CBS neglects to mention that the editor of the paper also said that Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody was also being investigated by the paper for claims of sexual harassment.
"EM: So the backstory that we haven't told, because we don't wanna get in trouble, is that we've been investigating the police chief [Gideon Cody]. When he was named Chief just two months ago, we got an outpouring of calls from his former co-workers making a wide array of allegations against him saying that he was about to be demoted at his previous job and that he retired to avoid demotion and punishment over sexual misconduct charges and other things.
We had half a dozen or more different anonymous sources calling in about that. Well, we never ran that because we never could get any of them to go on the record, and we never could get his personnel file. But the allegations—including the identities of who made the allegations—were on one of the computers that got seized. I may be paranoid that this has anything to do with it, but when people come and seize your computer, you tend to be a little paranoid." [0]
I am stunned at how this keeps getting more appalling.
The judge signing a search warrant without a probable cause affidavit, the judge issuing a search warrant against the press violating federal law, the connections between the court and the hotel that houses Keri Newell's restaurant, the batshit public response Keri Newell posted, the fact she got a liquor license with a DUI, a claim that she had her identity stolen at a city council meeting.
The fact the cops raided a paper for a story they didn't publish, even though they would have been fully protected to do so at all.
It's not being widely covered by a city council woman's house was also raided. They took her phone and computer as well, leaving her and her sick husband alone with no way to call for help. Cops are scum.
Marion is about 2 hours away from where I'm staying now. It might be a good thing I don't have a car. I'm furious. Going to be stopping by the KBI office today, I'm sure that's going to go well. (The KBI is under Kris Kobach and has said in response to this raid that "the press is not above the law".)
Yep, government officals and zero personal responsibility.
I have no idea why they get exempt from any kind of consequences for their actions, either private (getting sued) or criminal. Person X requested something without having probable cause, person Y signed that, both people have (or should have) the knowledge of what is needed to either sign or get the signature, neither did the required, both should lose their jobs and be liable for damages caused to the people affected. A bartender gets punished more for not checking IDs than those people.
Then who are these Americans? For sure, to be the kind of people who support sanctions on people in other country to motivate them to raise against their oppressors you look to suck big time in doing something against your oppressors who are apparently not representative of the people of the US of A. For how long we're working on forced tips? Police brutality? Public healthcare? Gun controls? Redistribution of wealth? To me it seems that there are a lot of things that americans don't want but are all there right now undisturbed regardless of the party in power that I think maybe the population of the US of A is just the plain shit we all see and have to deal with on daily basis (I wouldn't have anything against US of A if its policies wouldn't metastasizes to the rest of the western world or wouldn't be used to oppress people in non-western world)
throwing away your other points : there are a lot of factions to consider when thinking about why an internet post is or isn't a good indicator of a general consensus.
There are companies that exist only to advocate certain talking points across the span of the internet; that's their entire reason for existence. Police unions buy their services, protesting groups buy their services, political parties buy their services, gun rights and gun control advocates both buy their services alike. Their entire job is to posit certain points as loudly as they can on publicly visible medias, and cheerlead for 'their team' on certain talking points and defenses.
A popular public forum/chat/socialmediasite discussing loaded political topics will never be an indicator of the public at large because too much incentive exists for propagandists from every angle to game the system at such opportunities. Those voices with more money/backing/support will always drown out the true signal.
Thusly these samples that you're basing your entire take on a country filled with people are inherently flawed.
This seems to be getting a lot of national attention (good), and regardless of whatever comes of that (or the sexual harassment developments), I feel like at least they'll always be known in that town as the dirtbags who killed Mrs. Meyer and stole her Alexis.
In US, increasingly like Western Europe free speech is gaining the equivalence of safe speech. Speech where no one questions the authority or assumes the best of them. But first amendment was meant for hard speech. It wasn’t for speech that just merely assumes you have the right to go to a square and put up a sign. And in a culture like that, nation states can easily get away with this kind of behavior.
This is imagined nonsense.... The US has the most permissive definition of free speech in the world. Free speech is referring to freedom from government oppression, not freedom from societal consequences.
It's not really a question. It is government oppression since police are government employees. Whether their presence is specifically to suppress speech is another question.
Florida's don't say gay laws. Florida banning books. Florida's reprisals against Disney. Florida's 'anti-woke' laws whitewashing the history of slavery and racism in the US.
Probably not at the level that the commentator was referring to, but in New Orleans in 2019 an elected sheriff, Randy Smith, had a man arrested after he criticized his office's handling of a murder investigation. This was despite the DA explicitly telling them that the criminal defamation law they were trying to use was ruled unconstitutional when applying it to criticism of public officials.
No... this is a police raid, that is the government. Secondly, the federal government has been breaking first amendment rights for the last 4 years at least; by pressuring social media companies to remove posts.
Is reporting on the police chief’s sexual misconduct “hard speech”? Who (other than the police) actually thinks such reporting is bad?
