Police Step Up Arrests For 'Threatening' Social Media Posts In The Wake Of The Dallas Shooting

from the civil-liberties-v.-kneejerking dept

In a move that's sure to only increase the nation's respect for law enforcement, police departments have been arresting people for "threatening" social media posts. This activity follows the tragedy in Dallas, where five police officers were killed by a man armed with a rifle. Naomi LaChance of The Intercept has more details.

Four men in Detroit were arrested over the past week for posts on social media that the police chief called threatening. One tweet that led to an arrest said that Micah Johnson, the man who shot police officers in Dallas last week, was a hero. None of the men have been named, nor have they been charged.

Four more arrests have occurred elsewhere:

Last weekend in Connecticut, police arrested Kurt Vanzuuk after a tip for posts on Facebook that identified Johnson as a hero and called for police to be killed. He was charged with inciting injury to persons or property.

An Illinois woman, Jenesis Reynolds, was arrested for writing in a Facebook post that she would shoot an officer who would pull her over. “I have no problem shooting a cop for simple traffic stop cuz they’d have no problem doing it to me,” she wrote, according to the police investigation. She was charged with disorderly conduct.

In New Jersey, Rolando Medina was arrested and charged with cyber harassment. He allegedly posted on an unidentified form of social media that he would destroy local police headquarters. In Louisiana, Kemonte Gilmore was arrested for an online video where he allegedly threatened a police officer. He was charged with public intimidation.

Arresting people for speech is problematic, especially when the content of the communications doesn't rise to the level of a "true threat." The Supreme Court's Elonis decision says this distinction is important. It's not enough for a person or persons to subjectively view the communication as threatening. It needs to be viewed through the "reasonable person" lens.

In these cases, perception appears to be everything. In the wake of the Dallas shooting, it's entirely normal for police officers to view the world a little differently. But this altered view -- one that's likely to be less skewed as time goes on -- can't be allowed to override the First Amendment and deprive individuals of their freedom to speak, not to mention their actual freedom.

And just as certainly as law enforcement officers and officials are likely to view certain acts of blowhardiness as threatening in the immediate aftermath of a shooting targeting police officers, certain citizens are likely to vent their frustration and anger in particularly stupid ways, but without the intention or ability to carry out the perceived threat. Caution should be exercised on both sides of the interaction. However, those with the power to arrest, detain, and charge citizens for stupidity should be the more cautious of the two parties -- simply because they still hold the power, despite recent events.

Those in power should also take care to carry this out with some sort of consistency, if that's the route they're choosing to take. It can't just be deployed against a bunch of nobodies who mouthed off about their contempt for law enforcement. If this is how it's going to be handled, those who speak with the same rhetoric in defense of law enforcement need to be held accountable. Former congressional rep Joe Walsh tweeted out that this was now "war on Obama" after the Dallas shootings and yet no one showed up at his door to arrest him for threatening the President. It's bad enough that power is being misused to silence criticism of law enforcement violence. It's even worse when this power is deployed in a hypocritical fashion.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: arrests, dallas, free speech, law enforcement, police, shootings, social media

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Joe K, 15 Jul 2016 @ 10:36am

    Re: It should never have come to this

    Anonymous Coward:

    But: try to find one active-duty cop who will condemn another for a shooting, ANY shooting, of ANYONE -- no matter how egregious, no matter how much video evidence, no matter how unprovoked, no matter ANYTHING.

    There are no good cops until and unless they call out bad cops. Their responsibility to society, as public servants, must overrule their loyalty to their fellow officers.

    Until that happens, and happens on a large scale, this is only going to get worse.

    I don't, myself, know a lot of cops, so I won't attempt to confirm or dispute your perception.

    But for the sake of argument, let's suppose your perception does reflect reality. Doesn't that imply that these abuses are institutionalized behavior? Doesn't power in a police department flow top-down?

    Shouldn't we hold those with relatively more power to change things within that hierarchy more responsible than the foot-soldiers who merely execute policies crafted by their superiors (and, presumably, will be punished for failing to do so)?

    I'm not saying give the grunts, the good Germans, a pass. Far from it.

    But at the same time, let's not ignore those who wield more power: The more generalised a particular behavior is, among a top-down institution's members, the more that institution's authorities are responsible for it.

    An article by one Ken Lawrence was published in 1985 (the text of which can be found online here, at archive.org), called The New State Repression.

    It contains discussion of a text, apparently prepared for a course administered circa 1974 by Louis Giuffrida's CSTI (California Specialized Training Institute), titled "Civilian Violence and Terrorism: Officer Survival and Internal Security".

    Lawrence's article contains ostensible quotes from the CSTI text that are relevant here. Here is one such excerpt:

    Most students of revolution would agree that "peaceful dissent" is the first step toward revolution and that this new trend signals the opening phases of the "new revolution."

    These issues, be they social, cultural, political, or economic, snowball and often appear to the casual observer as being full of truth and at least justified.

    In short--it is fashionable to direct sneers, threats, and even open hostility toward the policeman. He is, symbolically at least, everything that is wrong with society.

    When the necessary respect and reverence are destroyed, violence, as we know it, will be heroism.

    Regarding that "necessary respect and reverence":

    1. There is a cost to passing unenforceable laws. There is a cost to institutionalizing the selective enforcement of those same laws. Sanctioning highway robbery, and calling it asset forfeiture, has a cost.

    2. There is a cost to making the application of deadly force, and threats of the same, so defining a characteristic of police work that a cop without a gun becomes as inconceivable as Santa Claus without a big sack of presents.

    3. There is a cost to permitting, if not indeed outright encouraging, cadres of white supremacists to serve in the police force.

    4. There is a cost to building enormous concentration camps (a.k.a. prisons) and telling police, prosecutors, and judges that their job is to fill them, by hook or by crook, with the lumpenproletariat, while at the same time enacting economic policies that ensure the growth of that very underclass.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.