Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers

from the blue-lives-so-frail dept

The Louisiana legislature decided to help out its most underprivileged constituents -- law enforcement officers -- by making it a felony to "attack" them using nothing more than words.

When New Orleans police officers arrived at the scene of a disturbance to arrest an intoxicated man for banging on a hotel's windows and harassing the employees, the situation devolved into the totally expected.

According to arrest documents, Delatoba was drunk and banging on a window at the Royal Sonesta Hotel, 300 Bourbon St. around 5:15 a.m. Monday, when a witness who heard the banging told him to stop. Delatoba's warrant says he yelled at the witness, "calling him a n-----."

That witness, a security guard who works at a nearby building's mezzanine, along with a security supervisor for the Royal Sonesta, flagged down two Louisiana State Troopers who then escorted Delatoba to NOPD's 8th District station, the warrant states. Once at the station, the warrant states, Delatoba began to verbally "attack members of the New Orleans Police Dept." The warrant states Delatoba called one female officer a "dumb a-- c---" and another officer a "dumb a-- n-----."

In a shocking twist, an intoxicated man was rude and uncooperative while being arrested. (Have these cops never watched "COPS?") So of course the New Orleans police took it upon themselves to be legally offended by the sort of invective they hear from arrestees all the time. The state's hate crime law expansion allowed them to tack on additional charge after the arrest -- a felony with a potential five-year prison sentence.

Fortunately, the district attorney isn't nearly as thin-skinned as the overprotected cops. This decision was probably preceded by some heartfelt eye rolling and several rewritten statements to eliminate every last trace of derision.

Assistant District Attorney Christopher Bowman, a spokesman for Cannizzaro's office, said Monday (Oct. 24) the police officers Raul Delatoba cursed at were not victims of the crime that prompted his arrest initially. Rather, the "disparaging remarks" to officers were made during or after he was apprehended. The office officially refused the charges about two weeks ago.

After a bit of hindsight, the police department officially agrees with the DA's decision.

Additionally, NOPD spokesman Tyler Gamble said Sept. 8 that after reviewing the case, it was "clear that the responding officer incorrectly applied" the hate crime law.

But it's important to note that wasn't always the case. When the "incorrectly applied law" first came up, the NOPD shrugged and said it was up to the DA to figure out how much bullshit was contained in the bullshit charge.

This is exactly the sort of ridiculousness everyone but the supporters of the bill saw coming. Give law enforcement a law to abuse and they'll abuse it. The New Orleans police can now arrest people for calling them names -- not really the sort of thing the power of law enforcement should be used for. What they can't do is tack a charge on if they feel insulted in the process of arresting someone for unrelated offenses. At least not in New Orleans. The law is effective statewide, and there's no guarantee every government prosecutor will view it the way Cannizzaro's office did.

Hate crime laws are generally vaguely written and overbroad, but ones that append "blue lives matter" wording are even worse. They extend protection to historically privileged and powerful people and make it that much easier to slap "disrespectful" arrestees with felony charges. It's nothing more than a vehicle for abuse and does absolutely nothing to foster a healthy relationship between police officers and the communities they serve.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 4:01pm

    What the hell was the purpose of this law?

    Obviously, this law shouldn't be used to make speech against police illegal. There's a clear difference between saying Jewish people are engaged in a conspiracy to control the country and should be dealt with (hate speech), and saying that police are out of control and need to be held accountable (free speech, and also true). But then the law is just for actual actions against police. Was there an epidemic of people assaulting or murdering police, being convicted, but being sentenced too lightly so they needed another charge to add? I do not think so. Especially as the murder rate of law enforcement is at its lowest rate ever.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 4:06pm

      Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

      Well lets make this clear, you say one is hate speech and the other is not.

      I say both are hate speech and worthy of the death penalty. If I get into power, you have not standing against me because you have already decided it is okay to outlaw some forms of speech because YOU don't like it. Now that I am in power, I can decide I don't like what YOU say.

