7 ms·

'No Reasonable Officer' Would Have Arrested a Guy for a Covid-19 Joke

Supermancho 3y ago
> Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of criminal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so. Bailey's joke plainly did not satisfy either of those prongs. I just don't understand how a judge would arrive at this interpretation. Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. How about directed societal, self-harm? Don't call the police if you're sick, they might shoot? This is a demonstrated effect, in areas of the US, prior to the pandemic. This kind of lawless misinformation would be in-addition-to.
- 221qqwe 3y ago
  Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home, wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed... And anyway, as stupid as his joke was, I don't see (just like the judge) how any reasonable person could've interpreted it as anything but that. Arbitrary abuse of police power is much bigger threat to society than some (potential) idiots posting stupid jooks on Facebook.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home, A separate claim against excessive force, would be the proper response. The circumstance surrounding the arrest is incidental to the ruling. > wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed... None of this was decided, as you claim. The suit had enough merit to go in front of a judge. I don't think it's justice, as it stands. Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully (with lethal force haha?), as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      >I don't think it's justice, as it stands. Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison?
      - DiabloD3 3y ago
        My reading of the part you quoted is, "It isn't justice because only the charges were dismissed, they owe him more than a simple apology."
        remarkEon 3y ago
        Right, but the preceding sentences seem to conflict with that. More over, the following part of the comment >Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully ... as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise. suggests that the guy who made the joke did something dangerous and should be punished for it. At least, that's the implication I'm reading.
        DiabloD3 3y ago
        I think you're right. The meaning is unclear.
      - Supermancho 3y ago
        > Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison? I think the legal precedent is damaging. I make no judgement on sentencing, as there was no harm done.
        remarkEon 3y ago
        What legal precedent? The existing legal precedent that satire is okay?
        Supermancho 3y ago
- clnq 3y ago
  The statement could be seen as harmful. But if you put all statements ever said on a gamut between harmful and helpful, at the risk of being recursive, I’d say about 50% would be on either side. That’s why thresholds are important. The way things stand now, you can say much more harmful things online. Society doesn’t see a problem with it. And that’s fine. We don’t need to child-proof and infantilise our language, thoughts, and jokes.
  - jrajav 3y ago
    Really? You think 50% of all statements ever made in public can be reasonably taken as harmful? I get that you're trying to make a point on the utility of judging some statements to be "harmful, but not overly so," but the assertion is ridiculous.
    - clnq 3y ago
      Yes. If you put them on a gamut and bin them into two categories based on where they fall on the harmful-helpful spectrum, you’d get close to 50/50. Maybe 60/40.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. Yeah, but “fire in a crowded theater” was dicta (a non-controlling tangent, basically) that (1) didn’t reflect the law as it existed prior to the case it was written in, (2) didn't illustrate or reflect the new rule in the case it was written in, and (3) was written in a decision that has since been effectively overruled and is widely regarded as one of the worst intrusion on core political speech ever allowed by the Supreme Court. It is not, and never has been a guide to (or even accurate illustration of) unprotected speech. Despite how catchy it is and how popular it has become as something misused as if it was such a guide.
jstarfish 3y ago
[dead]
b3n4kh 3y ago
Sitting here in Europe, reading this, I can only chuckle. You will get fined if you call a policeman a "buddy" (Hawara) in Austria [1]. You got fined for sitting outside alone on a park bench during COVID or if you played with your kids on a public lawn [2]. All public parks were closed. We had lockdowns until mid-2022. If you insult a politician online, you will be fined or put in jail [3]. It feels like a completely different world that the author of this post is living in. [1] https://www-heute-at.translate.goog/s/-oida-ist-strafbar-weil-polizist-kein-hawara-ist-45751089?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-heute-at.translate.goog/s/-oida-ist-strafbar-wei... [2] https://fm4-orf-at.translate.goog/stories/3001181/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://fm4-orf-at.translate.goog/stories/3001181/?_x_tr_sl=... [3] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/glawischnig-piesczek-v-facebook-ireland-limited/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/glawisc...

> Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of criminal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so. Bailey's joke plainly did not satisfy either of those prongs. I just don't understand how a judge would arrive at this interpretation. Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. How about directed societal, self-harm? Don't call the police if you're sick, they might shoot? This is a demonstrated effect, in areas of the US, prior to the pandemic. This kind of lawless misinformation would be in-addition-to.

221qqwe 3y ago
Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home, wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed... And anyway, as stupid as his joke was, I don't see (just like the judge) how any reasonable person could've interpreted it as anything but that. Arbitrary abuse of police power is much bigger threat to society than some (potential) idiots posting stupid jooks on Facebook.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home, A separate claim against excessive force, would be the proper response. The circumstance surrounding the arrest is incidental to the ruling. > wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed... None of this was decided, as you claim. The suit had enough merit to go in front of a judge. I don't think it's justice, as it stands. Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully (with lethal force haha?), as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    >I don't think it's justice, as it stands. Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison?
    - DiabloD3 3y ago
      My reading of the part you quoted is, "It isn't justice because only the charges were dismissed, they owe him more than a simple apology."
      - remarkEon 3y ago
        Right, but the preceding sentences seem to conflict with that. More over, the following part of the comment >Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully ... as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise. suggests that the guy who made the joke did something dangerous and should be punished for it. At least, that's the implication I'm reading.
        DiabloD3 3y ago
        I think you're right. The meaning is unclear.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      > Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison? I think the legal precedent is damaging. I make no judgement on sentencing, as there was no harm done.
      - remarkEon 3y ago
        What legal precedent? The existing legal precedent that satire is okay?
        Supermancho 3y ago
clnq 3y ago
The statement could be seen as harmful. But if you put all statements ever said on a gamut between harmful and helpful, at the risk of being recursive, I’d say about 50% would be on either side. That’s why thresholds are important. The way things stand now, you can say much more harmful things online. Society doesn’t see a problem with it. And that’s fine. We don’t need to child-proof and infantilise our language, thoughts, and jokes.
- jrajav 3y ago
  Really? You think 50% of all statements ever made in public can be reasonably taken as harmful? I get that you're trying to make a point on the utility of judging some statements to be "harmful, but not overly so," but the assertion is ridiculous.
  - clnq 3y ago
    Yes. If you put them on a gamut and bin them into two categories based on where they fall on the harmful-helpful spectrum, you’d get close to 50/50. Maybe 60/40.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. Yeah, but “fire in a crowded theater” was dicta (a non-controlling tangent, basically) that (1) didn’t reflect the law as it existed prior to the case it was written in, (2) didn't illustrate or reflect the new rule in the case it was written in, and (3) was written in a decision that has since been effectively overruled and is widely regarded as one of the worst intrusion on core political speech ever allowed by the Supreme Court. It is not, and never has been a guide to (or even accurate illustration of) unprotected speech. Despite how catchy it is and how popular it has become as something misused as if it was such a guide.

jstarfish 3y ago

[dead]

b3n4kh 3y ago

Sitting here in Europe, reading this, I can only chuckle. You will get fined if you call a policeman a "buddy" (Hawara) in Austria [1]. You got fined for sitting outside alone on a park bench during COVID or if you played with your kids on a public lawn [2]. All public parks were closed. We had lockdowns until mid-2022. If you insult a politician online, you will be fined or put in jail [3]. It feels like a completely different world that the author of this post is living in. [1] https://www-heute-at.translate.goog/s/-oida-ist-strafbar-weil-polizist-kein-hawara-ist-45751089?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-heute-at.translate.goog/s/-oida-ist-strafbar-wei... [2] https://fm4-orf-at.translate.goog/stories/3001181/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://fm4-orf-at.translate.goog/stories/3001181/?_x_tr_sl=... [3] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/glawischnig-piesczek-v-facebook-ireland-limited/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/glawisc...