Label Exec Arrested For Not Using Twitter To Disperse Crowd At Mall To See Singer

from the what's-the-charge-there? dept

Peter Kafka has an odd story about an executive at Island Def Jam Recods, James Roppo, who was supposedly arrested for not using Twitter to get crowds to disperse at a Long Island mall, after they had gathered to see singer Justin Bieber:
Police arrested a senior vice president from Bieber's label, Island Def Jam Records, James A. Roppo, 44, of Hoboken, N.J., saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating.

He was in custody Friday night, pending charges that could include criminal nuisance, endangering the welfare of a minor and obstructing government administration, Smith said.

"We asked for his help in getting the crowd to go away by sending out a Twitter message," Smith said. "By not cooperating with us we feel he put lives in danger and the public at risk."
Now, that's quite a charge to make: that by not following police orders to send out Twitter messages you were "obstructing government administration" or involved in "criminal nuisance." Of course, the case may be made even more difficult because, as Kafka notes, Bieber's Twitter account actually did warn people to leave. Still, it makes you wonder how they get "not Twittering on command" to stick as a crime.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 12:28pm

    Er...

    I'm going to be severely disappointed if this isn't immediately tossed out and sanctions applied. Since when did Good Samaritan laws reverse so as to be compulsatory upon police request? Isn't a person's twitter account their property in so much as a telephone line is? If the police had found someone injured and shouted, "Call 911!", would he be legally required to do so?

    Or, perhaps a better example, if a policeman or policewoman attempt to commandeer your vehicle in order to pursue a fleeing suspect, and you refuse, are you charged w/Obstruction, or anything similar?

    When the police started wearing dark colors instead of that friendly sky blue they used to wear, they seemed to have gone from good guys to gestapo....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 12:32pm

    Papers, please. Tell your followers to disperse. That's an order. Twitter it. Now. Refusing an officer of the law? Don't make me break out my taser. Twitter it. What do you mean you don't have a twitter account?

    Well, all that means is you're going to jail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 12:33pm

    Wow, well I can see from the video in the mediamemo article why the police felt persuaded to charge the guy.

    I mean swarms of teenage girls are scary force to be reckoned with

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Joseph Durnal, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 12:47pm

    It depends

    I couldn't dig up all the details, but, for example, if the event in question was organized with twitter, and the authorities already had the right to have the crowd disperse, then it would be a reasonable to have the organizers to use twitter to help disperse the crowd.

    Take the high tech out of it. If someone uses a bullhorn and gets the crowd out of control, but wouldn't use it to calm the situation, they'd be in the wrong. Of course, in this case, any officer could just use the bullhorn, they might not be able to tweet something that the crowd is watching.

    The right and wrong of this situation will be in the often unreported details.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Ryan, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 12:53pm

    Re: It depends

    for example, if the event in question was organized with twitter

    If someone uses a bullhorn and gets the crowd out of control

    Notice the difference--organizing an event is not the same thing as inciting a mob riot.

    I don't really see any forthcoming details such that this guy was not actively stirring the crowd and yet was charged with all that merely because he didn't send a twitter message. If that's what happened, then this is a pretty clear-cut case of abuse of authority.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 12:59pm

    Re:

    We need back up! they are brandishing Bratz Dolls, making high pitched squeekie noises, and blowing pink bubbles out of chewing gum.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:04pm

    Well, that's one record company that won't be at the Obama's ACTA Hollywood Tent Party.

    Oh wait, UMG is on the list. If we're lucky, they'll talk about Cher's royalty problems and how they're going to fix it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:06pm

    Re: It depends

    I couldn't dig up all the details, but, for example, if the event in question was organized with twitter, and the authorities already had the right to have the crowd disperse, then it would be a reasonable to have the organizers to use twitter to help disperse the crowd.

    That doesn't necessarily follow.

    If the event was organized by printing fliers and distributing them around town, would it be reasonable to require the organizer to disburse the crowd by printing up a batch of fliers indicating the event's been canceled?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:12pm

    Re: It depends

    I thought law enforncement was trained in crowd dispersion? If a cop told me to move it along, I probably would. If I received a twitter message telling me to move it along? From not-a-cop?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Moron N Ahurry, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:13pm

    Duh!

