He Disparaged the Police on Facebook, So They Arrested Him(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
He Disparaged the Police on Facebook, So They Arrested Him
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/politics/criminal-libel-laws-lawsuit.html
73 comments
I have more objections to that than I am going to fit into a single comment, so I'll try to summarise the top few:
1) The incentive structures around libel laws are horrible. If you give the US Congress moral and constitutional authority to pass something like what the UK has they will make it very hard to criticise US politicians.
2) "especially on the right, but also the left" is wrong. All media organisations are routinely wrong on all issues - there was an anecdotal named law for this but I've forgotten the name of it, where if the media reports on something that the viewer understands it is obvious all the reporting is wrong, but then the viewer assumes that reporting on subjects they know nothing about is correct. One subgroup can't be more wrong when all of the group is basically all wrong - there is news that is wrong the way the consensus is wrong and then there is news that is wrong in radical new ways.
3) I don't have any examples of abuses of the UK system because the abuses would be suppressed under the libel laws. That is not a sane state of play to assess the merits of libel laws. The US system of messy, public opposition is much better than hiding all the conflict behind a veneer of civility - conflict does not disappear because people don't talk about it publicly.
1) The incentive structures around libel laws are horrible. If you give the US Congress moral and constitutional authority to pass something like what the UK has they will make it very hard to criticise US politicians.
2) "especially on the right, but also the left" is wrong. All media organisations are routinely wrong on all issues - there was an anecdotal named law for this but I've forgotten the name of it, where if the media reports on something that the viewer understands it is obvious all the reporting is wrong, but then the viewer assumes that reporting on subjects they know nothing about is correct. One subgroup can't be more wrong when all of the group is basically all wrong - there is news that is wrong the way the consensus is wrong and then there is news that is wrong in radical new ways.
3) I don't have any examples of abuses of the UK system because the abuses would be suppressed under the libel laws. That is not a sane state of play to assess the merits of libel laws. The US system of messy, public opposition is much better than hiding all the conflict behind a veneer of civility - conflict does not disappear because people don't talk about it publicly.
>2) "especially on the right, but also the left" is wrong. All media organisations are routinely wrong on all issues - there was an anecdotal named law for this but I've forgotten the name of it, where if the media reports on something that the viewer understands it is obvious all the reporting is wrong, but then the viewer assumes that reporting on subjects they know nothing about is correct. One subgroup can't be more wrong when all of the group is basically all wrong - there is news that is wrong the way the consensus is wrong and then there is news that is wrong in radical new ways.
What you are referring to here I believe is the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect [0] cited by Michael Crichton.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
What you are referring to here I believe is the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect [0] cited by Michael Crichton.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
Wow, thanks for linking to that.
Note that the "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect" is a discussion point by a popular novelist, not a well-researched psychological concept. Frankly, without deeper research into the concept, it's a quote from an famous person.
Note that the "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect" is a discussion point by a popular novelist, not a well-researched psychological concept. Frankly, without deeper research into the concept, it's a quote from an famous person.
It wouldn't find any traction if it didn't ring true with a lot of people. I don't need it to be a "well-researched psychological concept" if I've personally experienced it.
Years ago when local papers were still relevant, there was a local paper article about me and three other people. They got the details hilariously wrong. Everything was totally backwards. There was no plausible motive for malice, they just got everything wrong because the reporter was lazy or something. Didn't take good notes. After that I still kept my subscription to the paper and didn't doubt the accuracy of other stories in that paper, even from that same journalist.
So years later when I see the Gell-Mann Amnesia quote for the first time, the pieces all click. Plainly I had been afflicted, and I see no reason to think I'm the only one.
Years ago when local papers were still relevant, there was a local paper article about me and three other people. They got the details hilariously wrong. Everything was totally backwards. There was no plausible motive for malice, they just got everything wrong because the reporter was lazy or something. Didn't take good notes. After that I still kept my subscription to the paper and didn't doubt the accuracy of other stories in that paper, even from that same journalist.
