'No Reasonable Officer' Would Have Arrested a Guy for a Covid-19 Joke
reason.com
reason.com
[1] https://www-heute-at.translate.goog/s/-oida-ist-strafbar-wei... [2] https://fm4-orf-at.translate.goog/stories/3001181/?_x_tr_sl=... [3] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/glawisc...
I just don't understand how a judge would arrive at this interpretation. Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. How about directed societal, self-harm? Don't call the police if you're sick, they might shoot? This is a demonstrated effect, in areas of the US, prior to the pandemic. This kind of lawless misinformation would be in-addition-to.
And anyway, as stupid as his joke was, I don't see (just like the judge) how any reasonable person could've interpreted it as anything but that. Arbitrary abuse of police power is much bigger threat to society than some (potential) idiots posting stupid jooks on Facebook.
A separate claim against excessive force, would be the proper response. The circumstance surrounding the arrest is incidental to the ruling.
> wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed...
None of this was decided, as you claim. The suit had enough merit to go in front of a judge. I don't think it's justice, as it stands. Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully (with lethal force haha?), as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.
Satire of government officials is a fundamental and inviolable right of American citizens. As a form of political speech, it is part of the core of the First Amendment. If you cannot reconcile yourself to that, you should not live here.
This is factually incorrect. eg You cannot impersonate a government official, as a prank, then claim first amendment protections against damage caused.
What you mean by "Satire" is either moving the goalpost or misunderstanding the concepts relevant to the case. Good luck with whatever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmUhLMLnatk
https://theweek.com/feature/briefing/1019449/a-history-of-pr...
Katt Williams: “Police can kill your ass today and come up with a story for the news tomorrow.”
https://letterboxd.com/popdetective/list/police-brutality-as...
A classic sign of a logically sound and definitely not at all emotionally-charged position.
Should anyone who has ever hyperbolically referred to police as "nazis" or said sarcastically that we are "living in a police state" be legally punished? Absurd.
Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison?
>Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully ... as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.
suggests that the guy who made the joke did something dangerous and should be punished for it. At least, that's the implication I'm reading.
I think the legal precedent is damaging. I make no judgement on sentencing, as there was no harm done.
Yeah, but “fire in a crowded theater” was dicta (a non-controlling tangent, basically) that (1) didn’t reflect the law as it existed prior to the case it was written in, (2) didn't illustrate or reflect the new rule in the case it was written in, and (3) was written in a decision that has since been effectively overruled and is widely regarded as one of the worst intrusion on core political speech ever allowed by the Supreme Court.
It is not, and never has been a guide to (or even accurate illustration of) unprotected speech. Despite how catchy it is and how popular it has become as something misused as if it was such a guide.
The way things stand now, you can say much more harmful things online. Society doesn’t see a problem with it. And that’s fine. We don’t need to child-proof and infantilise our language, thoughts, and jokes.
I get that you're trying to make a point on the utility of judging some statements to be "harmful, but not overly so," but the assertion is ridiculous.