4 ms·

This incident is from 2016 though. But you’re right, it would be a lost cause to challenge QI in the current climate. Thing is that the Supreme court ballance w

This incident is from 2016 though. But you’re right, it would be a lost cause to challenge QI in the current climate. Thing is that the Supreme court ballance was tilted quite badly for the foreseeable future

anothernewdude 4y ago
[flagged]
- gruez 4y ago
  Wikipedia says that he was charged of multiple crimes, and was dismissed/declared not guilty of all of them. Which specific charges do you think were unfairly acquitted/dismissed?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Rittenhouse wasn't an agent of the state, so no aspect of QI applies to him.
    - gruez 4y ago
      The parent poster seems to be claiming that even without being an agent of the state (ie. QI), that he was to "pull shit" without being punished by the justice system.
tptacek 4y ago
Yeah, I just mean: it's a pretty marginal case. He spent 4 days in prison --- a travesty, to be sure --- and was then acquitted of any wrongdoing. It's not that there isn't a wrong to right here, but righting wrongs isn't so much the day-to-day purpose of SCOTUS so much as righting the law, and if they're going to pick up the QI hot potato, maybe they'd choose to do it in a case where the stakes are higher than some guy's Facebook parody site. All the rest of the surrounding context of the case will matter too: precisely the laws he was accused of violating, and how sane those laws are, &c. Maybe, regardless of how they feel about QI, the fact pattern here is just messy; they're not going to put a case that boils entirely down to the legality of Facebook parodies on their docket.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  They can rule narrowly when they want to. This guy has been to SCOTUS twice over what others may consider to be minor matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fane_Lozman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fane_Lozman And in the second case (involving retaliatory arrest): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beach_(2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beac... > At oral arguments, justices expressed both sympathy for Lozman and hesitance to issue a ruling that might hinder law enforcement. Their eventual ruling in Lozman's favor was very narrow, holding that the Mt. Healthy test was appropriate "on facts like these",[1] based on the alleged "official municipal policy"[2] of retaliation and the importance of the right to petition. If the guy in the case at hand had spent $875 thousand in suing the Ohio police I wonder if they would have taken up the case. Or perhaps you're right and the court is just loath to pick up any case touching qualified immunity. If anything I'd guess that they just don't have much sympathy for satire against law enforcement (especially when it's not immediately obvious that it's satire).
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I think they prefer to keep things narrow, as a general rule, right? That was what I was trying to express earlier: that the fact pattern of this case might not even lead them to QI, because some dumber issue might be at play.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      Likely. I edited in a possibility into my comment as you were posting this reply.
- jasmer 4y ago
  "In March 2016, Novak set up a Facebook page that purported to be that of the Parma Police Department." Honestly why does anyone think this is not wrong? Here is a link to some of his posts [1] The guy was straight up impersonating the Parma Police - he used their branding/badge and started posting 'as them'. There are some trying to defend that as justifiable because some forms of comedy require that the comedian be 'in character' and not overtly flag it as parody from the start, but I suggest this is a very bad argument - especially when people could confuse the target as 'real' - and imperatively when we're dealing with Emergency Services. There is a 100% chance that some members of the community would have inferred this to be a 'real' account, there's hardly a reason to believe otherwise. The headlines were a bit nutty, but not entirely unbelievable to the point the parody was clear. There is no reasonable argument he could make as a 'comedian' that he couldn't just put 'parody/satire' on the logo, and, there's every reason to believe that people would have confused it as real. He's literally using Police Badges! What would happen if he 'parodied' actual police officers, with a real uniform, but as a joke wore a 'red nose'. Would that be sufficient for people to be sure he was not a real police officer? Would it be legal to use Amazon's brand/logo and misrepresent yourself as them? I'm a bit disturbed by all of the people arguing this man was maligned, I suggest this is upside down and that it's irrational that someone should be able arbitrarily impersonate Emergency Services and the justice system and then just hide under the 'I'm a comedian' moniker. I'll bet $100 the Police found out about it because they were getting calls around the confusion. Nobody confuses 'Bush/Obama' impersonators as the real thing, the parody is implied, and those parodies are not creating a disruption. Nobody confuses 'Reno 911' as 'real' police officers. I'm sure he didn't realize the extent of possible disruption and I would hope that he doesn't get some kind of record for this, but I do suggest he committed a crime and at very least this should not be allowed. And can't fathom how people could think this ok to do. [1] https://ij.org/case/novak-v-parma/ https://ij.org/case/novak-v-parma/

anothernewdude 4y ago

[flagged]

gruez 4y ago
Wikipedia says that he was charged of multiple crimes, and was dismissed/declared not guilty of all of them. Which specific charges do you think were unfairly acquitted/dismissed?
- tptacek 4y ago
  Rittenhouse wasn't an agent of the state, so no aspect of QI applies to him.
  - gruez 4y ago
    The parent poster seems to be claiming that even without being an agent of the state (ie. QI), that he was to "pull shit" without being punished by the justice system.