The issue is not speech — the raid was illegal! — but rather that we have a cultural reverence for the police. We’ve insulated them from accountability so much that they can basically do shit like this with impunity.
Who watches the watchmen? Mostly nobody. And a lot of us seem to like it that way.
>Who (other than the police) actually thinks such reporting is bad?
there is a growing number of people who espouse the belief that grievances towards the police/government/military are by their very nature anti-patriotic, and there is a pretty real history of coercion towards 'under-reporting' on certain stories in the media; it's not real surprise to me that this exists on the lower scales of local municipality/etc, as well.
'chilling' is a very real concept, and it seems to snowball.
Yep, western Europe and Canada do not allow free speech. I just read a story about UK police showing up and arresting an autistic teenager because she commented online that one of their officers looked like a lesbian.
You have Michigan passing laws that people can face 5 years in prison for "offending" someone.
Here is the text of the Michigan law from the article you cited:
"...willful course of conduct, involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened."
I'm not sure how that is twisted to being "offended". News flash: intimidating, threatening, and harassing someone is illegal in the US and has been for a long time.
Next time just man up and say you don't like what's being said instead of pretending you want sources.
Pay attention to this part - "individual to FEEL terrorized, frightened, or18
threatened"
This is a subjective law based on the FEELING of the "victim". No one has a legal right to not FEEL threatened, what in the world are you talking about? Nothing is being "twisted". Don't gaslight me. If it has been illegal there would be no reason for new law .
Either you're a moron or you have malicious reasons for pretending there's no implication to basing a law on how the victim feels due to things said to them. I'm guessing it's the latter. I have no idea how in the world a semi-intelligent person could not see that as a direct threat to the 1st amendment.
I also like that you completely ignored the UK article which shows exactly what the Michigan law would result in. Have a nice day.
I thought maybe you had sources. Of course your sources didn't support your point. Just a slippery slope mirage from a different country. I know you're the type that loves to point to how awful other people and countries are, so keep on whining. Have a great day!
The source was literally the law. If you want to gaslight people into believing it doesn't say what it does maybe you need to look internally at why you're doing that. Why does it upset you that this law is being scrutinized? I have a feeling it's because you've been sucked into a cult like ideology that says a certain group should never be questioned.
The language of the law is what you twisted to fit your own delusion. Sorry buddy. Scrutinize all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your outrage depends on your own sad interpretations.
Just because you think there is some nefarious big bad cult coming to get you, doesn't mean there is.
I'm sorry you don't recognize that harassment very much depends on the person harassed FEELING harassed. I'm sorry you feel insecure about the word "feel". Feel free to take it to court.
I'm tired of your bad faith and personal attacks. I will not be responding again.
"depends on the person harassed FEELING harassed."
That's my point bud. You don't believe in the 1st amendment, that's the problem, not the interpretation of the law. You cannot have free speech and have a law that bases prison time on subjective FEELINGS by the victim. You cannot be that dumb, therefore you're malicious in intent and gaslighting me. You're an authoritarian and anti-1st amendment and that's why this is hard for you to understand. There's no "twisting" going on other than your belief system.
The irony here is you're just proving what I originally said every time you comment. Free speech rights are no longer respected and you're just living proof of the trend.
If I might go to jail on the whim of how a person feels towards what I say on a specific day because they're in a bad mood then the 1st amendment doesn't exist.
Evidence of harassment is still required. If a person doesn't feel harassed there is no victim. So yes, FEELING harassed is a requirement. That's not the same as going to jail on a whim. You complete moron.
Imagine defending this. Every comment you make is just reinforcing my point. It's hilarious to watch you fumble around with this. If you base a law on subjective feelings towards words said you do not have free speech. I'll say it again, you are an authoritarian and anti-free speech. Just own up to it. It is going to jail on a whim because you can't EVEN DEFINE WHAT THE HARASSMENT IS. What constitutes evidence of harassment?
And since you don't seem to be a big reader, I'll point out the passage that makes you look most like a fool.
> Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.
Every time you respond you look more and more like a demagogic tool. Now run along.
47 comments
[ 7.6 ms ] story [ 83.0 ms ] thread"EM: So the backstory that we haven't told, because we don't wanna get in trouble, is that we've been investigating the police chief [Gideon Cody]. When he was named Chief just two months ago, we got an outpouring of calls from his former co-workers making a wide array of allegations against him saying that he was about to be demoted at his previous job and that he retired to avoid demotion and punishment over sexual misconduct charges and other things.
We had half a dozen or more different anonymous sources calling in about that. Well, we never ran that because we never could get any of them to go on the record, and we never could get his personnel file. But the allegations—including the identities of who made the allegations—were on one of the computers that got seized. I may be paranoid that this has anything to do with it, but when people come and seize your computer, you tend to be a little paranoid." [0]
[0] https://thehandbasket.substack.com/p/a-conversation-with-the...
The judge signing a search warrant without a probable cause affidavit, the judge issuing a search warrant against the press violating federal law, the connections between the court and the hotel that houses Keri Newell's restaurant, the batshit public response Keri Newell posted, the fact she got a liquor license with a DUI, a claim that she had her identity stolen at a city council meeting.
