11–20 of 24 posts
That person needs to learn not to speak without a lawyer: “The purpose of this tweet was to find out the officer’s information, to hold him accountable.” That can be construed as vigilantism.
Holding police accountable is not vigilantism. The right to photograph cops at work in the US is well established. Cops don't like that, but they lose in court on that.[1] [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/#i-w...
Doxxing is bad, and that’s exactly what this person was trying to do. Just because it wasn’t successful, doesn’t mean it wasn’t harassment. Additionally, that article makes it very unclear what, if anything, the officer did to warrant being identified. He performed his duties, while wearing a face mask (which everyone is encouraged to do now) which had a pattern some people don’t like.
That person needs to learn not to speak without a lawyer: “The purpose of this tweet was to find out the officer’s information, to hold him accountable.” That can be construed as vigilantism.
It's possible there were intentions of "cyber harassment" (I've never seen that as a legal statute so who knows what the burden of proof is), but I highly doubt simply a retweet is sufficient to prove according to US legal standards. The original message might, but this is dangerously close to the "hate speech" type of standard they have in Europe which is very different from the speech protections we have in the USA.
I would argue this lawsuit is baseless (unless there is other, as yet unknown, evidence) and I interpret it to be financial harassment by the officer of a protester which he very likely politically disagrees (based on the "blue line" flag).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holding police accountable is not vigilantism. The right to photograph cops at work in the US is well established. Cops don't like that, but they lose in court on that.[1] [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/#i-w...
Proving your right in court can cost you everything.
That said, I completely agree that defending yourself against a criminal charge in the USA is far too expensive.
Doxxing is bad, and that’s exactly what this person was trying to do. Just because it wasn’t successful, doesn’t mean it wasn’t harassment. Additionally, that article makes it very unclear what, if anything, the officer did to warrant being identified. He performed his duties, while wearing a face mask (which everyone is encouraged to do now) which had a pattern some people don’t like.
I'm no expert on US policing but aren't they supposed to be identifiable in the general course of their duties? e.g. NYC mandates visible name plates and that officers identify themselves in interactions.
The most WTF part for me is the summons and the court case identifies the police officer and he would likely to get more visibility and negative coverage than the original tweet which was retweeted by grand total of 4 people. Streisand effect anyone?
What if the purpose of the charges is retribution, not to protect the officer and his family?
Doxxing is bad, and that’s exactly what this person was trying to do. Just because it wasn’t successful, doesn’t mean it wasn’t harassment. Additionally, that article makes it very unclear what, if anything, the officer did to warrant being identified. He performed his duties, while wearing a face mask (which everyone is encouraged to do now) which had a pattern some people don’t like.
Can you explain why asking to identify a police officer performing official duties should be illegal?
They could have taken the picture to their local police station and made a complaint. They could have sent it to a newspaper. They could have tweeted "This officer is unidentified at a rally." They didn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proving your right in court can cost you everything.
Ah yes, the "guilty until proven innocent" framework. I don't know about New Jersey, but the rest of the USA doesn't do it that way for criminal law. That said, I completely agree that defending yourself against a criminal charge in the USA is far too expensive.
Do you not read the newspaper? People plea out to drug possession when there is video evidence of police planting it, because they can't afford bail and will lose their job and home if they spend 3 months in jail fighting the charge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why asking to identify a police officer performing official duties should be illegal?
"If anyone knows who this bitch is throw his info under this tweet" - this is not trying to identify an officer. This was a tweet that was designed to inflame people. They could have taken the picture to their local police station and made a complaint. They could have sent it to a newspaper. They could have tweeted "This officer is unidentified at a rally." They didn't.
Have you ever tried to do that? From what I've read, that doesn't go well.