So years later when I see the Gell-Mann Amnesia quote for the first time, the pieces all click. Plainly I had been afflicted, and I see no reason to think I'm the only one.
I feel that there's a sort of wide-spread cynicism that has far overshot its mark: people routinely disparage journalism, even though the better publishers (NYT, Economist, WSJ, etc) today are in my impression far better than ever before.
They are, for example, exemplary in terms of correcting errors quickly and transparently. I rarely come across errors these days, and the ones I see corrected below articles are almost always very minor, such as spelling errors in names.
In some circles, such as HN, it also seems to be en vogue to consider all media biased and unprofessional, every politician to be corrupt, every business leader as optimising (short term) profit with no regard for other considerations, every scientific study underpowered, and every headline clickbait.
I guess gratuitous negativity is often mistaken for expertise or intelligence. But in reality, it just renders any actual effort useless: why not be corrupt/lazy/incompetent/etc, when that is the charge that will be levelled against you, no matter what you do?
They are, for example, exemplary in terms of correcting errors quickly and transparently. I rarely come across errors these days, and the ones I see corrected below articles are almost always very minor, such as spelling errors in names.
In some circles, such as HN, it also seems to be en vogue to consider all media biased and unprofessional, every politician to be corrupt, every business leader as optimising (short term) profit with no regard for other considerations, every scientific study underpowered, and every headline clickbait.
I guess gratuitous negativity is often mistaken for expertise or intelligence. But in reality, it just renders any actual effort useless: why not be corrupt/lazy/incompetent/etc, when that is the charge that will be levelled against you, no matter what you do?
Right? I see Chris Cillizza deliberately drop the concluding sentence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' comment to deliberately take it out of context[1] or a single CNN journalist fabricating sources for years[2] (not to pick on CNN too much, I don't think they're any worse than most news orgs, and they're better than a good few). And I think, there are some problems there, this deserves addressing, but to take that and scream FAKE NEWS in tweets every third day; that's just stupid.
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/424190-ocasio-cortez-accu... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/media/claas-relotius-spiegel/...
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/424190-ocasio-cortez-accu... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/media/claas-relotius-spiegel/...
You don't need it to be a "well-researched psychological concept" if you've personally experienced it, but that does absolutely nothing to convince me, and further, you should carefully weigh your own anecdotal experience versus others' experiences. Maybe the reporting in your particular case was just really, really bad? How would you know? Maybe 99.9% of journalism is completely accurate and you just happened to fit into the 0.1%... if you can't definitively disprove what I'm saying, then I don't think you should be so confident in your conclusion.
As for "it would find any traction if it didn't ring true with a lot of people." A lot of people throughout history have believed a lot of unscientific things. I don't believe we've reached a point of enlightenment where we no longer do that. Science not infrequently finds the truth is not what we expected, not what our intuition would lead us to believe.
As for "it would find any traction if it didn't ring true with a lot of people." A lot of people throughout history have believed a lot of unscientific things. I don't believe we've reached a point of enlightenment where we no longer do that. Science not infrequently finds the truth is not what we expected, not what our intuition would lead us to believe.
Maybe you've never experienced it because you've never read an article about something you're an expert on? Nobody said that everybody experiences it.
What part of that responds to anything I said? I haven't even said (1) whether I believe the effect or not or (2) whether I have or have not experienced that effect myself. You're assuming I've made a statement one way or the other.
In the absence of scientific research, the "theory" is as true and useful as any saying "two in the hand is worth one in the bush", "a penny saved is a penny earned", ...
In the absence of scientific research, the "theory" is as true and useful as any saying "two in the hand is worth one in the bush", "a penny saved is a penny earned", ...
For 2), I think you're thinking of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
EDIT: Looks like a sibling comment beat me to it
EDIT: Looks like a sibling comment beat me to it
If the UK's notion of libel were applied to the scenario of the article, Robert Frese would be required to prove that his statements were truthful, rather than the police/prosecution proving Robert knew he was lying. That's obscene.
