
Sheriff Raids House to Find Anonymous Blogger Who Called Him Corrupt - guiambros
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/04/sheriff-raids-house-to-find-anonymous-blogger-who-called-him-corrupt/
======
envy2
This type of behaviour unfortunately seems to be becoming a trend. While not
nearly as bad as a raid, Facebook called out a US county prosecutor for
attempting to have a page criticising local officials removed in its last
transparency report:

 _Date: October 2015_

 _Content: A page protesting a county animal control agency._

 _Request: We received a request from a county prosecutor 's office to remove
a page opposing a county animal control agency, alleging that the page made
threatening comments about the director of the agency and violated laws
against menacing._

 _Result: We reviewed the content and determined that the page did not contain
credible threats and therefore did not violate our Community Standards. We
took no other action on the page for reasons of the public interest._

Source:
[https://govtrequests.facebook.com/faq/](https://govtrequests.facebook.com/faq/),
all the way at the bottom

~~~
ben_jones
And two days ago...

"Facebook bows to anti-science activists, shuts down ‘We Love GMOs and
Vaccines’"[1].

It seems like Facebook is playing both sides in this matter.

[1]:
[https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/04/facebook-b...](https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/04/facebook-
bows-anti-science-activists-shuts-love-gmos-vaccines/)

~~~
kafkaesq
But isn't there more to the story here?

One of the commenters indicated that FB took down that page for being "violent
in nature" (details not provided) -- not simply for its pro-GMO/Vaccine
stance.

~~~
robryk
Disclaimer: I know noting about this particular case.

It is possible to fool FB into removing a page or some content. One way that
is sometimes attempted (with some success) is to spam the comments on the page
with objectionable content (hopefully goading other people to respond in kind)
or (if it's an open group) join it and do the same. Then have other people
report the page.

Also, simple misunderstandings happen. E.g. a post gets removed due to being
threatening; in fact the post was just citing a threat allegedly made by an
official. This seems to be even more likely to happen if many people report
that content as objectionable: thus, people opposed to some organization/idea
organize into mobs that report related posts as being objectionable.

~~~
tedunangst
Seems fairly easy for the group admin to flag abusive posters. If there's no
active admin, is it such a great loss for the group to shut down?

~~~
robryk
This depends on the throughput of spamming that's going on. The throughput can
be quite large if there's a significant amount of people cooperating. Also,
this means that admins have to spend a nontrivial amount of time on such work
on every single day.

The examples I know of are groups of political movements that have a lot of
haters, so that might be somewhat of an edge case.

------
ajmurmann
The current situation surrounding law enforcement in the US is complicated and
there are many sides to it. However, I've always been of the opinion that
corrupt officials in any government position are a huge thread to society
especially in law enforcement since they are highly visible and thus hugely
impact how society perceived justice. Therefore I always held the opinion that
punishment for corruption in these positions should be absolutely draconic. On
the flip side we should probably also pay more to attract top talent.

I guess my dream of police officers who in their spare time have lively
debates about Kant will never come to fruition ;)

EDIT: Spacing

~~~
marcoperaza
The ideal situation that you've described is how the FBI actually works. The
FBI is highly selective, requires a bachelors degree minimum (though I hear
new hires increasingly have even more higher education), treats misconduct
very seriously, and pays professional salaries. You'll notice that most
controversies about the FBI concern policies set at the very top, almost never
abuses of power or denial of rights.

I agree that we need to similarly professionalize local police forces. I'd
rather see it done at the state level to maintain more local, rather than
federal, control of policing.

~~~
ComodoHacker
Just think of the cost of such professional police forces for every state and
county, including training, equipment etc.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Compare to the cost to society of having daft pigs running around shooting
people, and generally violating the rights of citizens.

Or maybe I'm still angry from that time I got arrested for cycling on the
footpath, or that other time the cops turned my house upside down and stole a
$1000 from me and charged me with drug trafficking, all charges for which
ended up getting dismissed.

There are real reasons lots of people think the police are barely tolerable.
It's high time the police were encouraged to act like professionals, and face
the possibility of having their license to operate as an LEO revoked for
misconduct rather than the present state of boys-club-protectionism.

~~~
ComodoHacker
I can totally understand you. I lived in a country where things are far worse.
False charges don't end up dismissed, people are sentenced to long prison
terms, their health fatally undermined, families ruined, etc., etc.

At first I was shocked than situation described in this topic is possible in
US. I mean not just the raid against activist, but the level of corruption
revealed by ExposeDAT.

