"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
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.