Think about how hard each of those would be to prove. To prove he knew he was lying would almost require that he admitted it in writing or was recorded admitting it. But for a man like Robert Frese to prove that the police were dirty would be almost impossible, the FBI often has difficulty proving that crooked cops are crooked, and they have a lot more resources than just some guy who trash-talked the police. Requiring Robert Frese to prove himself correct is totally unreasonable. Requiring the prosecution to prove Robert Frese knew he was lying is the only semi-sane approach to criminal libel (the criminality of libel is dubious in the first place.)
If you want stronger libel laws to hold corporations accountable, you need to first stop treating corporations and individuals as the same. Applying the same standard to both will create a situation where either corporations are relatively free to say anything, or create a situation where individuals are crushed under the force of laws designed to be forceful enough to beat corporations into compliance. But until that separation happens, having laws that protect people like Robert Frese is the sane default.
Think about how hard each of those would be to prove. To prove he knew he was lying would almost require that he admitted it in writing or was recorded admitting it. But for a man like Robert Frese to prove that the police were dirty would be almost impossible, the FBI often has difficulty proving that crooked cops are crooked, and they have a lot more resources than just some guy who trash-talked the police. Requiring Robert Frese to prove himself correct is totally unreasonable. Requiring the prosecution to prove Robert Frese knew he was lying is the only semi-sane approach to criminal libel (the criminality of libel is dubious in the first place.)
If you want stronger libel laws to hold corporations accountable, you need to first stop treating corporations and individuals as the same. Applying the same standard to both will create a situation where either corporations are relatively free to say anything, or create a situation where individuals are crushed under the force of laws designed to be forceful enough to beat corporations into compliance. But until that separation happens, having laws that protect people like Robert Frese is the sane default.
If you are going to defame someone, ought truth be a basic requirement? How can you prove a negative; how can cops prove they aren’t corrupt? Much easier to prove something happen rather than proving something didn’t happen, unless there is a specific incident in question.
Being able to prove the truth of what you say ought not be a legal requirement. If you want somebody prosecuted for their speech, you should be forced to prove they were knowingly lying.
>If the UK's notion of libel were applied to the scenario of the article, Robert Frese would be required to prove that his statements were truthful, rather than the police/prosecution proving Robert knew he was lying. That's obscene.
Is it? If he can't prove his statements were true (eg. if he doesn't have hard facts baking him), then why was he making them?
That said, often those things (dirty police, dirty corporations, etc) are right there obvious to most, and you can't prove them because of course they're careful -- e.g. they might even admit it to your face, but never on record.
Is it? If he can't prove his statements were true (eg. if he doesn't have hard facts baking him), then why was he making them?
That said, often those things (dirty police, dirty corporations, etc) are right there obvious to most, and you can't prove them because of course they're careful -- e.g. they might even admit it to your face, but never on record.
Yes, that's obscene. It should be legal for private citizens to call a cop dirty without first launching a huge FBI investigation into the police department to prove it. Often times those FBI investigations only take place because private citizens bring federal attention to the local situation by calling cops dirty loudly and often.
Sometimes when one person speaks out, all the others that were afraid to speak come out as well.
Shield laws and other legal protections are already incredibly strong in the USA. It would be a mistake to make police practically exempt from public restraint.
I would also be afraid that the media would face more targeting legal attacks and restraints from investigating possible corruption. They operate under the same laws as everyone else.
Shield laws and other legal protections are already incredibly strong in the USA. It would be a mistake to make police practically exempt from public restraint.
I would also be afraid that the media would face more targeting legal attacks and restraints from investigating possible corruption. They operate under the same laws as everyone else.
proof doesnt matter, they have immunity from prosecution, and its near impossible to prove they are acting beyond thier legal authority or as an unreasonable person.
They should have consequences to fear when they screw up just like everybody else does.
There is also massive corruption problem in the police force, because citizens don't really have effective ways to "watch the watchers". And stronger libel law will definitely be used against people who criticize the police, rightly or wrongly.
That being said, misinformation is also a huge problem. So maybe we'll have to find other ways to more effectively hold individuals accountable, whether they're abusing institutional power or spreading misinformation.