    Of course they can charge you with whatever they want!

    Heck, they can arrest you now for not paying a gratuity, even tho the definition of gratuity is:

    1)a relatively small amount of money given for services rendered (as by a waiter)
    2)an award (as for meritorious service) given without claim or obligation

    1) If they weren't rendered the proper serivce, it's void

    2) It was obviously obligatory, so wasn't a true gratuity, so they didn't order it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Michaelk42, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:16pm

    Compelled speech?

    I'm really pretty sure the government can't compel speech, re: First Amendment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:22pm

    Teenage girls just spent $140 million watching a crappy movie. Probably multiple times. You do NOT mess with teenage girls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:23pm

    The things people post on here, sheesh...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re:

    You mean they have deadly weapons as well as non-lethal acoustic deterents and non-lethal sticky weapons. The exec was encouraging the shrill mob to take over the mall. We as police had to act.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Compelled speech?

    I'm really pretty sure the government can't compel speech, re: First Amendment.

    I'm really pretty sure the government can compel pretty much whatever it wants these days, re: The Living Constitution

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Sergio, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:49pm

    Did they expect that to work?

    Is there something I'm missing here? Last time I checked Twitter does not hook up directly to your brain and I know I'm not in the habbit of constantly checking the twitters that I follow, especially if I'm attending an event. How did the police think that would have ANY impact on crowd control?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:55pm

    Re:

    Well, when you compare it to the things people actually go out and Do...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Julie, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 1:55pm

    How nice. Since when did it become law to use Twitter.

    www.twitter.com/gertiesays

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 2:11pm

    Re:

    The things people do that get them posted about on here, sheesh...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Er...

    Sanctions? How does that work against the police? Courts can sanction attorneys, but the police are independent of the courts. Explain please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 2:15pm

    Re: Re:

    I know I would be frightened. Ever seen "Lord of the Flies"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 2:19pm

    Re: Re: It depends

    Have you tried to disperse a mob of teenage girls? Easier to herd cats. Given the mentality of many young girls, I suspect they might well tell the officer to "bite me" and other similar phrases hardly encouraging of crowd dispersal. I saw an episode of Mall Cops not too long ago where a bunch of teenage girls discovered that only 500 people were going to be able to see some "star" (another of those cookie-cutter corporate stars that I know nothing about). It was getting ugly in spite of attempts to get people to disperse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re: Er...

    "Sanctions? How does that work against the police? Courts can sanction attorneys, but the police are independent of the courts. Explain please."

    Here are examples of courts filing sanctions against police departments:

    http://www.mlnlaw.com/2009/11/motion-requests-sanctions-against.html

    http://www.j stor.org/pss/793655

    http://www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/tickets/050604_folo.shtml

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    michaelk42 (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 2:55pm

    Re: Re: Compelled speech?

    I really hope you're joking. Courts rule against compelled speech more often than not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 3:01pm

    Thou shalt Twitter!

    It must have been on the third tablet that broke when Moses came off the mountain - Thou shalt Twitter!

    When doing nothing is a crime, we are all in trouble!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    vyvyan, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 3:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Compelled speech?

    What happened to you've a right to remain silent?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    vyvyan, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 3:07pm

    Re:

    In Australia it is legit to summon on Twitter/Facebook.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    danny (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 3:09pm

    It's Kafka-esque (ok, somebody had to say it)

    Clearly there is a lot more going on here than Mike had access to.

    Granted, "refusing to Twitter" is not a crime. But the fact that the police knew to ask this guy to tweet a disperse message implies there was a history to their interactions. They knew he had the Twitter account; and they knew a sizable portion of the audience was following it.

    The fact they they arrested him suggests there was a strong difference of opinion between Kafka and the police about getting the crowd dispersed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Lonzo5 (profile), Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 3:18pm

    Let's get real...

