Peoria Mayor Sends Police To Track Down Twitter Parodist 169
New submitter rotorbudd (1242864) writes with an article at Reason about Jim Ardis, mayor of Peoria, Illinois, who ordered police to track down whoever was responsible for a parody Twitter account mocking him."Guess the good Mayor has never heard of the Streisand Effect. 'The original Twitter account had a total of 50 followers. The new account has over 200.'"
Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the United Corporations of America, where our communications are censored, our community governments are contracts and our government leased with the option to buy.
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
ahh... in a clear case of a government attacking its citizens, some douchebag shows up to bitch about corporations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, what do you expect when that's who runs the government?
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter, last I checked, was not part of government.
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:5, Informative)
No we dont, free speech is only allowed in free speech zones. Doing it outside a designated zone means you get tazed in the junk by police.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the sad reality of things; the government will revoke your freedoms whenever they wish, and make up some bullshit rationalization ("You still technically have free speech, but only when you're in free speech zones!") to try and fool idiots into accepting it. Try getting onto most planes in the US and you'll have your rights violated by our good friends at the TSA, and the justification for that is something very similar.
Re: (Score:1)
The left made a serious mistake creating gun control laws that nibble at the edges of the 2nd Amendment rather than do the heavy lifting going head-on to revoke or change it. It opened the door for the Right to attack other portions of the Constitution from the side as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected....this crook is a Republican. He needs to be kicked out of the party and ostracized.
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Douchebag is a democrat, oh he's such a typical democrat, see, this bitch is a typical bitch like all democrats. Dirty, dirty democrats".
After discovering he's not a democrat but a republican
"Douchebag is a republican, but he's not a real republican, he should be kicked out of the still totally awesome republican party".
If somebody is part of the party you don't like, it's proof the that entire party is bad.
If somebody is part of the party you do like, he's bad for the party.
Hypocrit much?
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:4, Informative)
What part of the constitution is the right attacking?
Both parties are attacking the constitution. Look at all the scumbags who voted for the Patriot Act (especially the first time around): Many from both parties, and most people the first time around. Who's trying to get rid of the TSA? A select few from both parties. Bush used free speech zones, too. Furthermore, we have DUI checkpoints, the TSA, constitution-free zones, unrestricted border searches, the NSA surveillance, etc., and none of those things were started solely by one party; it's a bipartisan effort to infringe upon our rights, and both parties are filled with evil scumbags.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the reason I don't vote. You don't know who is going to do good or bad until it's too late. Mostly they do bad and I'd rather not be a part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got to agree. A lot of people think that not voting for the Democrat or Republican is "throwing your vote away" because that third party candidate has a zero chance of winning. I do agree with the latter portion of the statement: Third party candidates, for the most part, don't have much chance of winning. However, this is *because* people vote for D or R (or don't vote at al
Re: (Score:2)
Bush CREATED free speech zones. The blame lies at the Republicans feet. if the "tea party" people had any brains they would be going after the congress members that are taking away freedoms instead of being distracted by inconcequential tax bills.
This is why I have ZERO respect for the Tea Party. They are just a distraction that has no real american goal. Fight for the frigging constitution, demand the PATRIOT act get repealed. Stop your baby whining about a 0.00001% tax to save the bees.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush was a leftist? Who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
The police should refuse to obey the orders from a mayor to follow an illegal order, but most won't do it because they either don't know the order is illegal or because they know they will likely get fired if they refuse depending upon how much power the mayor has in the town.
Re: (Score:3)
well..
the mayor shouldn't been giving orders to the police in the first place.
anyways, that's how it's supposed to be in democratic countries. the mayor can make a report of a crime and the police could just then say that "hey man, that's not a crime."
Re: (Score:2)
The image I have in my head right now is Boss Hogg with a big cigar is his hand shouting at some policemen to "do something".
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Canada you can parody anyone. For example Justin Turdeau instead of Justin Trudeau (leader Liberal party Canada). It's funny and you can't get sued never mind have the police come after you. It's called freedom of speech.
Legally, yes; but none of that kicks in until after some sort of legal proceeding actually occurs. If the cops just break down your door, shoot your dog, and seize everything that looks evidentiary and/or worth 'losing', and then no charges are filed? Well, if you have the resources to lawyer up, you could probably make a civil case out of it; but otherwise you just got protected and served.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess the good Mayor has never heard of the Streisand Effect.
Uh, yeah. And how is that relevant here? Doesn't seem like he's actually taking much heat, except here at Slashdot and a single Left leaning web site. Maybe a little heat in his home town paper. But seriously, "Streisand Effect"?
People like to pontificate "Streisand Effect", but in most of the cases where it is used, it has not actually occurred.