That being said, misinformation is also a huge problem. So maybe we'll have to find other ways to more effectively hold individuals accountable, whether they're abusing institutional power or spreading misinformation.
> There is also massive corruption problem in the police force
Is this really true or just the impression given by cherry-picking the worst possible cases nation wide and amplifying them via media?
Define "massive". If you got pulled over, would you be legitimately worried about being tazed or abused?
Is this really true or just the impression given by cherry-picking the worst possible cases nation wide and amplifying them via media?
Define "massive". If you got pulled over, would you be legitimately worried about being tazed or abused?
I'd be more likely to believe that the publicly-repeated abuse cases are flukes if the officers involved didn't seem to get off with a slap on the wrist the majority of the time.
If you're the wrong colour, yes.
Ah, so you're asking what race analyst74 is.
There's a difference between stating an opinion ("The Exeter police are corrupt") and making a statement like "Police Chief John Doe took a bribe to overlook a crime." You can write an op-ed insinuating that based on your sources, the corruption at the Exeter Police Department goes to the top. It's something else to defame an individual specifically. For example, it's defamation to say "analyst74 raped and murdered a girl in 1993" unless I have at the minimum a good faith belief that that was the case.
To reiterate, it'd be protected speech to say like you just said that "corruption is a massive problem in American police forces." It's not so much protected speech if you accuse Officer John Doe of specific criminal acts in public if the statement isn't true.
For other reasons, this is not the best defendant just from a character perspective the ACLU could pick for this kind of situation (https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180531/exeter-man-char...). To actually challenge the law, they'd have to somehow reframe what he said as an opinion.
Obviously the cops aren't going to bring charges for the vast majority of these kinds of instances, but they did against Frese because he's a felon with a history of harassing the local police. And not a cute and cuddly felon either: he ran over a traffic worker after threatening to run him over. It's fine for the ACLU to take this as a test case but this is not this sort of situation that is a great test case.
To reiterate, it'd be protected speech to say like you just said that "corruption is a massive problem in American police forces." It's not so much protected speech if you accuse Officer John Doe of specific criminal acts in public if the statement isn't true.
For other reasons, this is not the best defendant just from a character perspective the ACLU could pick for this kind of situation (https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180531/exeter-man-char...). To actually challenge the law, they'd have to somehow reframe what he said as an opinion.
Obviously the cops aren't going to bring charges for the vast majority of these kinds of instances, but they did against Frese because he's a felon with a history of harassing the local police. And not a cute and cuddly felon either: he ran over a traffic worker after threatening to run him over. It's fine for the ACLU to take this as a test case but this is not this sort of situation that is a great test case.
I think there's a difference between corruption and unaccountability. Due to the way the justice system is set up in the USA plus the history of using police forces to subdue to population prosecutors have generally little to gain/incentive/motivation to prosecute law enforcement even in the most infamous cases.
> In this case, accusing a specific police officer of being corrupt with zero evidence IS an awful thing to do.
I strongly disagree. A policeman is a representative of the state, he chose that job freely and he is getting paid for it, he can have personal insurance and legal support paid by the taxpayer. If libel is a routine professional hazard for policemen, they can request a raise and we as a society will pay more to hire such men, just as we pay more to hire people willing to risk their lives in the line.
A citizen on the other hand, has no such liberties and is paying for the whole show. The least he can do, when he feels he's being wronged, is to call out those who are responsible. I agree they should be liable for libel damages and I understand that might not deter some poor people.
But the idea that libel from homeless people against government officials is an awful affliction that must be stopped with criminal punishments - that must be rejected wholeheartedly.
> Note that the standard for criminal libel requires the person to know they are lying, and that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The article notes that is very little stopping a policeman to abuse a person while that criminal liability lingers. He can easily make that person spend a few nights in jail, can coerce them into self-incrimination and can even get a conviction out of lower status individuals with little power to defend themselves.
Nothing good can come out of jailing people that criticize public officials.