      Everyone gets free speech or this does not work. Just remember that if next time you open you mouth and visit jail for it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 4:29pm

        Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

        Hey, I said it was hate speech, not necessarily that it should be illegal. But I think a reasonable person would agree that there's a better case for outlawing one compared to the other. There are obvious differences that make for legitimate principled reasons, and the slippery slope argument is disingenuous. Many free countries manage to outlaw hate speech against vulnerable groups like Jewish people without descending into fascist totalitarianism (see: Germany, Canada, etc.).

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 7:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

          You said should be dealt with. How else should that be taken?

          The point is that once you start allowing people to be 'dealt with' there is no end of that trouble. We must take action based on someone garbage face words.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 7:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

            Man I mangled that up, its been a mangle it up day for me.

            We must taken action based on someones action NOT their garbage faced words.

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

            • icon
              Richard (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 3:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

              We must taken action based on someones action NOT their garbage faced words.

              Actually there is a narrow category of words that do need to be legislated against - these are words that specifically threaten or encourage illegal violent acts.

              Name calling, or even making accusations against a group does not remotely qualify for this but if you stand up in front of a crowd and incite them to lynch someone then that does go beyond that which should be legal.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

            The "should be dealt with" was clearly part of the hypothetical hate speech. The hate speecher was saying the Jews "should be dealt with". Which you're apparently fine with. Not to go all Godwin's law, but Hitler started out with just speech. He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point. Do you really think that it would have been wrong to stop that, to make it illegal? Your claim that any effort to protect society from that automatically equals communist China and all its human rights abuses is ridiculous. You really need to look into Canada or Germany - nicer places to live that the USA right about now.

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

            • icon
              Richard (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 4:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

              but Hitler started out with just speech. He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point.

              and in many other instances in history that starting point has not led to what followed in Hitler's case. You are going a bit "pre-crime" here.

              The problem is that there are no "good guys" and "bad guys". As Solzhenitsyn said “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

              not everything that Hitler said or did was evil - and even less of it needed to be punished by the law.

              Unfortunately the law really should wait until the violence has actually happened - or at least until there has been a really clear and credible incitement before swinging into action -otherwise the law itself risks becoming guilty of a "hate crime".

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 7:45am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

                Wow, you're really taking a hard line if you want to say that Kristallnacht was the first time the law had any right to say anything about Hitler. I'd prefer not to wait until another one, but that's just me.

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

                • icon
                  Richard (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 8:18am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

                  I suggest you read the actual history.

                  Hitler was not "permitted to incite attacks against the Jews leading to Kristallnacht by free speech laws" because Hitler had already engineered the abolition of free speech laws five years earlier.

                  In fact free speech was an impediment to Hitler - not an enabler.

                  Plus - the Jews were not Hitler's first targets - his first targets were the communists.

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

            • icon
              Richard (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 8:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

              He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point. Do you really think that it would have been wrong to stop that, to make it illegal?

              But - he did that from a position of power - when there were no free speech rights. The fact is that most examples quoted as reasons for limiting free speech are misleading - for exactly that reason. Totalitarians don't get into power by "hate speech" - they get into power by first claiming victimhood and railing against other people's "hate speech" against them.

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

    • icon
      Groaker (profile), 10 Nov 2016 @ 6:18pm

      Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

      There are groups who have the inherent right to be free of being verbally offended, but I can,t think of one that exists now or ever.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 6:24pm

        Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

        It's not about being offended, it's about spreading ideas that lead to persecution. The problem isn't a member of that group hearing the speech and being offended. It's about other people hearing it and deciding to refuse to do business with members of that group, or even to attack them.