"Streisand Effect" is a *WAY WAY* over used Intertube meme.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a very big effect in this case, but it does appear to be an example of the effect (to recap, the effect is when an attempt to suppress a piece of information has the reverse effect). His original site had 50 followers, it now has 200 and likely growing - that's an audience growth of 400%. Now some of that growth might have been happening anyway, but the story has got wider coverage than it otherwise would have done. I pretty much guarantee I would never have heard of the mayor of Peoria or anything
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Add to that, the internet doesn't forget. This mayor has just arrested any potential upward mobility he may have had on the political ladder.
Also, as of this moment, @NotPeoriaMayor is up to 688 followers.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people know about this now that he tried to supress it.
Now let's google streisand effect and see what it says...
"The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet."
Peoria seems like a definitive example to me.
Canada does not have free speech (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, the US is not perfect, but it is one of the few western democracies that does not have hate speech laws or a state secret's act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Are you certain about the "state secrets act"? It seems to me that National Security Letters cover the same ground...and then some.
Re: (Score:2)
No, national security letters are just used to investigate. In the US, the first amendment protects you if you publish classified information so long as you were not the one with privileged access and you do not impede the investigation into how the information was leaked.
See: Pentagon Papers.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pentagon Papers was 30 years ago. The government has changed what it claims to be allowed to do in that period. E.g., it has "suspended" Habeus Corpus. And it has instituted a system where "law enforcement" officers are allowed to profit by confiscating the property of people on accusation of a crime without waiting for conviction.
You can claim that "national security letters are just used to investigate", but since those very letters usually forbid the recipient from revealing what they demant, this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, parody is protected in the US, and parody against public figures has a long history of protection. However, once you piss off a politician, you can expect to be raked over the coals no matter what your rights. It's going to be expensive unless you can get the EFF or someone similar on board.
Now wait, did I just hear that some guy named Ardis likes to slob knobs in a McDonald's restroom?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not parody. Parody is not simply trying to be funny. This is why Weird Al actually goes out and gets permission to do the songs he does, because despite the popular thought, most of what he does isn't parody. Parody requires that the new work is used in such a way to comment on the original. Replacing a few words or singing something in a funny voice isn't parody in itself. Depending on how the account is being run it may not be parody either. As time goes on, it's easy for people to misunderstand th
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what he says, but the reality is that most of his songs wouldn't be defensible in court. Most of them simply do a funny spin on the name and change the lyrics but the often don't change the lyrics to comment on the song itself or the creator.
I remember one R Kelly song he did clearly commented on the song and R Kelly himself. that one would have been fine, but some of the other ones, like "white and nerdy" awesome song, but doesn't really do much to comment on the original or the performers who made
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Likewise people simply think "If I draw something funny, or make a stupid version of the name, it's fine I can do whatever I want". That's not true.
That's because the government is filled with evil scumbags who don't care about fundamental liberties such as free speech or the constitution they swore to defend. They, along with those who defend blatantly evil behavior, make me want to vomit.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech has to balance against people's right to protect the things they said and did as well. It's mostly about people being too lazy to create genuine parody because they don't really have anything to say beyond the level of a fart joke.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with being offended. Free speech is restricted all the time
Hate speech, inciting riots, etc.
You're free to say whatever you want. No one will stop you, but you also have to face the consequences of saying those things. It seems like someone doesn't really understand what freedom of speech actually means. That's typical, most people take the self-centered view that free speech means they can say whatever they want without consequence. That's false and has never been true. Free speech onl
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, but it seems like you'd like to create some kind of hippy utopia, good luck with th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because acknowledging a need for a balance between competing rights is just like being in North Korea. You know you're an idiot right? You should probably start working on your next tinfoil hat. You're just that far gone.
Re: (Score:2)
No, like most grown-ups I realize I'm part of a society and that the world doesn't revolve around me and my delusions.
That building a functioning society requires everyone to work together. That means give and take. I realize that's probably hard for you to understand but I'll see if I can't work it into some kind of puppet show so you can wrap your warped little mind around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I did no such thing. I said such a balance was necessary, i never said we had the right balance now. You only assumed I did because you haven't figured out that your nose was put on your face as a passage for air. In your completely unhinged knee-jerk reaction you failed to actually read anything and decided to launch into your latest manifesto. I expect we'll be
Re: (Score:2)
There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.
No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference. One you can't quite grasp which isn't a surprise.
Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll get you far.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll not read the linked article but there is a difference between parody and impersonation. Trying to impersonate a person and therefore skewing the public image of them isn't something that should be allowed but do a parody of them should always be allowed.
Don't know how it is for this specific case but I have seen here and elsewhere that some people think one can do whatever they want under the protection of "it's just a parody". I'll wonder if they would say the same when a fake facebook account pops up
Re: (Score:1)
Ummm ... that's disturbing.
