14 ms·

I admire the courage of the makers of this site, because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high lega

I admire the courage of the makers of this site, because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims. The police are one of the most politically powerful, protected, and legally savvy groups in the country. Whether the law favors such claims or not is barely relevant to the risk of being destroyed by the cost of defending against such suits. Legislation along the lines of anti-SLAPP laws could help, making the plaintiff pay for a failed action. But the political power of the police makes that unlikely, and if not narrowly tailored would discourage even well founded suits by plaintiffs with shallow pockets.

perihelions 5y ago
Forget libel -- in some states, it potentially introduces criminal liability! https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/controversial-anti-doxxing-bill-signed-into-oklahoma-law-by-gov-stitt/ https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/controversial-ant... [2021] >"Governor Kevin Stitt today signed into law House Bill 1643, a bill that makes it crime to dox, or post personal information, of law enforcement and county officials online." Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring attorneys. ~~~~~ [late edit]: To defend of my assertion of "egregiously unconsitutional", I'll quote this succinct summary of the enumerated First Amendment exceptions in United States v. Stevens [2010], as summarized in Rynearson v. Ferguson. I can't imagine how any of these could even loosely apply here; please correct my misunderstandings if you are able. (For those Googling things, be warned that Stevens is a very disturbing case). > Over the years, the Supreme Court has enumerated certain “well-defined and narrowly limited’ classes of speech that remain unprotected by the First Amendment. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1949). The unprotected speech is limited to, (a) obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; (b) defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254-255 (1952); (c) fraud, Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); (d) incitement, Brandenbury v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-49 (1969); (e) true threats, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); and (f) speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Expire Storate & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). Speech that does not fall into these exceptions remains protected. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010). https://www.eff.org/files/2019/02/22/order_granting_pi.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2019/02/22/order_granting_pi.pdf Here's a longer (two page PDF) summary of the same, glossing some definitions: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072 [.pdf]
- dvt 5y ago
  > Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring the attorneys. How is it unconstitutional exactly? People seem to throw that term around willy-nilly. It is, however, problematic because it overreaches -- for example, being expected to blur out badge numbers or officer names is needlessly onerous for the reporter of a police encounter.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    It seems unconstitutional to me; you have no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public, and badge numbers are legally required to be worn. This combination in effect turns into a requirement to either not film, or not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional.
    - dvt 5y ago
      > not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional Just to be clear, you're not allowed to post videos of plenty of things (Area-51, a meeting between the Joint Chiefs, closed sessions in Congress, etc.). But you're right that you're allowed to record videos of cops in public[1]. I think the law in question is about personally-identifiable information. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html
      - perihelions 5y ago
        It's perfectly legal to post videos of any of those things.
        munk-a 5y ago
        It is illegal to post a whole lot of videos you might find pretty innocuous. A not insignificant portion of America has two party consent laws[1] that really restrict what you're able to record when it comes to private individuals. It has been pretty clearly decided highlighted that police do not enjoy this commonly held right[2] due to the sensitivity of their role but I really don't know if that same restriction extends to other public offices when acting in a non-public manner (i.e. the JCS) - I am really not familiar with the specific exceptions the above comment laid out so I won't comment on them... but it is illegal to post a whole bunch of different sorts of videos. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... 2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendment-right-record-police https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme...
ashtonkem 5y ago
Section 230 should apply here. The operators of the website are not legally on the hook for what their users post.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  I suspect that Section 230 protections aren't much help if the site is specifically designed for, and actively encourages, the posting of content which is (claimed to be) illegal. Perhaps a good example of how far such a legal theory can be pushed is the case of isoHunt, a search engine which was shut down in 2013 after being sued by the MPAA. > The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in March ruled against isoHunt, concluding that “there is more than enough unrebutted evidence in the summary judgment record to prove Fung offered his services with the object of promoting their use to infringe copyrighted material.” https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/isohunt-to-shut-down-as-part-of-settlement-with-studios-1200734509/ https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/isohunt-to-shut-down-as-pa...
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    This is about as illegal, or encourages illegal activity, as Rate My Professors, Glassdoor or Blind.
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      That defense would apply if Police didn't have special privileges, but they do. Many locales have attempted to make things like filming police officers in public illegal
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Attempted. Such laws have so far not stood up to judicial scrutiny.
        bradlys 5y ago
        Sure - but the harassment and problems that encounter even after judicial scrutiny is finished and resolved that the law wasn't legit doesn't stop the harassment, financial, emotional, and reputational cost that will be incurred. Just because something doesn't hold up to judicial scrutiny doesn't stop TX from passing anti-abortion laws all the time and making it very difficult for women.
dheera 5y ago
Maybe make this a blockchain project instead. Videos of cops doing bad things should be decentralized, non-deletable, and optionally anonymous.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Sounds pretty abusable to me..
  - dheera 5y ago
    Maybe the cops should stop abusing citizens then.
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      So abusing innocent cops just doing their job is just collateral damage?
      - rOOb85 5y ago
        How would posting videos of good cops doing good things be "abuse"?
        rubyist5eva 5y ago
        Because not every video has full context and not every use of force is unjustified?
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      More that a non-deletable video storage system will probably accumulate lots of spam.
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      Cops would be abused and cops abusing citizens are different cops. There's no group police guilt. Good cops should not be punished for the deeds of bad cops.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> I admire the courage of the makers of this site, because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims. Section 230 of the CDA shields operators of interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content. Interactive computer services are not liable for what users do with them. A personal blog where you post your own content, however, could open you up to libel or SLAPP lawsuits.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims. Until one of the crusades to legislatively narrow or repeal Section 230 succeeds, that should be pretty complete protection against even a scintilla of a cognizable libel claim against the developer for user-submitted content. States attempting criminalization of posting police related info are a bigger threat (while mostly blatantly federally unconstitutional, there's a significant risk of you being arrested, tried, convicted, and serving a sentence before you get that argument even taken up by a federal court.)
- thephyber 5y ago
  > Until one of the crusades to legislatively narrow or repeal Section 230 succeeds Sesta/Fosta is already law. It has already started.
webmobdev 5y ago
It doesn't inspire confidence that they don't reveal who they are - neither their About Us page nor their Contact Us has any relevant information. In a democracy, there is no reason to hide behind anonymity while fighting for a just cause. As Gandhi taught us, democracy survives only on trust and not fear and violence. If one fears the misuse of power by the government through the judiciary, then needs to rally the politicians and political party to their cause too, and work from within the system.
- throwaway_egbs 5y ago
  The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled repeatedly that anonymity is protected by the First Amendment, specifically because anonymity enables free speech. A person who does not speak because they've been cowed into silence is deprived of their rights. "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation … at the hand of an intolerant society." (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.)
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    Thanks for pointing out an interesting aspect of US constitution. It however doesn't change what I said. When fighting political causes, anonymity doesn't help - Gandhi or Rosa Park or Martin Luther King continue to inspire us today because they faced injustice and tyranny head on. They have provided us with an effective template to fight against injustice and assert our rights. Fear is often the reason behind anonymity, and that doesn't bode well for any political cause. Even Gandhi, who inspired non-violent politics said that he would prefer if people chose violent politics than giving in to fear or cowardice ( https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm ). Moreover, politics on internet is even more fraught as even foreign powers can hide behind anonymity to interfere in the politics of other nations.
    - throwaway_egbs 5y ago
      The claim I was responding to is, "In a democracy, there is no reason to hide behind anonymity while fighting for a just cause." What I'm saying is that there absolutely are reasons. This is also not a binary proposition. In a group of activists you can have some people working anonymously and some people working out in the open.

