muh authori-tai” types with thin skin who bully people all day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Irritate them? Get arrested. Don't respond quickly enough to them? Get tased. Make them run after you? Get beaten for troubling them. Or worse, get shot in the back while running away.
It's not all cops, but this is how things evolve when there are no checks and balances on their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is
By creating phone calls (Score:2)
How does someone making satirical posts on social media disrupt their operations?
I remember when this case first came up. The literal explanation given is that because the page generated a couple calls to the police to let them know about the parody page(none of the callers believed or were ever mistaken that it was the actual page for any significant amount of time), this took the person answering the calls away from their normal duties for a couple minutes (to take the calls and make the appropriate log entry/investigation), and this constituted enough disruption to charge him with t
Censorship and Qualified Immunity Cop Love (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey Slashdot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You jest, but the 1A actually is on pretty shaky ground these days. Even Disney recently backed down from their 1A fight (regarding punitive measures taken against their tax district after they spoke out against the Parental Rights in Education bill). This is a company that previously sued a daycare for unauthorized use of their IP, they have their own permanent NOTAM over the Magic Kingdom, and they've successfully lobbied to extend the duration of copyright law. Then along comes DeSantis trampling on t
Re: Hey Slashdot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Say WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit on this. If Facebook posts can disrupt a police service's operations, then that service is completely off the rails. No reasonable person could genuinely believe a Facebook parody account would disrupt actual police operations.
Shame on the SCOTUS. But stacked as it is with people hell-bent on rolling back liberties, I expected nothing less.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic that the people who fly "don't tread on me" flags are cheering about this.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure that not all "don't tread on me" flag flyers are cheering about this.
For example, the Babylon Bee, the conservative equivalent of The Onion, joined forces with The Onion to file supporting pages and such for Anthony Novak.
So its the police then... (Score:2)
that are the final boss of Ohio!
Fuck the po po (Score:3)
Cops aren't even in the top 10 list of deadliest jobs. The crab fisherman you watch on tv every week and roofers have a higher chance of being killed than a cop. You know what killed the most cops for the third straight year? Covid. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/... [go.com]
qualified immunity (Score:2)
I am not sure how to fix this, but governments like to drift meaning of laws over time to fit their narratives.
"qualified immunity" was supposed to handle cases where government officials acted in good faith, but caused damage. (Judge making a wrong decision, police catching the wrong guy). And then in those instances individual officials would not be subject to court action. Not when they clearly violated the law or acted in malice.
Add in "civil forfeiture", and you have a special class of people who have
Won't hear (Score:2)
A lot of the posts here are presumptuous.
The SCOTUS didn't rule on anything regarding the case. They refused to hear the case.
There are tons of cases filed with the SCOTUS. The fact they didn't hear it doesn't necessarily mean they agree with a lower court's decision. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there are any number of reasons it might not be heard- lack of space or time, other more important ones to look at, not the best example of such a case, plans to deal with something similar la
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact they didn't hear it doesn't necessarily mean they agree with a lower court's decision. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there are any number of reasons it might not be heard- lack of space or time, other more important ones to look at
Name one thing they have to look at which is more important than whether the cops can arrest you for things which aren't illegal
Re: (Score:2)
other more important ones to look at
You nailed it! The court has much more important business to attend to, like banning contraception, same-sex marriage, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The court has much more important business to attend to, like banning contraception, same-sex marriage, etc."
That is 100% nonsense. At the very most, they would move such decisions back to the States, where they belong. That is, if they follow the Constitution, which doesn't give those or probably more than half the other powers to the Federal Government that have somehow ended up there.
Justification for search warrant? (Score:2)
It seems a reach to think he might be up to anything more than an unlawful parody site. The powers that be are risking pushback when they have the double standard that it's OK to treat "little people" with a lack of respect, while law enforcement defers left and right to the influential when they are persons of interest in criminal matters.
Unlawful? (Score:2)
Unlawful? This is the USA, parody is pretty much specifically protected under the constitution, our copyright laws have an exception for it, etc...
How the parody site could be "unlawful" is actually a very real question.
Seems Suspect (Score:2)
Obviously their case was bullshit given he was acquitted. Did they claim they got phone calls because of it?
Because like most cops, that's not out of the ordinary or disruptive. They just don't want to do the job they're paid to do so it was probably that it disrupted their leisure donut time.
Backwards (Score:2)
previous court precedent had not clearly established that Novak's actions constituted protected speech under the Constitution's First Amendment
I would think that courts don't have to classify instances of speech as "protected". They should be by default. It's the court's job to demonstrate why they are not.
Or we end up with a society where we have to pass our speech through some Ministry of Truth to get it approved prior to posting it.
Qualified immunity is a joke (Score:2)
Qualified immunity is an affront to the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the authority under the Constitution to create law, which they did. That is the domain of the legislative branch.
One more goosestep towards Freedumb! (Score:2)
Man, I can't express how much I've enjoyed watching this hand picked circus act known as The Supreme Court hand win after win to its friends! No more pesky Roe v Wade for starters. See? Vote Republican and you too can watch them lie and cheat their way to "victory"! As long as you agree with it, it should be legal and if you don't like it you just make it illegal. That'll teach those "evil" people not to make you mad!
Hey, what we need is for cops to be even more distanced from those they punish---err "serve