Re: (Score:1)
Ummm ... that's disturbing.
How is that disturbing?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not disturbing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US does have a rogue government at this point, and they and the police have ruled themselves above the law. If this continues, a bloody revolution is inevitable, except with all the nutjobs hoarding guns, screaming about "that nigger muslim needs to show his birth certificate!" things could end up even worse. The likelyhood of the US being broken down into a bunch of smaller territories run by local warlords is pretty high. The US we used to love might never exist again.
Re: (Score:1)
The likelyhood of the US being broken down into a bunch of smaller territories run by local warlords is pretty high. The US we used to love might never exist again.
I see they have internet in the Idaho backwoods now.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt this "revolution" will be organized on Facebook
(and the police will be waiting with tanks when they arrive to take over the mayors office... Internet surveillance, bitches!)
Re:Isn't parody protected in the US? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. Reasonable benefactors of humanity like Bloomberg have donated large sums to disarm the rabid lunatics, so it might take a bit, but we will actually have children live in schools with guns off the street.
Warlords will not happen. Revolution is impossible (look at Syria) with the technology governments can bring to bear. One canister of Sarin gas on a town square of revolutionaries, and all the "three percenters" with all the nutty gun talk will be surrendering by the thousands like Iraqis in Desert
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It should also be civil, not criminal. Libel is hardly worth of raiding someone and confiscating all of their stuff.
The charge is impersonating an officer anyway, which is so far out there in this case as to be clear abuse of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash: it turns out that rules written on pieces of paper don't actually stop the police from arresting you for parody.
...especially when the person you're parodying is a self-important asshole who happens to have the chief of police in his pocket.
How appropriate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, can they not afford enough legal advice to tell them that basically every step of this plan is practically a textbook case of 'How to incur legal exposure in absurdly obvious ways'?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody marches to Peoria.
Re: (Score:1)
I can't really say that Peoria has been a cultural touchstone for humorless reactionary behavior..
I grew up in a small suburb of Peoria.. lived in the area most of my life, so I know a few things about the city. The "Will it play in Peoria" statement dates back to the Vaudeville days, where Peoria was, at the time, the measure of "average joe american" entertainment preferences.
The town is many things.. some good, some bad. I can't say "humorless" though (we did give the world Richard Pryor). or even terr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You misspelled "Republican", which is Ardis's political affiliation.
Why won't the vote this nut out? (Score:3)
Total abuse of power.
Re:Why won't the vote this nut out? (Score:5, Informative)
Before we get all silly, please remember that the police had a WARRANT to search the guys house. So any discussion of the "rule of law" needs to remember that the legeslative and judicial branches are also full of shit.
No just bitching about the executive abuse of power.
Re: (Score:3)
A warrant obtained from a rubber-stamp magistrate buddy of the mayor or through a falsely sworn affadavit doesn't turn a witchhunt into "rule of law".
Re: (Score:1)
No, it proves that the "rule of law" is a bullshit concept.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The distinct branches of government are only of value to a free society when the branches oppose each-other to act as "checks and balances".
Blaming the mayor is like blaming one dead hard drive for a failure of the raid-1 array. Sure, that one bad disk is a problem but if the overall system was doing its job, then the news story would just be about a mayor trying something stupid and failing (an email from the SAN about a disk that needs to be replaced).
If cops showed up at this guy's house, it took all 3 b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
O_O that's a dorky analogy
And thus perfectly apt for /.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
freedom of speech (Score:4)
Re:freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech means that no government entity can go after you for the content of your communications, whether broadcast or otherwise.
Unless of course it has something to do with politics ("campaign finance reform").
Because obviously the founders wanted to protect nude dancing, not that nasty political speech.
Twitter rolled (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically if a Jackboot^W LEO asks for account info on anyone without a warrant or even reasonable evidence that a crime has even been committed, Twitter will just hand over your private details to them without question.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically if a Jackboot^W LEO asks for account info on anyone without a warrant or even reasonable evidence that a crime has even been committed, Twitter will just hand over your private details to them without question.
Why is this moderated insightful? Twitter (and Comcast) responded to a warrant signed by a judge, not to a simple request by police. Yes, the judge is a total douchebag who is abusing the power of his office just like the mayor but once he signs the warrant if Twitter doesn't comply they are breaking the law.
In Communist America (Score:1)
Re:In Communist America (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? It doesn't GET any more American than Red Necks, White Socks, and Blue Ribbon Beer [youtube.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmmm... Could this be where your obsession with sockpuppets comes from [slashdot.org]?
And here's more evidence to support my theory that whatever you accuse others of doing to you always turns out to be something you started doing first [slashdot.org].
