Umm what is the threat here? I think the police woman is just trying to help. Informing that what he is doing might be illegal and it's probably not a good idea.
Trying to explain to this young man that even if he doesn't like his former employer, harassment in the internet is not right way to take it forward, but going to health officials instead. I call that service.
"Informing that what he is doing might be illegal"
His actions were not illegal.
"harassment in the internet is not right way to take it forward"
His actions weren't harassment, but a very clear expression of his 1A rights.
"but going to health officials instead"
If a customer suspected health codes were being violated, I would prefer the marketplace be informed as well as health officials. Similarly, if someone gets sick after eating at a restaurant, I would prefer them to tell me, not health code officials.
"I frankly see no reason for all this butthurt."
I definitely see a reason for it, though I might agree that the reaction in this instance is much larger than it needs to be. Securing pro-bono counsel for the guy is definitely a reasonable response, though. And it might be hard to secure pro-bono counsel without raising the case further into the public eye.
His actions don't appear to be illegal, but do the police have the right to not investigate something that was reported as illegal? I mean, if harassment is claimed by someone should the police just shrug their shoulders? No, they should probably investigate and determine if a crime actually happened. In the meantime, telling someone what could happen if they were doing what was claimed is not what I'd call 'threatening'.
I guess don't really see the problem with the phone call from the police either. It's just a subtle 'I don't want to have to come back out here' warning that they give every day to prevent things from getting to the point that they have to intervene. It does seem like a bored police department, but I didn't hear any threats in the phone call. This article jumps the gun a little bit by inferring collusion between the police and the pizza restaurant.
"do the police have the right to not investigate something that was reported as illegal?"
Yes, they certainly do. There are often more reports than there are resources for the police to respond to. Additionally, if I report something that is obviously frivolous or not illegal, they don't have to investigate. For example: I report to your local PD that you have harassed me with this comment online. It's obviously baseless and frivolous, and they shouldn't spend any time "warning you that it might be illegal".
"they should probably investigate and determine if a crime actually happened"
Sure, when the police report is made by the harassed party, they should ask the form that the harassment took place as. When the response is "reviews on Yelp", the police should be smart enough to know that it isn't harassment. It could still be libel or defamation, but neither of those are criminal activities, and shouldn't be pursued by the police. There is no need for any investigation that goes beyond the report and maybe looking at the source of the reviews.
"I guess don't really see the problem with the phone call from the police either"
First of all, I think the officer had good and understandable intentions. I don't think she was overtly threatening or malicious. She was just trying to diffuse a situation. Unfortunately, she was doing so by strongly urging a citizen to stop expressing their rights under 1A.
From one POV it's a helpful police officer trying to defuse a situation; from another POV it's an official agent of the government telling the citizen that they should stop doing an activity that they have every right to. An officer of the law telling you what you're doing is borderline criminal when it's not is going to have a significant chilling effect on speech.
I think this is expressed in quotes from the officer such as:
* "is there any reason you posted those photos?"
* "If there is a violation and you want to show it to someone ... If they feel like there's no violation then you should probably drop it"
* "You put your opinion out there once, twice, I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain"
* "You're borderline criminal / civil harassment there" (this isn't true. It could be a violation of Yelp's TOS, or it could be defamation, but it wouldn't be harassment. Unless they prosecute the violation of Yelp's TOS under the CFAA there is no criminal behavior implied in his actions)
Again, I don't think the officer's intent was bad. I also don't think this was as big a deal as the article made it out to be. However, like I said, it seems perfectly reasonable to secure pro-bono counsel for the guy. An article that tries to make a splash might be a necessary thing for getting pro-bono counsel.
Comments
Umm what is the threat here? I think the police woman is just trying to help. Informing that what he is doing might be illegal and it's probably not a good idea.
Trying to explain to this young man that even if he doesn't like his former employer, harassment in the internet is not right way to take it forward, but going to health officials instead. I call that service.
I frankly see no reason for all this butthurt.
His actions were not illegal.
His actions weren't harassment, but a very clear expression of his 1A rights.
If a customer suspected health codes were being violated, I would prefer the marketplace be informed as well as health officials. Similarly, if someone gets sick after eating at a restaurant, I would prefer them to tell me, not health code officials.
I definitely see a reason for it, though I might agree that the reaction in this instance is much larger than it needs to be. Securing pro-bono counsel for the guy is definitely a reasonable response, though. And it might be hard to secure pro-bono counsel without raising the case further into the public eye.
His actions don't appear to be illegal, but do the police have the right to not investigate something that was reported as illegal? I mean, if harassment is claimed by someone should the police just shrug their shoulders? No, they should probably investigate and determine if a crime actually happened. In the meantime, telling someone what could happen if they were doing what was claimed is not what I'd call 'threatening'.
I guess don't really see the problem with the phone call from the police either. It's just a subtle 'I don't want to have to come back out here' warning that they give every day to prevent things from getting to the point that they have to intervene. It does seem like a bored police department, but I didn't hear any threats in the phone call. This article jumps the gun a little bit by inferring collusion between the police and the pizza restaurant.
Yes, they certainly do. There are often more reports than there are resources for the police to respond to. Additionally, if I report something that is obviously frivolous or not illegal, they don't have to investigate. For example: I report to your local PD that you have harassed me with this comment online. It's obviously baseless and frivolous, and they shouldn't spend any time "warning you that it might be illegal".
Sure, when the police report is made by the harassed party, they should ask the form that the harassment took place as. When the response is "reviews on Yelp", the police should be smart enough to know that it isn't harassment. It could still be libel or defamation, but neither of those are criminal activities, and shouldn't be pursued by the police. There is no need for any investigation that goes beyond the report and maybe looking at the source of the reviews.
First of all, I think the officer had good and understandable intentions. I don't think she was overtly threatening or malicious. She was just trying to diffuse a situation. Unfortunately, she was doing so by strongly urging a citizen to stop expressing their rights under 1A.
From one POV it's a helpful police officer trying to defuse a situation; from another POV it's an official agent of the government telling the citizen that they should stop doing an activity that they have every right to. An officer of the law telling you what you're doing is borderline criminal when it's not is going to have a significant chilling effect on speech.
I think this is expressed in quotes from the officer such as:
* "is there any reason you posted those photos?"
* "If there is a violation and you want to show it to someone ... If they feel like there's no violation then you should probably drop it"
* "You put your opinion out there once, twice, I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain"
* "You're borderline criminal / civil harassment there" (this isn't true. It could be a violation of Yelp's TOS, or it could be defamation, but it wouldn't be harassment. Unless they prosecute the violation of Yelp's TOS under the CFAA there is no criminal behavior implied in his actions)
Again, I don't think the officer's intent was bad. I also don't think this was as big a deal as the article made it out to be. However, like I said, it seems perfectly reasonable to secure pro-bono counsel for the guy. An article that tries to make a splash might be a necessary thing for getting pro-bono counsel.