3 ms·
> There's a 100% chance that some (many, actually) members of the community would have believed this account to be 'real' ergo, he's impersonating an entire pol
by __derek__ 4y ago
> There's a 100% chance that some (many, actually) members of the community would have believed this account to be 'real' ergo, he's impersonating an entire police force.
The appeals court touched on this issue specifically to say that (a) police reasonably inferred probable cause from this, but (b) the standard is "reasonable reader" rather than "most gullible person on Facebook", so (c) it's definitely protected speech.
Besides, he was acquitted. Prosecutors actually took this nonsense to trial and failed to convince a jury of your conclusion.
- jasmer 4y agoIt's obviously wrong and will eventually be challenged. It's ridiculous, all of the poeple here defending this. Literally a call an hour to the police station, among the small number of people who saw the site just in the first few hours, and actually decided to make the call? That's clear evidence that enough people in the community were confused, and conclusive evidence of material disruption. Moroever, I think the most 'rational' conclusion given the situation would be that the Facebook page was hacked, not that it was a fake account - that's what I would have inferred without doing much research. The lack of understanding of basic communications here as well - it's as though people on HN don't know anyone outside of their bubbles. Go into your community and meet some actual people. Old people, less educated people, migrants, people with disabilities. Just hop on the bus and start up a convseration with a random person to see what 'average' is. Moreover, there is the problem of the 'authority of the brand' aka the emblem itself. If a police officer came to your door, presented a badge and then started doing some whacky stuff, how long would the average person hold out before being sure it was a farce? The badge/brand itself is a marker of credibility which makes the participant have to assume a degree of validity. Which is the whole problem with impersonating memebers of the justice system. Let's try an adjacent case: You dress up as a real police officer, and then start acting like and idiot. Free speech? Why wouldn't the 'average person' know that you're doing satire? Go ahead and try. "Judge, I knocked on the door in uniform, showed a real badge, and then told the person to do 20 jumping jacks! Clearly every reasonable member of the communnity would know that police officers don't ask you to do 'jumping jacks'!" It's not up to the community members to have to use their inteligence to do some kind of discrimination, it has to be 'clearly' not a polic officer. Which is why when the stripper shows up at the door, they don't wear real uniforms. Let's look at the negative cases: If it was clearly and obviously legal - then why don't they sell real police uniforms everywhere? So that you can go and be a buffoon for 'satire'? There should be 100's of web sites that 'impersonate the police' but using 'real badges and branding'. Let's look at the civil commercial scneario: How long would you last running around in a real UPS uniform, making a fool of yourself making 'fake deliveries'? How long would you last using a real UPS/Amazong/McDonal'ds logo/branding on your web site - changing only a few details for fun? Obviously there'd be liability. Whether or not that his man was doing 'satire' not is besides the point - he was impersonating Emergency Services. Go ahead and do exaclty what he did in your own home town / region and see what happens. HNers are making fools of themselves.