The fact the cops raided a paper for a story they didn't publish, even though they would have been fully protected to do so at all.
It's not being widely covered by a city council woman's house was also raided. They took her phone and computer as well, leaving her and her sick husband alone with no way to call for help. Cops are scum.
Marion is about 2 hours away from where I'm staying now. It might be a good thing I don't have a car. I'm furious. Going to be stopping by the KBI office today, I'm sure that's going to go well. (The KBI is under Kris Kobach and has said in response to this raid that "the press is not above the law".)
I have no idea why they get exempt from any kind of consequences for their actions, either private (getting sued) or criminal. Person X requested something without having probable cause, person Y signed that, both people have (or should have) the knowledge of what is needed to either sign or get the signature, neither did the required, both should lose their jobs and be liable for damages caused to the people affected. A bartender gets punished more for not checking IDs than those people.
This is why having judges be an elected position seems so crazy: at what point do they learn what they are and are not legally allowed to do?
There are companies that exist only to advocate certain talking points across the span of the internet; that's their entire reason for existence. Police unions buy their services, protesting groups buy their services, political parties buy their services, gun rights and gun control advocates both buy their services alike. Their entire job is to posit certain points as loudly as they can on publicly visible medias, and cheerlead for 'their team' on certain talking points and defenses.
A popular public forum/chat/socialmediasite discussing loaded political topics will never be an indicator of the public at large because too much incentive exists for propagandists from every angle to game the system at such opportunities. Those voices with more money/backing/support will always drown out the true signal.
Thusly these samples that you're basing your entire take on a country filled with people are inherently flawed.
Believe it or not.
Just because people aren't in the streets doesn't mean they don't care. Repercussions are sought in the legal system, not with placards on a sidewalk.
https://www.wilx.com/2023/08/14/central-kansas-police-force-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37105764 (200 points, 101 comments)
Related:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37102271
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37096015
https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/crime/us-court-of-appeals...
The issue is not speech — the raid was illegal! — but rather that we have a cultural reverence for the police. We’ve insulated them from accountability so much that they can basically do shit like this with impunity.
Who watches the watchmen? Mostly nobody. And a lot of us seem to like it that way.
there is a growing number of people who espouse the belief that grievances towards the police/government/military are by their very nature anti-patriotic, and there is a pretty real history of coercion towards 'under-reporting' on certain stories in the media; it's not real surprise to me that this exists on the lower scales of local municipality/etc, as well.
'chilling' is a very real concept, and it seems to snowball.
Other countries protect cops more than regular citizens yet don't experience the same level of police raids and death by cop.
I think the problem is rather that sheriff's departments in the US are run like small businesses; fining people, raiding and confiscating.
Preemptive brutality is a sign that these people are not first and foremost protectors, but have to meet a quota.
Mercenaries.
You have Michigan passing laws that people can face 5 years in prison for "offending" someone.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michigan-can-now-censor-yo...
"...willful course of conduct, involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened."
I'm not sure how that is twisted to being "offended". News flash: intimidating, threatening, and harassing someone is illegal in the US and has been for a long time.
Pay attention to this part - "individual to FEEL terrorized, frightened, or18 threatened"
This is a subjective law based on the FEELING of the "victim". No one has a legal right to not FEEL threatened, what in the world are you talking about? Nothing is being "twisted". Don't gaslight me. If it has been illegal there would be no reason for new law .
Either you're a moron or you have malicious reasons for pretending there's no implication to basing a law on how the victim feels due to things said to them. I'm guessing it's the latter. I have no idea how in the world a semi-intelligent person could not see that as a direct threat to the 1st amendment.
I also like that you completely ignored the UK article which shows exactly what the Michigan law would result in. Have a nice day.
Just because you think there is some nefarious big bad cult coming to get you, doesn't mean there is.
I'm sorry you don't recognize that harassment very much depends on the person harassed FEELING harassed. I'm sorry you feel insecure about the word "feel". Feel free to take it to court.
I'm tired of your bad faith and personal attacks. I will not be responding again.
That's my point bud. You don't believe in the 1st amendment, that's the problem, not the interpretation of the law. You cannot have free speech and have a law that bases prison time on subjective FEELINGS by the victim. You cannot be that dumb, therefore you're malicious in intent and gaslighting me. You're an authoritarian and anti-1st amendment and that's why this is hard for you to understand. There's no "twisting" going on other than your belief system.
The irony here is you're just proving what I originally said every time you comment. Free speech rights are no longer respected and you're just living proof of the trend.
If I might go to jail on the whim of how a person feels towards what I say on a specific day because they're in a bad mood then the 1st amendment doesn't exist.
Here's the federal definition:
https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment
And since you don't seem to be a big reader, I'll point out the passage that makes you look most like a fool.
> Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.
Every time you respond you look more and more like a demagogic tool. Now run along.