Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
Law enforcement officers tend to frown on citizens interfering with their revenue generation. This has led to a number of First Amendment lawsuits from people arrested for warning others about [check notes] the existence of police officers in the vicinity.
One citizen was told as much when he was arrested for holding up a sign reading "Cops Ahead." One cop kept on script, referring to the man's actions as "interfering with an investigation." It wasn't an investigation. It was a distracted driving sting. The cop actually hauling him to the station was more to the point, telling the man he was arresting him for "interfering with our livelihood." First Amendment violation or felony interference with a business model? Why not both?
A lawsuit was filed in 2018 seeking a declaration that honking a car's horn is protected expression. And, all the way back in 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed over citations and arrests for flashing headlights to warn drivers of unseen officers.
A federal judge has decided -- albeit not very firmly -- that at least one of these actions is protected by the First Amendment. Wisconsin Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker says flashing your headlights to warn drivers of speed traps is expressive speech -- something cops would be better off not trying to punish. (via Volokh Conspiracy)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:27PM (7 children)
Dear police:
Generating revenue is not the point.
Increasing safety is the point.
If a driver flashes their lights and gets other people to slow down, then safety has just been increased -- without using up court time, and with no additional effort on the part of officers.
The entire reason taxpayers pay for police departments is for . . . ta da . . . public safety!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:39PM (4 children)
It would be fun to find someone who insists that the cops-ahead sign is obviously illegal, and do a binary chop between that and the well-established idea of a fixed "please drive safely" sign in order to find the point at which I offer two all-but-indistinguishable apart from synonym-based nuance, and that someone's head implodes.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:44PM (3 children)
There is one additional benefit.
Officers merely have to be there. They do not have to be distracted from their donuts.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:47PM (2 children)
G/f has just mentioned CB - it's always been legal to announce radar wolves hiding behind hedges, hasn't it?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NewNic on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:23PM
Cardboard cutout policemen are quite effective. One out of many examples:
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/07/209751426/the-last-word-in-business [npr.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 5, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:42AM
As NewNic points out, it works. A town in Ohio used to use it. The police car was on the corner about half of the time, it seemed. I guess about 80% or more of the time, the dummy was in the driver's seat. Now and then, there would be real cop at the wheel. But, you couldn't tell until you were pretty close, so if the real cop were there, he already had your speed. A department could have thirty cars, and ten officers, and still spread themselves out pretty effectively if they use the idea.
Of course, calling for backup might be confusing. Especially if one of the dummies responded!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:54PM
Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
The moment you levy fines, you're putting money in a government bucket.
The moment you put money in a government bucket, the more government wants to allocate that money elsewhere
The moment government gets used to that allocation, it acts like it will always have it.
The moment they think they should always have it, the more government budgets accordingly.
The moment that happens, that entire reason for levying the fines is well beyond the point.
Fines are unjustly and unduly injurious to the poor, used like weapons against the middle class, and wholly ineffectual against the rich. Since it boils down to money you might pay, it isn't exactly stopping people from doing it.
What stops somebody from speeding is most likely two things. Speed bumps and 12 hours of community service. That last one will be very effective at getting people to increase their levels of road safety. For the rich? 12 hours of community service must be excruciating when their time is worth so much /sarc.
If you want to take the current situation to a crescendo of anti-American totalitarian bullshit, just look at civil asset forfeiture law. It's not enough they take a little bit like a mosquito, they take nearly everything you have.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:11AM
Sylvia Stayton scored some minor fame for disrupting a parking meter racket. She was a nice old lady who was trying to help people who were using metered parking spots. She put change in meters that were about to expire or were already expired. Actually stayed just ahead of a cop who was trying to issue tickets, and he arrested her.
Not that there isn't lots of other evidence, but I found that incident one of the most nakedly revealing of the real intentions and attitudes of local government.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:31PM (19 children)
People flash headlights for that? I've never heard of that. I always heard that flashing headlights usually means something like "check yourself" (your headlights are on the wrong setting etc).
How the heck do people expect to be able the police to do their job? If morons are driving like crazy people let the police catch the suckers. If you think the police are in the wrong there's better ways to deal with it than this.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:44PM
"if the police don't catch anyone here, they'll setup their speed trap on someone else's commute"
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bot on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:48PM
The duty of the cop is to hide to surprise you with his red palette. Your duty is not to get caught and to warn your peers and vandalize the speed traps in your spare time. This has always been and always will be. Do not interfere with the fabric of the universe.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:49PM (8 children)
I believe this outlook varies largely with your personal experiences with law enforcement.