        Here's a free speech argument in favour of hate speech laws: spreading hate against Jewish people, saying they all have a secret plan to further their global conspiracy, deprives them of free speech. They can't even communicate without some people deriving a different, (fictional) hidden meaning to what they say publicly. Similarly, hate speech about women means that they often can't communicate refusal of consent - some men deny that's what women are doing when they say "no". Those things don't happen to police. Notice the police might not be *believed*, but that's different. They are successfully communicating, we understand what they're conveying and sometimes we reject it. The other groups can't even say what they are trying to say.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 7:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

          "Here's a free speech argument in favour of hate speech laws"

          A contradiction in terms. There is no way to have free speech and hate speech laws at the same time. You really need to read up on china. You way only leads to one thing.

          Yes, officer anything you say officer, I am sorry that you had to rape my daughter and shoot my son to teach me a lesson officer. I will not say another bad thing about anything you say I shouldn't.

          If you think that is even close to a fucking joke then you have not read much world history! The erosion of rights always starts somewhere.

          Today its to protect an abused minority, tomorrow you cannot say anything the state deems bad because someone might be offended by it, therefore hate speech! You snowflakes need to learn to handle a little verbal heat.

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

        • icon
          art guerrilla (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 3:48am

          Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

          geez, do we have to explain the principles of true free speech for the thousandth time ? ? ?
          i recall when i was young-n-stupid (repetitive redundancy alert), it took me a handful of days reading and re-reading a passage of chomsky trying to get my head around it... the bottom line is, YOU CAN NOT censor/stifle/restrict or otherwise hide people's speech because you don't like it...
          PER-I-FUCKING-OD...
          you MUST defend your worst enemies right to spout their most hateful, vile, disgusting words, OR YOU ARE NOT FOR FREE SPEECH...
          (NOTE: as chomsky had to make clear for the idiots in the studio audience: this does NOT MEAN you 'agree' with the speech, it merely means you defend their RIGHT to say stupid shit...)
          you are 'for' speech you like, you are 'for' pretty speech, you are 'for' speech you agree with, you are 'for' harmless speech; BUT YOU ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT FOR FREE SPEECH when you start down the idiotic road of 'hate speech' and 'hate crimes'...
          THERE IS NO SUCH THING: there are crimes, and there is hate: if someone murders me, do i really care if they loved me or hated me ? ? ? oh, you love me ? oh, okay, then murdering me was ok then... love you too ! ! ! xxoo
          don't be daft, punks...

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

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 4:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

            THERE IS NO SUCH THING: there are crimes, and there is hate: if someone murders me, do i really care if they loved me or hated me ? ? ? oh, you love me ? oh, okay, then murdering me was ok then... love you too ! ! ! xxoo don't be daft, punks...|

            Reminds me of the "Life on Mars" episode

            Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.

            Gene: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?

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

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 12:48am

      Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

      to remove citizens rights of course. To make people so afraid of the police that they will lick their boots to avoid being accused of anything that will get them sent to jail on the word of a criminal with a badge

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

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 10 Mar 2017 @ 4:35pm

      Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?

      If saying police should be held accountable when they break the law is hate speech and that hate speech is a felony, it would be impossible for a prosecutor to every prosecute a cop in Louisiana ever again.

      As soon as the cop was offended by the charges against him, the prosecutor would wind up in prison.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 5:02pm

    verbally attack

    oh, the horror.

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

  • identicon
    Unanimous Cow Herd, 10 Nov 2016 @ 5:10pm

    Hate crime laws

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 5:48pm

      Re: Hate crime laws

      The problem with hate crimes are that they incite further violence against members of the group they targeted. If I kill someone for sleeping with my wife, it doesn't threaten copycat attacks against anyone, and there's no group that has to live in fear (except maybe other people currently having an affair with my wife). If someone kills a muslim for being a muslim, all muslims live in fear of being targeted next. That's the difference.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 8:07pm

        Re: Re: Hate crime laws

        The only thing hate crime laws do is create a superior and inferior class to citizens.

        A class that can be disparage.
        A class that cannot be disparaged.
        A class with less protection.
        A class with more protection.

        It does not matter who that class is, any attempt to create that distinction is the absolute height of hubris, evil, and ignorance! You will only drive a wedge between the classes, the same way that political parties drive a wedge between the citizens.

