5 ms·

This seems entirely appropriate. It would be consistent with the practice of news outlets sometimes not showing an ongoing police operation live.

NeutronBoy 10y ago
Agreed - why would social media be treated any differently than disconnecting phone lines or mobile phones during standoffs and negotiations?
- pgrote 10y ago
  Perhaps because it is against the law for local authorities to shut down telecommunications? https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-shutting-down-cell-service-not-just-again https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-shutting... "More than seventy years ago, Congress made a choice to take that option away from local authorities. It conferred jurisdiction on the FCC and the state Public Utility Commissions to provide oversight, and gave everyone a federally protected right to access the phone network. That right applies to all phone networks, whether wireline or wireless."
  - 0xCMP 10y ago
    But to be fair, in this situation they asked Facebook which is allowed to block/disable any account on their service that they want.
  - williamscales 10y ago
    I would put forward that it is because live-streaming on social media is not the same as using the phone line. When Facebook chose to shut down her account (which is within its rights) then she still had access to the phone line. The federally protected right to access the phone network is unaffected. There is no federal requirement that would require Facebook to only shut down an account after receiving a court order.
erdevs 10y ago
What is the rationale for news outlets not showing an ongoing police operation? Is it so that the suspects / perpetrators can't use the external information against the police? If so, does that rationale applicable when it is the suspect / perpetrator broadcast their own available information? I don't know the background for these policies, so asking the first question non-rhetorically.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Tends to attract even more lookieloos.
  - erdevs 10y ago
    That's a good point of concern, for sure.
    - blahi 10y ago
      It is also the reason why broadcasters do not show field invasions from fans in football (the real football). There are some people with very loose screws in their heads. Claiming fame with stupid shit like that totally justifies it in their mind. Invasions dropped very substantially after the TV stations enacted this policy.
- nness 10y ago
  "Munich massacre" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre > [...] camera crews filmed the actions of the officers from the German apartments, and broadcast the images live on television. Thus, the terrorists were able to watch the police prepare to attack
- calbear81 10y ago
  Yes, I believe that has been cited that it gives the suspect or person of interest a way to evade/respond to police if the media are broadcasting information. For example, in this case, if we believe that the woman was holding a shotgun pointed at the police and the media reported that police were bringing a battering ram to break down her door, she might use that information to her advantage to escape, commit suicide, etc.
gpm 10y ago
The normal justification (the only I've heard) for that is you don't want to give the suspects an advantage. Clearly that justification doesn't apply when the suspect is the one livestreaming it. Can you give another justification?
- ben_jones 10y ago
  Input received from other viewers that would hinder the police. "Don't forget to check the backdoor", "Your safety is on", "They won't shoot if your child is in front of you".
- williamscales 10y ago
  The negotiator is going to try to work with the suspect. If the suspect is communicating with people online that could undermine the negotiations and make the situation much more dangerous for both.
  - blahi 10y ago
    This is a very serious reason. Obviously there are many creeps on the internet. They can taunt, prod, confuse, mislead and provoke the already unstable person, in a nerve wrecking situation, with a gun in his hand. The mere fact that s/he is broadcasting takes away power from the negotiator.
  - nl 10y ago
    Indeed, in this specific case the article says "Her social-media followers, police said, were encouraging her not to give in."
    - daveslash 10y ago
      I think this is an excellent point. I have freedom of speech, but if I were to stand outside the house of an active hostage situation and yell "You can do it! Don't give in!", I'm sure there'd be no issue in silencing me. Live streaming has amazing potential for keeping law enforcement accountable. With events like the death of Philando Castile it seems many of us have realized this. I think we've been slower to realize what potential live feedback may have.
clarkmoody 10y ago
Also, using a police scanner while committing a crime carries an additional penalty in certain jurisdictions. Probably along the same lines as far as rationale goes.

NeutronBoy 10y ago

Agreed - why would social media be treated any differently than disconnecting phone lines or mobile phones during standoffs and negotiations?

pgrote 10y ago
Perhaps because it is against the law for local authorities to shut down telecommunications? https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-shutting-down-cell-service-not-just-again https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-shutting... "More than seventy years ago, Congress made a choice to take that option away from local authorities. It conferred jurisdiction on the FCC and the state Public Utility Commissions to provide oversight, and gave everyone a federally protected right to access the phone network. That right applies to all phone networks, whether wireline or wireless."
- 0xCMP 10y ago
  But to be fair, in this situation they asked Facebook which is allowed to block/disable any account on their service that they want.
- williamscales 10y ago
  I would put forward that it is because live-streaming on social media is not the same as using the phone line. When Facebook chose to shut down her account (which is within its rights) then she still had access to the phone line. The federally protected right to access the phone network is unaffected. There is no federal requirement that would require Facebook to only shut down an account after receiving a court order.

erdevs 10y ago

What is the rationale for news outlets not showing an ongoing police operation? Is it so that the suspects / perpetrators can't use the external information against the police? If so, does that rationale applicable when it is the suspect / perpetrator broadcast their own available information? I don't know the background for these policies, so asking the first question non-rhetorically.

tedunangst 10y ago
Tends to attract even more lookieloos.
- erdevs 10y ago
  That's a good point of concern, for sure.
  - blahi 10y ago
    It is also the reason why broadcasters do not show field invasions from fans in football (the real football). There are some people with very loose screws in their heads. Claiming fame with stupid shit like that totally justifies it in their mind. Invasions dropped very substantially after the TV stations enacted this policy.
nness 10y ago
"Munich massacre" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre > [...] camera crews filmed the actions of the officers from the German apartments, and broadcast the images live on television. Thus, the terrorists were able to watch the police prepare to attack
calbear81 10y ago
Yes, I believe that has been cited that it gives the suspect or person of interest a way to evade/respond to police if the media are broadcasting information. For example, in this case, if we believe that the woman was holding a shotgun pointed at the police and the media reported that police were bringing a battering ram to break down her door, she might use that information to her advantage to escape, commit suicide, etc.

gpm 10y ago

The normal justification (the only I've heard) for that is you don't want to give the suspects an advantage. Clearly that justification doesn't apply when the suspect is the one livestreaming it. Can you give another justification?

ben_jones 10y ago
Input received from other viewers that would hinder the police. "Don't forget to check the backdoor", "Your safety is on", "They won't shoot if your child is in front of you".
williamscales 10y ago
The negotiator is going to try to work with the suspect. If the suspect is communicating with people online that could undermine the negotiations and make the situation much more dangerous for both.
- blahi 10y ago
  This is a very serious reason. Obviously there are many creeps on the internet. They can taunt, prod, confuse, mislead and provoke the already unstable person, in a nerve wrecking situation, with a gun in his hand. The mere fact that s/he is broadcasting takes away power from the negotiator.
- nl 10y ago
  Indeed, in this specific case the article says "Her social-media followers, police said, were encouraging her not to give in."
  - daveslash 10y ago
    I think this is an excellent point. I have freedom of speech, but if I were to stand outside the house of an active hostage situation and yell "You can do it! Don't give in!", I'm sure there'd be no issue in silencing me. Live streaming has amazing potential for keeping law enforcement accountable. With events like the death of Philando Castile it seems many of us have realized this. I think we've been slower to realize what potential live feedback may have.

clarkmoody 10y ago

Also, using a police scanner while committing a crime carries an additional penalty in certain jurisdictions. Probably along the same lines as far as rationale goes.