Here is an example, not far from my hometown. We have had cities that funded the majority of their operations through speeding tickets. They were specifically not working to increase public safety, but instead as a revenue generating activity. ( https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2418.asp [thenewspaper.com] )
They aren't the only one. Over near Ashland city the speed limit on a state highway drops from 55 to 35 for 700 feet aka 1/8th of a mile aka 3.5 hockey rinks, and then goes back up to 55. I have never once driven on that road when a cop was not sitting there writing tickets. It's an obscenity.
So, back to the point, with these as your life experience with law enforcement then you probably don't have an issue with warning people about speed traps. I warn every person that I talk to about driving out there, and I use colorful language like "wankers" and "extortion" too.
If, alternatively, you've only had experience with police that actually protect and serve then it feels far less acceptable to you. Respectfully, I disagree.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 08 2019, @01:25AM (4 children)
I've read too many stories of the cops turning a minor situation into a major one through their ham handed bullying and blundering, their trigger happiness, their penchant for expediency in trying to pin a crime on the nearest handy person, and worst of all, their various agendas that they put ahead of public safety. It's not solely about revenue. They also want to boost their numbers. Some get a kick out of being sadistic, or being on a power trip, some are closet racists who joined the force to abuse their powers to keep brown people down.
My brother had an experience in which a club called on police to keep things civil, and if necessary, escort a troublemaker from the premises. The police tried their damnedest to make a crime out of the situation. They pressured witnesses to tell them something they could use to arrest people. They wanted there to be crimes, wanted to do some arresting. They were very unhappy when people, including my brother, would not dish out dirt. They didn't care if it was true or not, they just wanted dirt on people so they could go have some fun performing some arrests.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:05AM (3 children)
My distrust goes much farther back. For those of you not old enough to recall the 80s, some cod-flogging imbecile wanted to sell his little book so he started rumors about satanic ritual sexual abuse at day care centers. It was all rubbish, of course, but that did not stop a nationwide panic. My parents had sunk their life savings into starting a non-profit day care center for low income kids. They were victims of that panic, falsely accused, and subject to a very public and very long investigation that ultimately cost them everything.
That, by itself, could be considered reasonable. People were scared, and they wanted to protect the children. That happens. Where the system crossed the line was at the end. When all of the evidence was in (i.e. none), all of the interviews were done (children, parents, social workers, employees, vendors, etc) they realized they had absolutely nothing. Then they tried to threaten and cajole my mom (literally the most obstinate person on earth) to falsely say that one of the teachers was abusing the children. "Just give us Terry and we'll make all of this go away."
It wasn't about the truth or justice at that point. It was about having something to show for the work they'd expended.
... so I have some trust issues. The police, at best, are fallible do-gooders. At worse, they are tyrants with the power of life and death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:06PM (1 child)
It's not reasonable at all, because it shows they turn their brains off when it comes to anything involving children. That mentality led directly to the abuses done by the authority figures, because they could do so without consequence. So, once again, a severe lack of critical thinking skills is the problem. Not to mention, a willingness to sacrifice liberties in the name of safety, which thoroughly debunks the notion that we live in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:42PM
yeah, assuming we have a state at all, there needs to be severe penalties for pigs and bureaucrats who knowingly misuse their power. stiff penalties for people who knowingly file false reports. too much of this shit just gets ignored or people get a slap on the wrist while people's lives get ruined.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:40PM
Sorry to hear that your parents were caught up in author and police machinations, with the original allegations every bit as ridiculous and unbelievable as the whole Pizzagate thing. Sounds like there's grounds for some lawsuits in there, but would need lots of proof, and video recorders were not ubiquitous in the 1980s.
A likely motive of the police is their jobs. It's the Prison Industrial Complex at work. If crime is down, then maybe the city doesn't need as many police officers. It's sad the shit people will do to keep a job. Yes, they will lie, frame, bear false witness, and other crap if they think their job depends on it. They're helped along that path of dishonesty and treachery by the bad examples of their superiors. Why should they be honest when their bosses aren't? It's asking too much of most people to take a stand on principle that will too likely eliminate their jobs. The management that pressures employees in that fashion is asking for trouble.