The Internet never forgets [4chan.org], AlexAndy. The Internet never forgets. [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You've already demonstrated that you have absolutely zero comprehension of any sort of humour, much less parody. With this in mind, I created the TFHF account basically because I was pretty sure that merely learning of this account's existence would make you froth at the mouth, and because you've been due a good stiff dose of my mockery and derision for weeks on end.
That account's made a grand total of 9 posts + 1 journal entry.
In the same timespan you've trolled/crapflooded me something like, what, 500-600
Re: (Score:2)
If I write a scathing article about my local mayor, I won't get killed in a dark alley. I'm in Portland. Scathing articles about Sam Adams were a party trick for a little bit. Poor bastard.
As a fellow PDX resident, I can second that... hell, Adams even starred in a few Portlandia episodes in what has to be the coolest self-parodies ever (he was the Mayor's assistant).
I can't stand Adams' politics or ideology, but I damned sure admire the guy for being able to take a joke (and even to actively be a part of it.)
Freedom of Speech (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is not freedom to impersonate or defame. From this article [pjstar.com];
The @Peoriamayor account began in late February or early March with a photo of Ardis and a bio that stated he enjoyed serving the city and included his city email address.
The content of tweets, or entries on the account, ranged from ambiguous to offensive, with repeat references to sex and drugs — and comparisons of Ardis to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as Ford’s drug use while in office became public.
By about March 10, the bio of the Twitter account was changed to indicate it was a parody account.
As for indicating it is a parody account, how many people read the whole bio of a twitter poster?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As for indicating it is a parody account, how many people read the whole bio of a twitter poster?
Just as many people as those that read the detailed information about how movies claim to be "based on a true story" when in fact they have absolutely nothing to do with reality. Or, how many people actually read the EULAs they agree to.
I'm not sure what your point is. It is blatantly obvious that it is a parody. Even if this guy had committed a crime, which he didn't, they did not follow procedures in their handling of the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
WHAT!?!?!
But the Amityville horror was a true story of an actual event!
They said it was based on a true story! Not it was inspired by a true story they heard while drunk and can sort of remember.
If the Stolen Valor Act Didn't Fly . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . then impersonating a public official is not going to either. The Supreme Court basically ruled that you can outright lie about serving in the military because that is your first amendment right.
Now if someone is trying to lie about being a public official to get into a restricted area or hell, lying about being a veteran to get a free lunch at Denny's on Memorial Day, that might be a crime, but this guy defrauded nobody.
The best case scenario for the mayor is a civil lawsuit for libel, but it is so blatantly obviously a parody account that it would just be a waste of everyone's money. But why use your own money to sue someone when you can send the police to unconstitutionally harass them?
Re: (Score:1)
. . . then impersonating a public official is not going to either. The Supreme Court basically ruled that you can outright lie about serving in the military because that is your first amendment right.
Now if someone is trying to lie about being a public official to get into a restricted area or hell, lying about being a veteran to get a free lunch at Denny's on Memorial Day, that might be a crime, but this guy defrauded nobody.
whats the stolen valor act? that makes no sense. who cares if somebody lies about being a veteran?
Is it even legal for a judge to sign a warrant... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to tell the judge no? Who's going to enforce it?
Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos. (And even then the "discipline" is generally trivial in comparison to the offense.)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to tell the judge no? Who's going to enforce it?
Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos. (And even then the "discipline" is generally trivial in comparison to the offense.)
I'm curious - can you site one instance in which you "heard of" a judge not being disciplined because "he was acting to support the local politicos". It seems unlikely you actually have such knowledge. My guess is that you are generalizing, or guessing, or just wildly speculating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence would you expect to find?
You are right, that I don't have anything in the way of good evidence. I have only the evidence of judges making decisions the are flagrantly illegal, and which are to the benefit of local politicians. And since I'm not a lawyer, my idea of "flagrantly illegal" doesn't carry much weight.
So lets just consider the MS anti-trust case, where the first judge found against MS, was quoted by a journalist as saying things that weren't complimentary to MS *after he had pronou
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you can't cite even a single instance. Thanks for clearing that up.
Dat Streissand (Score:2, Insightful)
> The original Twitter account had a total of 50 followers. The new account has over 200.
People almost care!
What an Ass, a troll got em by the short hairs (Score:3)
"Nevertheless, police raided this home and intend to charge whoever was responsible for the account for false impersonation of a public official."
I have a hotspot up (as per EFF https://www.eff.org/ [eff.org]), at this time 3 people are using it, I may have hassles over it but I've got the time.
Re: (Score:3)
In a guest post on Popehat, the Mayor himself... (Score:2)
...addresses this issue [popehat.com]
Unless this is another one of them there parody things.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that considered fruit from the poisonous tree?