        And since you are talking about creating a class divide and causing classes to begin to hate each other for having unequal rights you are engaging in that which you are running your filthy pie hole against! Talking about enacting hate speech laws immediately run afoul of the very laws you support.

        So step 1 after having enacted a hate crime law, go to jail because you have just incited violence against a class of people!

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 9:08pm

        Re: Re: Hate crime laws

        If someone kills a muslim for being a muslim? I think you've got who kills who for why a little mixed up there. Try: If a "muslim kills a non-muslim for being a non-muslim" because that scenario actually happens multiple times every day all over the world.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 2:15am

          Re: Re: Re: Hate crime laws

          Both happen every day. Both are wrong. If you think there's no violence targeted against muslims in the world, you're crazy. In Europe, in America, and in many parts of Asia. You just don't notice because you don't care.

          When muslims kill non-muslims, nobody calls it hate crime because we have another word for it, and another criminal charge that makes it worse - terrorism. That leaves people free to criticise hate-crime law. Nobody calls it terrorism when rednecks set fire to mosques. If you persecute that under anti-terrorism laws, fine, get rid of hate speech law. If you get rid of anti-terrorism law and persecute radical islamicist terrorism as hate crime, also fine. Just be consistent.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 4:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate crime laws

            Both happen every day.

            I think you need to justify that statement.

            How many actual instances of rednecks setting fire to mosques. can you actually quote?

            Even if you can finsd a few it is unlikely that you'll get anywhere near the number documented on this site:

            https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 7:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate crime laws

              What the hell is your point? That there "side" is worse than your "side"? I condemn violence from both groups, and many innocent muslim people do too. They shouldn't be blamed or victimized for acts committed by some completely different muslims they don't agree with and have never even met. You seem to be identifying with and defending violent people just because they're white christians. Extremists are the enemy, white extremists and muslim extremists alike. It's not christians vs. muslims, it's 2016 not 1095.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 8:01am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate crime laws

                If "their side" is, in fact, worse than "our side" then to propose an equivalence between them as you do is at best misleading.

                and many innocent muslim people do too. They shouldn't be blamed or victimized for acts committed by some completely different muslims they don't agree with and have never even met.

                Well, firstly, where did I say that individual muslims should be blamed for others' acts? You assumed that was my line - but it never was.

                Secondly the honest ones are also happy to admit that "their side" is worse than ours in other words they agree with me and not with you - for example:

                Finally, as a liberal Muslim who has experienced, first-hand, Islamic extremism in this world, I have been opposed to the decision by President Obama and the Democratic Party to tap dance around the “Islam” in Islamic State. Of course, Trump’s rhetoric has been far more than indelicate and folks can have policy differences with his recommendations, but, to me, it has been exaggerated and demonized by the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, their media channels, such as Al Jazeera, and their proxies in the West, in a convenient distraction from the issue that most worries me as a human being on this earth: extremist Islam of the kind that has spilled blood from the hallways of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai to the dance floor of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

                From the Washington post

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigr ant-i-voted-for-trump/

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 9:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate crime laws

                  I do not understand what your position is or what you think mine is. The "sides" being in quotes meant that I thought it was ridiculous to think there were those two sides. My point was, you can't dismiss my condemnation of anti-muslim violence by saying that muslim extremists do more violence, because those terrorists aren't on my "side". You seem to have doubled down on the claim that fundamentalist christians who attack muslims are on your side, and defend them by saying they're not as bad as "the other side". All I ever claimed was that non-muslims targeting muslims was every bit as bad as the reverse, and should be described in the same terms and be punished just as harshly, with the same charges. You claim that if there's less of them total then the same individual acts are not equivalent? Incomprehensible.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 12:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate crime laws

                    You seem to have doubled down on the claim that fundamentalist christians who attack muslims are on your side, and defend them by saying they're not as bad as "the other side"

                    Again I never said that. I was originally responding to the guy who said "both happen every day". Quite clearly they don't - or one of you would have come up with some evidence.