    This is very typical. We're under no obligation to comply with a peace officer's diktats; if he wants something done, he'll make it happen through force or the threat thereof. If he wants us arrested for doing nothing, then he will manufacture a crime. If this incident becomes subject to investigation, it will doubtless be found that this officer was acting well within the law, regardless of what said law actually states. This is not a nation of laws, but of enforcers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 4:36pm

    Re: Compelled speech?

    I'm really pretty sure the government can't compel speech, re: First Amendment.

    That's the theory, practice is different.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Ryan Diederich, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 5:21pm

    I dont see how anyone can feel that this guy did the right thing here.

    There were lives at risk, the police found a way to control the crowd, and this guy refused to help them get the job done.

    This guy obviously made the wrong choice, he should be punished for at least something. When it gets to the point that people are going to get hurt, you should do what police say.


    If this case gets tossed out, we might as well make it legal to break out of jail and kill people, because really, why should someone be able to tell you not to do it?

    /sarcasm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 5:46pm

    Re:

    "If this case gets tossed out, we might as well make it legal to break out of jail and kill people, because really, why should someone be able to tell you not to do it?"

    Murder is against the law. Not sending out a twitter isn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 7:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Not sending out a twitter isn't.

    Unless a cop tells you to, then it apparently is.

    BTW, you may have missed the /sarcasm tag in the parent post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Dohn Joe, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 7:41pm

    Re: Er...

    Ain't THAT the truth...almost as if a separate training regime had begun ;- )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 8:18pm

    "Still, it makes you wonder how they get "not Twittering on command" to stick as a crime. "

    Because we're slaves to the government and we must do what they tell us when they tell us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 8:21pm

    Re:

    I think they would kill us with the mere volume of their gossiping. I'm surprised they haven't already overloaded the Internet with gossip and caused every ISP to go out of business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 8:24pm

    Also, if this person is responsible for not twittering then Wal Mart should be responsible for improper crowd control.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,458744,00.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:25am

    Re: It's Kafka-esque (ok, somebody had to say it)

    Or, that this guy simply was thinking "You really damned well think that a Twitter message is going to disperse this crowd? As IF!"

    I've seen the videos of the crowd... while not TOTALLY out of control... it was close. One thing you do NOT want to do is get between teenage girls and their pretty boy idols... unless you wish to be trampled.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:29am

    Re: Re: Re: It depends

    No, it is not 'easier to herd cats'. I've been in places where teenage boys and girls were in a mob like this..... it is VERY easy to disperse them IF YOU TELL THEM THAT THE EVENT HAS BEEN CANCELED!
    The question here is: why was the event canceled? And second: Did the police have any damned right to cancel it? I'd have to say.......... NO, to that second question!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:30am

    Re: Duh!

    No, they cannot. Gratuity means OPTIONAL, and any place that tried to have you arrested for not giving someone that, would be closed down by the police IMMEDIATELY and/or the people WHO WORKED FOR THE RESTAURANT or business ARRESTED IMMEDIATELY!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:32am

    Re: Did they expect that to work?

    That is the big question. The police, if this case goes to court, are going to have some 'splaining to do, Lucy!'
    That's the bottom line here: Police are IN THE WRONG and they are going to be smacked for it in any non-Texas court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:32am

    Re: Re: Duh!

    No, they cannot. Gratuity means OPTIONAL, and any place that tried to have you arrested for not giving someone that, would be closed down by the police IMMEDIATELY and/or the people WHO WORKED FOR THE RESTAURANT or business ARRESTED IMMEDIATELY!

    Or... not:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20091119_College_students_arrested_for_not_paying _tip.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:34am

    Re: Thou shalt Twitter!

    Well, to play Devil's Advocate... it already IS a crime to not report to the police a crime in question that you see.
    They have gotten quite a few people for 'accomplice after the fact' for that..... though I always thought those laws were BS, to be blunt, and should be thrown OUT OF LAW.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Duh!

    And once this goes through the courts... the police are going to be smacked, the establishment is going to be smacked (and told that they CANNOT make an optional thing mandatory, which would be like a car dealer INSISTING that I get all my warranty work done there when the law says I can do otherwise), and these people are going to be paid off by the establishment to not file a lawsuit against them.