perihelions 5y ago

Forget libel -- in some states, it potentially introduces criminal liability! https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/controversial-anti-doxxing-bill-signed-into-oklahoma-law-by-gov-stitt/ https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/controversial-ant... [2021] >"Governor Kevin Stitt today signed into law House Bill 1643, a bill that makes it crime to dox, or post personal information, of law enforcement and county officials online." Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring attorneys. ~~~~~ [late edit]: To defend of my assertion of "egregiously unconsitutional", I'll quote this succinct summary of the enumerated First Amendment exceptions in United States v. Stevens [2010], as summarized in Rynearson v. Ferguson. I can't imagine how any of these could even loosely apply here; please correct my misunderstandings if you are able. (For those Googling things, be warned that Stevens is a very disturbing case). > Over the years, the Supreme Court has enumerated certain “well-defined and narrowly limited’ classes of speech that remain unprotected by the First Amendment. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1949). The unprotected speech is limited to, (a) obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; (b) defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254-255 (1952); (c) fraud, Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); (d) incitement, Brandenbury v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-49 (1969); (e) true threats, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); and (f) speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Expire Storate & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). Speech that does not fall into these exceptions remains protected. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010). https://www.eff.org/files/2019/02/22/order_granting_pi.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2019/02/22/order_granting_pi.pdf Here's a longer (two page PDF) summary of the same, glossing some definitions: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072 [.pdf]

dvt 5y ago
> Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring the attorneys. How is it unconstitutional exactly? People seem to throw that term around willy-nilly. It is, however, problematic because it overreaches -- for example, being expected to blur out badge numbers or officer names is needlessly onerous for the reporter of a police encounter.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  It seems unconstitutional to me; you have no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public, and badge numbers are legally required to be worn. This combination in effect turns into a requirement to either not film, or not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional.
  - dvt 5y ago
    > not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional Just to be clear, you're not allowed to post videos of plenty of things (Area-51, a meeting between the Joint Chiefs, closed sessions in Congress, etc.). But you're right that you're allowed to record videos of cops in public[1]. I think the law in question is about personally-identifiable information. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html
    - perihelions 5y ago
      It's perfectly legal to post videos of any of those things.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        It is illegal to post a whole lot of videos you might find pretty innocuous. A not insignificant portion of America has two party consent laws[1] that really restrict what you're able to record when it comes to private individuals. It has been pretty clearly decided highlighted that police do not enjoy this commonly held right[2] due to the sensitivity of their role but I really don't know if that same restriction extends to other public offices when acting in a non-public manner (i.e. the JCS) - I am really not familiar with the specific exceptions the above comment laid out so I won't comment on them... but it is illegal to post a whole bunch of different sorts of videos. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... 2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendment-right-record-police https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme...