                    I never claimed that a fundamentalist Christian who attacked a Muslim would be somehow better or defendable. Incidentally, why did you insert the word "white" into the discussion? I didn't. Most Christians in the world are not white.

                    What I did say was that these events don't actually happen at a level where they constitute a real threat to anyone.

                    Go to the middle east or Pakistan or north africa - or even supposedly moderate Malaysia/Indonesia and try being a (non-white) Christian and you will find that there is a real threat.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 5:24pm

    Ouch. Whatever is going to foam at the mouth when he reads this.

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

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 10 Nov 2016 @ 6:48pm

    They extend protection to historically privileged and powerful people...

    That's not protection, merely another weapon for the "because i felt like it" arsenal. Codifying contempt of cop. Sort of like the arrested for resisting arrest gambit.

    Surely i would agree with slapping additional fines on someone who is belligerent, loud, and abusive because they are disturbing the peace - even inside police holding cell. Where there probably other people being held as well. But a five year felony sentence for saying something? WTF. Police or not.

    I suppose it is better than a beating, secret indefinite detention, or completely invented charges, which is what i imagine they think anyone dealing with police should fear already, and if they don't, they must be really dangerous people.

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

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 10 Nov 2016 @ 8:19pm

    Have these cops never watched "COPS?"

    My favorite lines from Cops:

    While it is taking 4 cops to handcuff a belligerent drunk: "Stop resisting!" Answer: "I'm not resisting!"

    When asked "Why were you running?" Answer: "Because you were chasing me"

    When a driver who is obviously hammered is asked "How much have you had to drink?" Answer: "Two beers"

    Charge the guy with drunk and disorderly but not for stupidity. Who hasn't done and said stupid things when drunk that they would never do sober?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2016 @ 11:42pm

    Maddness total maddness

    The idea that this hateful criminal should be let off of hating LEO's just because the choose at every point in their lives to be violent sociopaths, is incomprehensible hating cops is EXACTLY LIKE HATING BLACK PEOPLE.

    Oh wait that is completely false

    The police really did buy their ticket, they knew what they where signing on for.. wanting to change the rule because your a pathetic cowardly snowflate should be meet with prison, life for breach of trust, or since this is LA death since they like that almost as much as Texas.

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

  • identicon
    aLASTAIR, 11 Nov 2016 @ 12:47am

    They got it wrong

    That's where they got it wrong. They should have made sure that they accused him of "arresting arrest". Then the hate crime occurred during that particular crime

    High fives all round

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 6:48am

    Dear LEO,

    Repeat after me,
    stick and stones ....

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

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 11 Nov 2016 @ 10:56am

    Officer Snowflake I Presume

    Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers

    Those poor New Orleans police officers and their small fragile egos words can be so very hurtful.

    Perhaps the time has come to change New Orleans police shield design from a gold star/shield to a white snowflake.

    Maybe the city of New Orleans could add remedial nursery rhymes training for all new police officers. They could start with this time honored rhyme:

    Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.

    If you ever wonder why the US has the world's largest prison population both percentage wise and in persons incarcerated this "law" is another in a long line of inane mens rea lacking legal psychobabble that only serves in keeping prisons overflowing.

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

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 2:54pm

    Special-snowflake cops who can't be offended

    How did this turn into a discussion about free speech?

    The way I see is a drunk guy said some drunk things while he was drunk and the special-snowflake officers got offended by it. Whatever happened to just throwing the guy into the drunk tank over night, letting him sober up, and then letting him apologize for being a drunk idiot? Like other commenters are saying, did the guy really say anything that any other drunk person would say? And why aren't these officers trained to ignore the drunken rantings of people they're arresting.

    Here's a helpful hint: of course some people are going to be mad and unhappy about getting arrested, and they're going to complain about it.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Math Is Not A Crime
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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