I strongly disagree. A policeman is a representative of the state, he chose that job freely and he is getting paid for it, he can have personal insurance and legal support paid by the taxpayer. If libel is a routine professional hazard for policemen, they can request a raise and we as a society will pay more to hire such men, just as we pay more to hire people willing to risk their lives in the line.
A citizen on the other hand, has no such liberties and is paying for the whole show. The least he can do, when he feels he's being wronged, is to call out those who are responsible. I agree they should be liable for libel damages and I understand that might not deter some poor people.
But the idea that libel from homeless people against government officials is an awful affliction that must be stopped with criminal punishments - that must be rejected wholeheartedly.
> Note that the standard for criminal libel requires the person to know they are lying, and that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The article notes that is very little stopping a policeman to abuse a person while that criminal liability lingers. He can easily make that person spend a few nights in jail, can coerce them into self-incrimination and can even get a conviction out of lower status individuals with little power to defend themselves.
Nothing good can come out of jailing people that criticize public officials.
>The media is a mess. Even mainstream outlets like Fox routinely lie to their viewers. Other countries with stronger libel laws (like the UK) don't have nearly as bad a problem
Ever read the Daily Mail, the SUN and co? (Or for that matter the Guardian, for left-sided BS).
Ever read the Daily Mail, the SUN and co? (Or for that matter the Guardian, for left-sided BS).
Did you just throw the Guardian in the same list as some of Britain's worst tabloids?
The Morning Star would have been a better example...
The Morning Star would have been a better example...
>Did you just throw the Guardian in the same list as some of Britain's worst tabloids?
Yeah, it's just as much as a tabloid, only for a different market group who considers themselves more refined.
Nothing actually high brow there...
Yeah, it's just as much as a tabloid, only for a different market group who considers themselves more refined.
Nothing actually high brow there...
Sorry, but The Guardian is garbage. It’s not as obviously garbage as the DM et al, but they publish Laurie Penny. That’s pretty bad.
I believe the UK has much stricter laws in this regard, but it seems to face a lot of the same problems as the US.
Besides, a lot of the truly dangerous misinformation is coming from antagonistic foreign governments, which probably can't be bullied out of doing so over the Internet by mere local criminal laws.
Not to mention that there's plenty of ways to satisfy libel laws and still spread misinformation.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think it's giving the government the ability to target people for things they say. That'd be a great tool to use to harass political opponents.
Besides, a lot of the truly dangerous misinformation is coming from antagonistic foreign governments, which probably can't be bullied out of doing so over the Internet by mere local criminal laws.
Not to mention that there's plenty of ways to satisfy libel laws and still spread misinformation.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think it's giving the government the ability to target people for things they say. That'd be a great tool to use to harass political opponents.
[deleted]
Since you cite the UK law, it should be noted that (at least I'm pretty sure) the UK no longer has criminal libel laws.
I'd be OK with the police suing him for defamation, but he should not serve jail time.
I'd be OK with the police suing him for defamation, but he should not serve jail time.
The problem with libel and slander laws is that you have to prove damages. Without an “injury” there is no case. They’re civil torts.
Most lies on Fox News or spread in the UK before Brexit would not qualify as libel or defamation. Misleading numbers about immigration, border crossings or crimes committed by foreigners are not directed at one particular person and would not be considered defamation/libel.
as a brown guy, i will never have the balls big enough to make comments like this.
As a white guy, I mourn that people of color feel that making comments like this requires courage. It shouldn't require courage at all, for anybody, regardless of color or race or religion or gender or anything. I mourn that people like you have to be more careful in interactions with police or other authorities. It just stinks.
I get your sentiment, but like all color folks who say to white folks, " you just don't understand what it means to be colored in everyday life."
But you should not be ashamed to be white.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just because he was arrested for criminal libel doesn't mean he will be convicted of it.
The article does a good job of presenting a high level overview of criminal libel: what it is, what the arguments around it are, and so forth. Read the whole thing.
The article does a good job of presenting a high level overview of criminal libel: what it is, what the arguments around it are, and so forth. Read the whole thing.