But let's face the sad truth: the cost to society of having professional,
efficient and corruption-resistant police is unbearable too. At least for
large country like US. It's comparable to cost of having professional,
efficient and treason-resistant army, counted per one officer/soldier. But you
need much more police officers than soldiers. You have to apply very strict
selection and certification to ensure only most honest, incorruptible and
motivated people are at service. You just won't find enough people, especially
in economically depressed regions.

This all doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't improve the situation, of course.

~~~
ahlatimer
> At least for large country like US. It's comparable to cost of having
> professional, efficient and treason-resistant army, counted per one
> officer/soldier. But you need much more police officers than soldiers.

You could certainly argue that there _ought_ to be more policy officers than
soldiers, but the military is currently quite a bit larger. The projected
number of active duty military members is 1,301,300, with an additional
811,000 in the reserves [1]. The sources for the number of policy officers
were around 800,000-900,00. Wikipedia has it pegged at 809,308 for 2008 [2].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers)

~~~
ComodoHacker
Wow, didn;t know that. Thanks for clarifying.

------
apathy
I was surprised when I read this, but only because the sheriff wasn't Joe
Arpaio. Certain law enforcement officers apparently receive training in How to
Ignore the Constitution and Laws of the State and Country That You Swore to
Uphold these days, perhaps in place of the former training for responsible use
of firearms. This is unfortunate.

On the other hand, it IS Louisiana, the home of such great statesmen as
"Dollar" Bill Jefferson and Ray Nagin, whose service the federal government
now honors by providing them with round the clock housing and sustenance.

------
otterley
I'm surprised the judge issued a warrant for this, in light of the
Constitutional issues involved here -- but unfortunately I'm not aware of any
way to sanction a judge for doing so; the only remedy for a defective warrant
is suppression of evidence obtained from it.

Unfortunately, Constitutional protections are only a defense to libel, so the
prima facie case can still be made, and the warrant could technically still
issue.

Sigh. The law sucks sometimes.

~~~
imaginenore
A lawsuit against the city / state is the mechanism. If it becomes too
expensive because of some dumb judge, the judge gets removed.

The downside, of course, is that you have to use the judicial system to
achieve it.

~~~
jwatte
In America, justice may sometimes be available, to those who can afford to pay
for it.

------
walrus01
Louisiana, its politics and law enforcement are basically a third world
country. It's as corrupt if not more than the city politics and criminal
politicians in Chicago and Detroit. Can't say I'm surprised.

------
TeMPOraL
... thus proving the point.

~~~
zymhan
While discovering irony in the process.

------
e40
Didn't the sheriff just prove he was corrupt?

------
otterley
Primary source: [http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/terrebonne-sheriff-raids-
hou...](http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/terrebonne-sheriff-raids-house-to-
expose-esposedat-anti-corruption-blog-1/286912409)

------
ccleve
Can someone explain what "criminal defamation" is? Is that even a thing?

In what circumstances is it a crime to defame someone, and not merely a cause
of action in a civil suit?

~~~
pravda
It used to be a thing, but at this point there are very few states with
criminal defamation laws on the books.

Here is Virginia's

"§ 18.2-417. Slander and libel.

Any person who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and publish, of
and concerning any female of chaste character, any words derogatory of such
female's character for virtue and chastity, or imputing to such female acts
not virtuous and chaste, or who shall falsely utter and speak, or falsely
write and publish, of and concerning another person, any words which from
their usual construction and common acceptation are construed as insults and
tend to violence and breach of the peace or shall use grossly insulting
language to any female of good character or reputation, shall be guilty of a
Class 3 misdemeanor."

So don't be throwing around the 'ho word about your ex-girlfriend!

------
ajmurmann
That's exactly the kind of stuff that in my opinion the death penalty should
be used for.

Edit: if what you are saying is true that's exactly the kind of behaviour
that's undermining our entire justice system and faith in the government and
the system as a whole.

~~~
dang
This sort of rhetoric damages the quality we're hoping for here. Having a
civil, substantive discussion about something mostly isn't compatible with
advocating death for it.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238910](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238910)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
tamana
In US law, treason is punishable by death. Abusing a government role
undermines the legitimacy of gover and so is arguably treason (it isn't under
current law, but some like GP believe it should be)

~~~
zymhan
"undermining the legitimacy of gover [sic]" is far too squishy of a reason to
execute someone. You need to prove that by killing them, society is better off
than if we'd kept them in maximum security for the rest of their natural life.

~~~
Karunamon
I'm generally against the death penalty, but I'm definitely open to
reconsidering that stance when it comes to _willful and egregious_ nonsense
like this.

