Submitted by Charlton (Chuck) Stanley, Weekend Contributor
This piece could easily have been titled, Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis (below, left) discovers the Streisand Effect.
(Official Photo)
The same might be said of Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard. Sometime in February or early March, the Twitter account @Peoriamayor was created, with a picture and fake bio of Mayor Ardis. On or about March 10, the account was labeled a parody, clarifying that it was not really Jim Ardis’ account. That did not deter Ardis, who appears to be as thin-skinned as any politician we have seen recently. He recruited Police Chief Settingsgaard to track down whoever was behind the parody Twitter account.
Over a period of three weeks, detectives from the Peoria Police Department conducted an intensive internet manhunt for the person or persons responsible for the Twitter account. On March 14, Judge Kirk Schoebein signed a warrant ordering Twitter to turn over account information to the Peoria police. The information was released to the police, and on March 29, Judge Lisa Wilson approved a warrant to Comcast to locate the user who owned the Twitter account. Jacob Elliot, who lives on North University Street, was identified as the owner of the account. On April 15, Circuit Judge Kim Kelly of the Tenth Judicial District of Illinois approved a search warrant on Elliot’s home. The warrant was executed on April 17.
A half dozen officers from the Police Department raided Jacob Elliot’s home in Peoria. Police Chief Settingsgaard claimed that by setting up the fake Twitter account, Elliot was “impersonating a public official.” Twitter deleted the account @Peoriamyor when they got the warrant for information in March, saying their Terms of Service were violated.
What could possibly go wrong?
Elliot’s parody Twitter account lasted about a month or less before it was taken down. He had made a total of about fifty tweets, and just a handful of subscribers. In the tweets, he compared Ardis to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. As soon as news of the raid and arrests hit social media sites, in just the past couple of days new parody sites, such as Not Jim Ardis, have popped up like mushrooms after a spring rain. Mayor Ardis, meet the Streisand Effect.
Note that in the warrant, there is authorization to search for drugs as well as computer and telecommunications equipment. Elliot was arrested for having marijuana at his home, but nothing was in his booking report about his parody site. This is another example of using drug laws to go after someone where there is an almost 100% chance of the charges being thrown out on Constitutional grounds. His girlfriend was in the shower when the police came. One other friend was at the house. All three were taken to the police station and questioned, but only Elliot was arrested.
I have a whole lecture on the Law of Unintended Consequences. I had never heard of Jim Ardis or Chief Settingsgaard before yesterday. Now, the story is spreading on the Internet and millions of others who never heard of him either know his name and picture. Mayor Ardis managed to throw gasoline on a spark that was about to die of its own accord.
Sources:
Peoria Journal Star
—-ooOoo—-
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art is solely the author’s decision and responsibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
So what is the ‘Streisland effect’?
Paul, I understand, but this is actually a false rumor that was spread about Quixote’s great battle by Hamete Benengeli… Sometimes Cervantes didn’t fully understand the ambiguities of his source…
Quixote – you are aware that Hamete Benengeli is a fictional character in the novel? 😉
Paul is it paradoxical that you sound like Nick….
P.s. sorry for my typo in spelling your name.
Paul Shulte,
Thanks for your reply — I didn’t mean to suggest Volokh was the only conservative “authority” on the First Amendment, but he is the only one so far to have openly suggested that deadpan satire, when it injures public figure X’s reputation by exposing the truth about X in the form of a fake “confession,” should be criminalized on the grounds that it is “deceitful.” Perhaps he is simply ignorant of the range of modes that satire has taken historically and continues to take today. (At any rate, he responded to innocuous comments by several other contributors, in the same thread where he ignored my remarks.)
More importantly, where are these windmills to which you refer? I see only an army of academics, prosecutors, and criminal court judges who sneer at the idea of conscience and free expression, and who wish to protect the interests of bigwigs by punishing the authors of controversial informational campaigns under various pretexts; and I see the cowardice of others who prefer to “wait for the outcome,” rather than openly express a principled position that could turn out to be embarrassing for themselves.
Quixote – Don Quixote is famous for tilting at windmills, I thought that is why you selected the nom de plume. 🙂 np on the name.
