Simple: For the exact same reason antispam DNSBLs exist: Marketing is full of sociopaths who believe their rights trump everyone else's and that they're fully entitled to operate cost-shifted models (ie, you're paying for the computer CPU and bandwidth needed to download and display the ads, plus run any payloads they may contain)
Spammers tried suing over block/boycott lists. It didn't work out so well for them and it won't work out so well if advertisers try going down the same route.
There's a world of difference between website operators running adverts to offset costs and blindly selling space for adverts which consume excess resources on the client computer.
And in all liklihood has been rehired somewhere else.
Quitting allows bad cops to change location with no further penalties.
Tracking him may well become difficult and should his new employers (the city, not the cops there) become aware of his history after he's hired, it may well prove nearly impossible to get rid of him until he pulls another inexcusable stunt in front of cameras.
"That simply allows anyone to censor literally anything they want by claiming it is defamatory."
Firstly: Defamation claims are the one area of law where _everything_ goes topsy-turvy.
A: You either have to prove what was uttered was true and in the public interest (in some countries even that isn't enough. Defamation is frequently upheld in many countries despite statements being provably true, on the basis that they injured public opinion of the plaintiff)
B: prove that you didn't utter it at all. (proving a negative...)
It's like bring in the court of the red queen.
Secondly: Republishing defamatory material is also defamation and makes the republisher liable.
Thirdly: The defamed is free to pick and choose who he goes after. (yes really)
Fourthly: In most countries (including Canada), republication restarts the limitations timer and several countries have ruled that each successive web visit is a new publication.
Fifthly: Even publishing the accusations made by the plaintiff's lawyers may count against you in court.
Defamation actions are almost entirely about who has deeper pockets - and of course in the USA there's no concept of "loser pays", even for vexatious actions.
"It seems that the standard method for eradicating from the internet all types of surreptitiously recorded content is by firing off DMCA claims aimed at all the hosting providers such as YouTube."
Making such claims is running very close to the perjury provisions in the DMCA. I know that "big media" do an end run around that by not actually claiming copyright over the item in question but small fry won't usually be smart enough to do that.
I'd love to see a DMCA perjury case actually hit the courts. It'd definitely be popcorn time.
"But if you exclude truth and justice from the court room, what's the point of having a court in the first place?"
Sorry, you are confused.
It's not a justice system. It never was a justice system.
It's a LEGAL system. Justice only peripherally enters the frame. This is pretty much the first thing taught in Introductory Law 101
WRT the "slanderous" statements - as far as I can tell those would be the previous judgements quoted on those sites and as such they're legally protected reports of events in a courtroom (You are immune from defamation proceedings for anything uttered in court or in parliament/congress - yes, really)
All he (or his union) had to do is keep fighting it every step of the way.
The point being that each go-around adds a couple of months - and this has nothing to do with legal systems as it didn't go through the courts.
By the way, the fact that he's been allowed to resign instead of being fired means that he doesn't have an official blot on his copybook which in turn means that he's likely to be able to walk into a LEO job next week. This happens regularly as there is no register of corrupt officials anywhere in the world. (The cop fired in Ferguson is already working in another police department, The county clerk fired for refusing to sign off on marriage certificates for gay couples is now working in the same position one county over. Cops allowed to resign in England for abuse of power simply sign up for another police department elsewhere in the country and carry on.)
One of the _untapped_ powers of the Internet is that such people can now be tracked by the general public and their new employers called out on it. Of course this will never happen as anyone operating such a tracking site will be harrassed to death.
Given the gloating, it would be karma for the department to now try to recover the monies paid out.
More to the point, this shows the power of police unions is on par with other corrupt entities such as teamsters and as such needs investigating.
(Most unions are "good" and don't try to pull this stuff. The bad ones like this give power to those who wish to eliminate unions altogether)
Covering for bad cops makes the cops involved bad cops too. It's clear that investigations of the entire setup are needed. Bad cops are why people don't trust police. Where else can you avoid criminal prosecution _and_ get a paid holiday _and_ get a pension to boot? not even the mafia offer that.
"In 1986 TVNZ took all music shows off the air following a dispute with record companies, who were demanding payment for video clips that were becoming increasingly expensive to produce. TVNZ refused to pay to screen them on the grounds that this was ‘a form of sales promotion’. The dispute was resolved by the end of the year and the shows returned to air. "
That "dispute was resolved" is putting it nicely.
The record companies _begged_ TVNZ to air music videos again as sales had fallen substantially (lack of exposure, plus the record-buying public put the blame for not seeing music videos firmly on the shoulders of the music industry.)
Several weeks before the end of the dispute, TVNZ was paid full commercial advertising rates to air Michael Jackson's "Thriller" during an ad break in the 6pm news. It was subsequently aired several more times as a paid advert.
That's not just a surrender, it's a full scale crying of "Uncle!"
It's virtually impossible to have someone declared vexatious on a couple of cases, although individual cases can be declared vexatious - which normally results in the other party getting a judgement for all costs and ancilliaries.
Once someone's declared as a vexatious litigant they have to apply for and get court clearance for anything which might possibly be remotely construed as a legal threat and such orders usually bind for 20 years.
I've only ever seen one person declared vexatious and it effectively barred him from saying anything without court clearance. He was in court a few months later on contempt charges and the judge's ruled pretty much disembowelled him (it's amazing what a pissed off judge can order, even against a lawyer, if sufficiently irritated)