    You forget that some stupid things can be done.. but then, people get thrown in jail for doing them, including cops!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:38am

    Re: Re: Compelled speech?

    Nope, practice is not different. Almost every time where the police have tried to compel speech or arrested someone for not saying something they wanted them to say..... BOOM! The courts have come down on the police like a 10 KILO-TON weight on their fingers.

    Unless, you are in someplace that thinks that "The 50 is always right!" like Texas. Even Texas has had federal judges get on their case in the past 30 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:43am

    Re:

    He didn't refuse to help.... he REFUSED to do something that was not going to have one itty bit of affect on the crowd.

    It's like forcing me to ride my bike on a tightrope to try to help someone who is dangling 40 feet BELOW where I could reach with my arm held off said bike!

    When something would have NO LEGITIMATE EFFECT, the police cannot force you to do it. And, in fact, the police have been told MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times..... that they CANNOT force a political leader or someone else to order their followers to disperse.

    They tried arguing that in federal court when I was still in elementary school 18 years ago..... and they LOST THE CASE.

    It wouldn't be a BIG stretch to extend those protections to the person who planned a LEGAL EVENT.

    Not to mention, there is going to be some questions as to whether the police had any right to order these people to disperse in the first place.

    Oh, and stop with the hysterical argument that you make. Sarcasm or not, some of the mentally impeded on the internet would actually think you are serious with that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:46am

    Re: Re:

    And Australia was stupid for making that legit. You should have to GO TO THE PERSON'S HOUSE, because you don't know whether: 1. Their internet has been cut off, 2. That they are away from home at the time the Twitter is sent out, 3. That they have made ANOTHER account and are not using that account anymore, etc. etc. etc.

    The police or a process server should have to go to the person's home or they should have to send something that cannot 'get lost in the interbutt' like a registered letter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Nov 24th, 2009 @ 12:49am

    Re: Let's get real...

    Unfortunately, sometimes that is true. However, a lot of cops when they see something like this facepalm and say "Those cops give people like me an EXTREMELY bad name! Tch..... and they wonder why no one trusts us!"

    This is a 'nation of laws', but you are right... the enforcers are out of control, and the laws give them WAAAAAAY too much leeway on their behavior.

    It basically takes them SHOOTING AN KILLING AN UNARMED 2 YEAR OLD before they are smacked down WITH JAIL TIME like they should be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 24th, 2009 @ 1:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

    And once this goes through the courts... blah blah blah...

    Keep telling yourself that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 24th, 2009 @ 2:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Compelled speech?

    Nope, practice is not different. Almost every time where the police have tried to compel speech or arrested someone for not saying something they wanted them to say..... BOOM! The courts have come down on the police like a 10 KILO-TON weight on their fingers.

    See what you're saying? You're talking about what may or may not happen *after* the fact while admitting that it actually does occur. Or try telling someone sitting in jail for refusing to comply that they aren't really sitting in jail. Maybe they could explain the difference between theory and practice to you.

    And as for that "10 KILO-TON weight", you mean those little wrist slaps they get? As this story proves, they obviously haven't been enough stop it, have they?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 24th, 2009 @ 2:53am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, and stop with the hysterical argument that you make. Sarcasm or not, some of the mentally impeded on the internet would actually think you are serious with that.

    That's funny. Someone who was preaching about free speech rights now trying to tell people what they can say. Hypocrite much?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 24th, 2009 @ 3:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

    In this case, the students are going to lose. Calling it a gratuity does not change the fact that it is a payment for services that is listed on the menu with the other pricing.

    A car dealership can charge you up front for all of your service by adding $10k to the price of the car when you buy it and then demand that you have all of the already paid for service done there. You as a consumer can go elsewhere if you do not like their terms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 24th, 2009 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Duh!

    This is all dependent on state law. In Nebraska, for example, it is illegal to make a gratuity compulsory. They can add it to your receipt, but if you demand to have it removed, the restaurant must oblige, even if the menu says "a gratuity will be added..." I only had to take advantage of that law one time, but I was really pissed after seeing a 20% gratuity for the second-worst service I had ever received.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This