Lyriel – the contention is that Lois Lerner made 17 admissions before she suddenly took the 5th. The rule is that if you make an admission you cannot then take the 5th before the Senate or House.
AY – you still have not responded to my response to your question on that other thread. You have had a whole day to do it.
John – “Doesn’t availing one’s self of the protection of the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination incriminate? What can be more probative than refusing to speak in one’s own defense?” No. That is precisely how it does *not* work once a person has expressly invoked that right.
Quixote – Eugene Volokh is only one of many conservative authorities on the Constitution. I have never seen Volokh respond to anyone, so you are not alone. Besides, when one is quixotic, one does not need a response. The mere fact that you tilted at the windmill is enough. 🙂
Paul Schultze sounds like Nicky the Cry Baby….. Is that parody or a Paradox…..
Dr. Stanley,
I was referring simply to your statement that “if it is labeled parody… or is obvious snark even if it’s not labeled… it is protected speech.” If this approach becomes the law, then all parodies will have to be labeled, or otherwise “obvious”; personifications that are too deadpan will be considered to have “crossed the line” into deceit and criminality. That is precisely the position that Eugene Volokh, a conservative “authority” on the First Amendment, appears to be defending in various postings on his blog. This approach imposes a clear limitation on freedom of expression, one that goes against human nature and can lead to devastating consequences in this country.
At any rate, your answer clarifies your position and I think you will probably agree with my basic point. P.s. unlike you, Prof. Volokh did not have the courtesy to respond to my when I criticized his sweeping statements on his blog.
When it comes to power and subordinates, the Framers knew there is no such thing as fair play. To level the playing field, the Bill of Rights were created to check the coefficient of arrogance that comes, as a rule, with anyone who holds an office or position of power. Obviously, those personal rights are not working. With approval ratings of many public officials teetering on 10 percent or so, what else is a constituent to do besides exercise his constitutional rights to freedom of expression? Thank God and the Internet for coming to the rescue of these helpless victims. All I want to know, when will we ever quit selecting for psychopaths? If 90 percent of the House (the inverse of a 10 percent approval rating) is not thrown out this fall, it will be because the electorate, itself, is corrupt, evildoers working the system, and we are doomed as far as ever restoring our democracy.
samantha – in general the approval rating is low but when you ask people about their own legislator, it rises. The reason many are getting out ahead of the 2014 is that their approval is not at least 50% which means they are vulnerable to either being primaried out or defeated by the other party. Nothing crushes an incombant more that be defeat for re-election.
Quixote,
I agree that more attention should be paid to Rachel Golb’s case. I have been aware of it for some time. However, I cannot cover all cases in a single post. That dilutes all of them. I don’t understand what you say about there being a gap in my reasoning. I do understand how many otherwise smart people are amazingly concrete minded. Run into that all the time. The kind of people who don’t understand metaphors, parables, proverbs or satire until it is explained to them. We have seen instances of that when news reporters have run with stories from The Onion, or the fake White House satire site, which I linked to above.
With all due respect, there is a gap in Dr. Stanley’s reasoning. According to news reports, the chief of police “said the intent of the account was not clearly satirical. “I don’t agree it was obvious, and in fact it appears that someone went to great lengths to make it appear it was actually from the mayor,” he said.” Until we directly confront the phenomenon of deadpan satire, and the vagueness of the “line” between what’s funny enough and what’s too “deceitful,” we will get nowhere in our analysis.
That is why the New York case I linked earlier deserves a good deal more attention than it’s been receiving. We now have a situation where if you write a bad parody that’s not “clear” or “obvious” enough, you risk being arrested. The law will proceed on a case-by-case basis, with juries, who do not always like satires, deciding whether a text was obvious enough to pass muster. In a word, we are heading straight back to the dark ages, when kings and popes banned satirical writings. Commentators who imagine that the developments in New York do not pose a threat to freedom of expression, should think hard about their assumptions, about their responsibilities, and about the consequences for real people.
He can sing this song on his way out:
OK, went back and looked. I dunno how I missed that.
Yes. Vice did an interview with the guy who actually operated the account.
By “paying for it,” I assume Elliot was the owner. However, does anyone know who was operating or using the account?
A point of order…
Jake Elliot wasn’t the one running the parody account – he just paid the Comcast Internet bill.