Texas police take on blog commenters
Everyone in Austin, Texas always seems unusually charming to me.
The people in Starbucks always have time for a chat. And the staff at the wildly gothic Mansion at Judges Hill (which, I am told, used to be a very fine rehab facility) can induce a smile by merely looking at you.
However, it appears that when certain citizens of Austin get behind their computers, they turn into monstrous villains.
This, at least, appears to be the view of Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo. According to the Austin American-Statesman, the chief is considering pursuing commenters on blogs who have either impersonated him or his officers or maligned them beyond the boundaries of legal tolerance.
Options under discussion appear to be not only libel suits, but also criminal charges if the police believe these are warranted.
"A lot of my people feel it is time to take these people on," Acevedo told the Statesman. "They understand the damage to the organization, and quite frankly, when people are willfully misleading and lying, they are pretty much cowards anyway because they are doing so under the cloak of anonymity."
Among the suggestions allegedly implied under this cloak was behavior of an illegal and sexual nature, something the Statesman characterizes as "quid pro quo" arrangements.
The suggestion of lawsuits seems extreme. However, after the "Skanks in NYC" case, in which Google was forced (without trying too hard to fight) to give up the name of a blogger who targeted Vogue model Liskula Cohen, are anonymous bloggers or commenters truly immune from the consequences of their venting?
It so happens that Texas passed a state law on September 1 that specifically targets those who "use another person's name to post messages on a social-networking site without their permission and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten." Such willful behavior is now a third-degree felony.
Is it possible, then, that the Austin police will be the first to test this law out? One can only imagine some commenters' reactions.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
First, I guess that new law you reference that went into effect on September 1st would be very bad news for bottom-feeders like Lori Drew. Had there been such a law in place in the state that she lives, she would have been the perfect example case.
Second, I'm afraid that the Austin police don't understand the Internet. They don't understand what the kind folks at 4chan will do to them. If you get stung by a couple of bees, the best reaction is NOT to poke the hive. Besides, explain to me how a Texas police chief will go after people in other countries? It makes no sense. Someone explain to this chief that he is going to make matters a LOT worse for his police force if he does what he's threatening to do.
The "police" won't be the first to test this out; the Chief of a department is an appointed position, which means that just like in other overgrown urban slums he's a politician who's out of touch with the actual police (and likely hasn't done any real police work in a decade).
As Acevedo's gay underage drug-dealing illegal alien lover, I can tell you first hand that he says this all in jest. He actually enjoys being impersonated, and encourages anyone with strong feelings about this article to assume his name and "malign him beyond the boundaries of legal tolerance" (that's a euphemism for sex).
Where is the part of the law that makes it illegal to lampoon or mock the person?
There are two problems with this, of course. Firs of all, what kind of showing will the police have to make to "unmask" the poster? The standard of proof necessary to get the poster's identity is one of the two real battlegrounds here. Second, what constitutes harm? One persons legitimate criticism of a public figure by assuming their identity and saying identifiably outrageous things is another person's harm. Expect first amendment challenges based both on over-breadth of the statute and the application of the statute. I think it fails the first in many cases and depending on who the go after, the second as well.
This seems like a lot of expense over something not worth worrying about. But then, the Austin city government has a history of looking before it leaps when it comes to initiating expensive and long-shot litigation. This is easy to do when you're playing with other people's money.
And while I appreciate the fact that the department is trying to crack down on this, it won't be very successful for the reasons other commenters have said.
The Chief and his minions are public figures and as such are subjected to barbs and arrows of public opinion. /Maybe instead of hiring an Attorney to pursue bolggers Austin should hire one to teach them about the 1st Amendment. They should start with the current crop of "Disorderly Conduct" arrests for people giving a cop the bird. Juvenile or not it is protected speech and many departments are learning that through the paying of settlements and judgments. Next they should study Falwell vs Flynt to learn how far one can go with free speech!
Sorry but this is a few cops and their Chief getting all butthurt because some people are not respecting their "Authorita!"
It is not a revolutionary consept.
It is not a revolutionary concept.
You obviously are a Kool-Aid drinker and don't know how to create your own coherent thought. You just spew what the liberal crazies have been feeding you for the last 8 years. We are almost 8 months out of Bush 43 and you are still trying to blame him for something.
Maybe you haven't heard of the censoring of the insurance companies because they are letting Medicare and Medicaid customers know that the new "reform" (read Gov't takeover) of health insurance will reduce their benefits and raise their costs.
So who is ignoring the Constitution now? I believe it is a Democratic Senator who is backed by the Majority controlled Congress, Senate...and OMG, a Democratic President. I cannot believe this kind of censorship would go on in this administration! I mean Van Jones was such an upright and honest person, very thoughtful with his words.
If someone is impersonating you, writing about illegal activity and you get arrested, are you still going to claim this person has 1st amendment rights to impersonate and incriminate you?
This is exactly as stated above, the law finally catching up to technology.
Deal with it, there are consequences to actions, and the Constitution doesn't afford you the right to do WHATEVER you want. You should try reading it sometime.
RT
[CNET editors' note: Promotional link deleted]
but again,its what i heard.so allegedly he had sex with a boy.
On the other hand, it can have catastrophic consequences when someone else impersonates another and incite hatred and violence resulting in physical injury. It has happened. There are a lot of vigilantes out there who are determined to track down people on the internet, particularly those who are careless with their digital footprints.
In relation to the present administration being more supportive of freedom of speech I am a little skeptical about that. Consider some of the privacy invasive laws that are being passed right now in the name of 'national security'.
If we're taking bets on which comedy show is most likely to use this guy as their satire-*****, I would have to say South Park. This kind of work is much more in their wheelhouse. I still remember their protest show when the network told them they would not air the show if it included an image of the prophet.
If the SP people do take on this guy I would actually feel kinda sorry for him...
A new law wasn't necessary, even though its intentions are well-meaning. Unfortunately, as pointed out, some tax money, and legislative and court time will be wasted before the redundancy becomes clear.
Such is the nature of a large number of people (the Texas legislature) trying to agree on hundreds of issues within a short period of time (the legislative session, which only occurs once every two years).
It's a shame that Texans won't pay for an annual legislative session. More time to deliberate would result in better decisions.
I see this almost on a daily basis.
Grrr!!!!!!!!!!!!
- by September 28, 2009 11:25 PM PDT
- I live in Austin and am a big free speech supporter. However in this case it is about more than just free speech. People have been (supposedly) posting comments on the Austin American Statesman (the local news paper) portraying themselves as real police officers. Not anonymous posters - but actually posing as the officer - name and all. Twitter shut down an account in March that was issuing what looked like official police bulletins after complaints from the Atty Gen and the police dept.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (34 Comments)These types of posting can become serious especially as some government agencies begin to use these sites to try to spread infromation.
What the police chief is doing is trying to identify these folks. Once identified then criminal or civil charges can be brought.
On the surface this sounds ok to me. However, I think the courts must take a long and hard look at each case to ensure that the spirit of the law is being enforced and not allow someone in power to extend the use into a vendetta against anyone who displeases them. A very slippery slope indeed and it does make me a bit nervous. Well worth keeping an eye on any potential misuse and nipping it in the bud with a hard slap to any who try to misuse it.