ashtonkem 5y ago

Section 230 should apply here. The operators of the website are not legally on the hook for what their users post.

dane-pgp 5y ago
I suspect that Section 230 protections aren't much help if the site is specifically designed for, and actively encourages, the posting of content which is (claimed to be) illegal. Perhaps a good example of how far such a legal theory can be pushed is the case of isoHunt, a search engine which was shut down in 2013 after being sued by the MPAA. > The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in March ruled against isoHunt, concluding that “there is more than enough unrebutted evidence in the summary judgment record to prove Fung offered his services with the object of promoting their use to infringe copyrighted material.” https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/isohunt-to-shut-down-as-part-of-settlement-with-studios-1200734509/ https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/isohunt-to-shut-down-as-pa...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  This is about as illegal, or encourages illegal activity, as Rate My Professors, Glassdoor or Blind.
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    That defense would apply if Police didn't have special privileges, but they do. Many locales have attempted to make things like filming police officers in public illegal
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Attempted. Such laws have so far not stood up to judicial scrutiny.
      - bradlys 5y ago
        Sure - but the harassment and problems that encounter even after judicial scrutiny is finished and resolved that the law wasn't legit doesn't stop the harassment, financial, emotional, and reputational cost that will be incurred. Just because something doesn't hold up to judicial scrutiny doesn't stop TX from passing anti-abortion laws all the time and making it very difficult for women.

dheera 5y ago

Maybe make this a blockchain project instead. Videos of cops doing bad things should be decentralized, non-deletable, and optionally anonymous.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
Sounds pretty abusable to me..
- dheera 5y ago
  Maybe the cops should stop abusing citizens then.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    So abusing innocent cops just doing their job is just collateral damage?
    - rOOb85 5y ago
      How would posting videos of good cops doing good things be "abuse"?
      - rubyist5eva 5y ago
        Because not every video has full context and not every use of force is unjustified?
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    More that a non-deletable video storage system will probably accumulate lots of spam.
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    Cops would be abused and cops abusing citizens are different cops. There's no group police guilt. Good cops should not be punished for the deeds of bad cops.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> I admire the courage of the makers of this site, because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims. Section 230 of the CDA shields operators of interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content. Interactive computer services are not liable for what users do with them. A personal blog where you post your own content, however, could open you up to libel or SLAPP lawsuits.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims. Until one of the crusades to legislatively narrow or repeal Section 230 succeeds, that should be pretty complete protection against even a scintilla of a cognizable libel claim against the developer for user-submitted content. States attempting criminalization of posting police related info are a bigger threat (while mostly blatantly federally unconstitutional, there's a significant risk of you being arrested, tried, convicted, and serving a sentence before you get that argument even taken up by a federal court.)

thephyber 5y ago
> Until one of the crusades to legislatively narrow or repeal Section 230 succeeds Sesta/Fosta is already law. It has already started.

webmobdev 5y ago

It doesn't inspire confidence that they don't reveal who they are - neither their About Us page nor their Contact Us has any relevant information. In a democracy, there is no reason to hide behind anonymity while fighting for a just cause. As Gandhi taught us, democracy survives only on trust and not fear and violence. If one fears the misuse of power by the government through the judiciary, then needs to rally the politicians and political party to their cause too, and work from within the system.

throwaway_egbs 5y ago
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled repeatedly that anonymity is protected by the First Amendment, specifically because anonymity enables free speech. A person who does not speak because they've been cowed into silence is deprived of their rights. "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation … at the hand of an intolerant society." (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.)
- webmobdev 5y ago
  Thanks for pointing out an interesting aspect of US constitution. It however doesn't change what I said. When fighting political causes, anonymity doesn't help - Gandhi or Rosa Park or Martin Luther King continue to inspire us today because they faced injustice and tyranny head on. They have provided us with an effective template to fight against injustice and assert our rights. Fear is often the reason behind anonymity, and that doesn't bode well for any political cause. Even Gandhi, who inspired non-violent politics said that he would prefer if people chose violent politics than giving in to fear or cowardice ( https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm ). Moreover, politics on internet is even more fraught as even foreign powers can hide behind anonymity to interfere in the politics of other nations.
  - throwaway_egbs 5y ago
    The claim I was responding to is, "In a democracy, there is no reason to hide behind anonymity while fighting for a just cause." What I'm saying is that there absolutely are reasons. This is also not a binary proposition. In a group of activists you can have some people working anonymously and some people working out in the open.