3 ms·

There is also massive corruption problem in the police force, because citizens don't really have effective ways to "watch the watchers". And stronger libel law

There is also massive corruption problem in the police force, because citizens don't really have effective ways to "watch the watchers". And stronger libel law will definitely be used against people who criticize the police, rightly or wrongly. That being said, misinformation is also a huge problem. So maybe we'll have to find other ways to more effectively hold individuals accountable, whether they're abusing institutional power or spreading misinformation.

umvi 8y ago
> There is also massive corruption problem in the police force Is this really true or just the impression given by cherry-picking the worst possible cases nation wide and amplifying them via media? Define "massive". If you got pulled over, would you be legitimately worried about being tazed or abused?
- Ar-Curunir 8y ago
  If you're the wrong colour, yes.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  I'd be more likely to believe that the publicly-repeated abuse cases are flukes if the officers involved didn't seem to get off with a slap on the wrist the majority of the time.
- HedgeSparrow 8y ago
  Ah, so you're asking what race analyst74 is.
j-c-hewitt 8y ago
There's a difference between stating an opinion ("The Exeter police are corrupt") and making a statement like "Police Chief John Doe took a bribe to overlook a crime." You can write an op-ed insinuating that based on your sources, the corruption at the Exeter Police Department goes to the top. It's something else to defame an individual specifically. For example, it's defamation to say "analyst74 raped and murdered a girl in 1993" unless I have at the minimum a good faith belief that that was the case. To reiterate, it'd be protected speech to say like you just said that "corruption is a massive problem in American police forces." It's not so much protected speech if you accuse Officer John Doe of specific criminal acts in public if the statement isn't true. For other reasons, this is not the best defendant just from a character perspective the ACLU could pick for this kind of situation (https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180531/exeter-man-charged-with-defaming-police-chief https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180531/exeter-man-char...). To actually challenge the law, they'd have to somehow reframe what he said as an opinion. Obviously the cops aren't going to bring charges for the vast majority of these kinds of instances, but they did against Frese because he's a felon with a history of harassing the local police. And not a cute and cuddly felon either: he ran over a traffic worker after threatening to run him over. It's fine for the ACLU to take this as a test case but this is not this sort of situation that is a great test case.
stevenwoo 8y ago
I think there's a difference between corruption and unaccountability. Due to the way the justice system is set up in the USA plus the history of using police forces to subdue to population prosecutors have generally little to gain/incentive/motivation to prosecute law enforcement even in the most infamous cases.

umvi 8y ago

> There is also massive corruption problem in the police force Is this really true or just the impression given by cherry-picking the worst possible cases nation wide and amplifying them via media? Define "massive". If you got pulled over, would you be legitimately worried about being tazed or abused?

Ar-Curunir 8y ago
If you're the wrong colour, yes.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
I'd be more likely to believe that the publicly-repeated abuse cases are flukes if the officers involved didn't seem to get off with a slap on the wrist the majority of the time.
HedgeSparrow 8y ago
Ah, so you're asking what race analyst74 is.

j-c-hewitt 8y ago

There's a difference between stating an opinion ("The Exeter police are corrupt") and making a statement like "Police Chief John Doe took a bribe to overlook a crime." You can write an op-ed insinuating that based on your sources, the corruption at the Exeter Police Department goes to the top. It's something else to defame an individual specifically. For example, it's defamation to say "analyst74 raped and murdered a girl in 1993" unless I have at the minimum a good faith belief that that was the case. To reiterate, it'd be protected speech to say like you just said that "corruption is a massive problem in American police forces." It's not so much protected speech if you accuse Officer John Doe of specific criminal acts in public if the statement isn't true. For other reasons, this is not the best defendant just from a character perspective the ACLU could pick for this kind of situation (https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180531/exeter-man-charged-with-defaming-police-chief https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180531/exeter-man-char...). To actually challenge the law, they'd have to somehow reframe what he said as an opinion. Obviously the cops aren't going to bring charges for the vast majority of these kinds of instances, but they did against Frese because he's a felon with a history of harassing the local police. And not a cute and cuddly felon either: he ran over a traffic worker after threatening to run him over. It's fine for the ACLU to take this as a test case but this is not this sort of situation that is a great test case.

stevenwoo 8y ago

I think there's a difference between corruption and unaccountability. Due to the way the justice system is set up in the USA plus the history of using police forces to subdue to population prosecutors have generally little to gain/incentive/motivation to prosecute law enforcement even in the most infamous cases.