tptacek 4y ago

Yeah, I just mean: it's a pretty marginal case. He spent 4 days in prison --- a travesty, to be sure --- and was then acquitted of any wrongdoing. It's not that there isn't a wrong to right here, but righting wrongs isn't so much the day-to-day purpose of SCOTUS so much as righting the law, and if they're going to pick up the QI hot potato, maybe they'd choose to do it in a case where the stakes are higher than some guy's Facebook parody site. All the rest of the surrounding context of the case will matter too: precisely the laws he was accused of violating, and how sane those laws are, &c. Maybe, regardless of how they feel about QI, the fact pattern here is just messy; they're not going to put a case that boils entirely down to the legality of Facebook parodies on their docket.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
They can rule narrowly when they want to. This guy has been to SCOTUS twice over what others may consider to be minor matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fane_Lozman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fane_Lozman And in the second case (involving retaliatory arrest): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beach_(2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beac... > At oral arguments, justices expressed both sympathy for Lozman and hesitance to issue a ruling that might hinder law enforcement. Their eventual ruling in Lozman's favor was very narrow, holding that the Mt. Healthy test was appropriate "on facts like these",[1] based on the alleged "official municipal policy"[2] of retaliation and the importance of the right to petition. If the guy in the case at hand had spent $875 thousand in suing the Ohio police I wonder if they would have taken up the case. Or perhaps you're right and the court is just loath to pick up any case touching qualified immunity. If anything I'd guess that they just don't have much sympathy for satire against law enforcement (especially when it's not immediately obvious that it's satire).
- tptacek 4y ago
  I think they prefer to keep things narrow, as a general rule, right? That was what I was trying to express earlier: that the fact pattern of this case might not even lead them to QI, because some dumber issue might be at play.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Likely. I edited in a possibility into my comment as you were posting this reply.
jasmer 4y ago
"In March 2016, Novak set up a Facebook page that purported to be that of the Parma Police Department." Honestly why does anyone think this is not wrong? Here is a link to some of his posts [1] The guy was straight up impersonating the Parma Police - he used their branding/badge and started posting 'as them'. There are some trying to defend that as justifiable because some forms of comedy require that the comedian be 'in character' and not overtly flag it as parody from the start, but I suggest this is a very bad argument - especially when people could confuse the target as 'real' - and imperatively when we're dealing with Emergency Services. There is a 100% chance that some members of the community would have inferred this to be a 'real' account, there's hardly a reason to believe otherwise. The headlines were a bit nutty, but not entirely unbelievable to the point the parody was clear. There is no reasonable argument he could make as a 'comedian' that he couldn't just put 'parody/satire' on the logo, and, there's every reason to believe that people would have confused it as real. He's literally using Police Badges! What would happen if he 'parodied' actual police officers, with a real uniform, but as a joke wore a 'red nose'. Would that be sufficient for people to be sure he was not a real police officer? Would it be legal to use Amazon's brand/logo and misrepresent yourself as them? I'm a bit disturbed by all of the people arguing this man was maligned, I suggest this is upside down and that it's irrational that someone should be able arbitrarily impersonate Emergency Services and the justice system and then just hide under the 'I'm a comedian' moniker. I'll bet $100 the Police found out about it because they were getting calls around the confusion. Nobody confuses 'Bush/Obama' impersonators as the real thing, the parody is implied, and those parodies are not creating a disruption. Nobody confuses 'Reno 911' as 'real' police officers. I'm sure he didn't realize the extent of possible disruption and I would hope that he doesn't get some kind of record for this, but I do suggest he committed a crime and at very least this should not be allowed. And can't fathom how people could think this ok to do. [1] https://ij.org/case/novak-v-parma/ https://ij.org/case/novak-v-parma/