>Just because he was arrested for criminal libel doesn't mean he will be convicted of it.
Doesn't matter. Can still lose money (e.g. by taking time off of his work) and can still be harassed (even after the case ends), and can still have his life made a living hell by casual police and friends activity.
Doesn't matter. Can still lose money (e.g. by taking time off of his work) and can still be harassed (even after the case ends), and can still have his life made a living hell by casual police and friends activity.
He also has prior arrests for similar problems, including a libel suit where he was convicted for wrongfully disparaging a life coaching business.
I'm not convinced of his innocence here.
I'm not convinced of his innocence here.
Yea, but the princple remains. He bad mouthed the police so they arrested for it. In a country like the US where it appears that unduly high bails are set. (thousands of dollars for people on welfare may as well be a million) Getting arrested could easily mean the lose of freedom for a extended period of time. If that is the penalty for saying something, true or false. It suddenly becomes something people are afraid to do.
He said an officer is corrupt and that the chief is covering it up. The NYT calls this "disparaging", but it clearly goes way beyond badmouthing.
Those are very tame accusations to level against civil servants. They may be totally false, but far worse is regularly stated by people every day. Arresting people for unjustified accusations against the police is obscene, the potential for abuse is way too high.
Imagine a world where everyone who accused a public servant of being corrupt, or covering things up was arrested. Every politician would be in jail after each campaign season.
>Every politician would be in jail after each campaign season
Sounds like a better world!
Sounds like a better world!
Every critic of those politicians would be in jail too.
Why would anybody bother to criticize them if they're going to jail at the end of their campaign anyway (as is the premise in this thread)?
Surely you understand that people criticize murderes who are being sent to prison; you don't question why they bother. Why would people stop criticizing a politician simply because they know that politician will be going to jail?
This whole conversation has become very silly. It's plain that criminal libel is an awful idea, we can joke about silly scenarios that might unfold if people facing criminal libel charges were required to prove their innocence, but current criminal libel laws with a normal burden of proof are already being abused and doing real damage to the lives of real people, which isn't very funny.
This whole conversation has become very silly. It's plain that criminal libel is an awful idea, we can joke about silly scenarios that might unfold if people facing criminal libel charges were required to prove their innocence, but current criminal libel laws with a normal burden of proof are already being abused and doing real damage to the lives of real people, which isn't very funny.
>Why would people stop criticizing a politician simply because they know that politician will be going to jail?
They could, but it would be futile. The politician is not going to govern anybody anyway (remember, straight to jail from the end of their campaign).
Besides, surely you understand that this thread has stretched a BS hypothetical.
They could, but it would be futile. The politician is not going to govern anybody anyway (remember, straight to jail from the end of their campaign).
Besides, surely you understand that this thread has stretched a BS hypothetical.
> "They could, but it would be futile. The politician is not going to govern anybody anyway (remember, straight to jail from the end of their campaign)."
You've a strange notion of how people behave. People still routinely criticize Bush and Obama, even though neither will ever be in office again. That's how people are.
You've a strange notion of how people behave. People still routinely criticize Bush and Obama, even though neither will ever be in office again. That's how people are.
I've known a few policemen here in the USA - and every one of them was corrupt. So in this case the law may not make sense.
I share my very real world experience of police in the USA, and I get downvoted for it. I must be posting on Hacker News. (I now consider it a badge of honor to get downvoted. It means those who can't entertain disconfirming thoughts have been offended.)
There are many people where an arrest, even without conviction will be a job ending event.
thedaemon(3)
The media is a mess. Even mainstream outlets like Fox routinely lie to their viewers. Other countries with stronger libel laws (like the UK) don't have nearly as bad a problem, and I can't help but feel like it's related. Obviously the UK has its own issues but it feels much saner to me.
In this case, accusing a specific police officer of being corrupt with zero evidence IS an awful thing to do. It's different from saying that a department is corrupt, etc. There are tons of examples of police abusing their power but this just doesn't seem like one.
Note that the standard for criminal libel requires the person to know they are lying, and that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.