One of the most egregious historic cases of this sort was perpetrated by Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. When Prohibition (of alcohol) was repealed in the US in 1933, he was faced with a crisis. His entire agency might be eliminated. So what did he do? Smeared marijuana, that's what. Did a u-turn from previous claims that cannabis was not harmful to literally claim that "reefer madness" turned people into axe murderers. People bought it, and so the War on Drugs gained new life that has lasted decades. They were all the more inclined to buy it because, ironically, Anslinger had a reputation for honesty. Also, the idea to smear marijuana did not originate with Anslinger, there were others who had motivations such as eliminating competition and selling newspapers, and so there was already a fire for Anslinger to fan. And fan it he did.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:21PM
There are a few areas around there that go a bit further.
If you're brown, a male teenager, driving a sports car or hot rod then they'll cite you for 10+ over when they clock you at the speed limit.
The advent of of dashcams has at least made the 'if you don't want a ticket, don't speed' crowd quiet down a bit. Sadly they don't help in cases of selective enforcement. (i.e. the speed of traffic is 70 in a 60, and someone in a targeted group driving 5 under the speed of traffic is pulled over instead of anyone in the sea of cars driving faster than that)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:02PM (1 child)
Even if someone hasn't personally been abused by cops, speech is speech and they should be in favor of the first amendment. Why do so many people need to personally experience something bad before they become wary of it? Critical thinking is not a required skill in schools, and it shows.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday May 09 2019, @01:58AM
Honestly, Ignorance. Social cues in my environment taught me that Officer friendly was helpful and could be trusted. Confronting the primacy of that that narrative caused/causes serious cognitive dissonance.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:51PM
I despise warrantless "your papers please" stops on principle.
If the police want to catch people driving crazy, I support that. But not by stopping everyone.
If the police merely have a speed trap / crazy driver trap, then I hope they get the crazy drivers. But leave people alone who are merely driving with the traffic flow maybe about 5 mph over the limit.
There is nothing wrong with flashing your lights. Or reacting and checking everything when you see other cars flashing their lights.
This is probably a losing battle.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:54PM
Because the police speed traps are not about improving driving safety. It’s about revenue that can be pulled in for every little thing that they can get away with. Getting booked for 5km/hr over an artificially low speed limit just pisses people off. So you get an us vs them thing where drivers flash lights to warn of hazards ahead/etc. one of those things is a speed/etc trap.
Police managed to do their jobs long before radars and speed cameras. They even booked people for driving stupidly like sitting in the overtaking lane at the same speed as the car next to them. Now they ignore that and just set up revenue cameras and pull people over for no reason other than an authoritarian scare tactic to keep the people in fear^w line.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Tuesday May 07 2019, @10:00PM (2 children)
It can mean several things. I'll flash it to make them think about their headlights--high beams on or driving without headlights. I'll also flash it to warn of *any* danger ahead: deer and other wildlife, police activity, etc.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:59PM
Indeed. As someone above said "check yourself", or alternatively "pay attention". Doesn't much matter what it is - if driving on the usual mental autopilot poses a danger to you or others in the imminent future, a warning is an expression of basic human decency.
And speed traps are an unjustified danger. If speed limits were set reasonably for safe driving in normal conditions, instead of typically being set for bad weather, or distracted driver in minivan full of kids, or pure unabashed revenue generation, then I would consider warning other drivers to be bad form. Just as I'd consider warning someone driving at legitimately dangerous speeds. But for the vast majority of people pacing themselves to road conditions rather than speed limits? Just a bit of courtesy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:59AM
Ditto. The conundrum: you've driven past a hazard, such as a broke down truck partially blocking the road. You flash the first five or ten cars you meet, and in the meantime, you've passed three intersections. How long does it remain "useful" to warn oncoming drivers of a hazard ahead? And, how long will those drivers remember the warning? At some point, I stop warning people, even if I'm half sure they'll drive directly to the hazard area.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday May 08 2019, @12:13AM
That part you got right.
Then you went nuts.
It means check yourself, that's exactly what it means. Lights on? Speed legal?
"How the heck do people expect to be able the police to do their job?"
This is where you went nuts. In what way does this interfere with police doing their job?
Their job is to keep the streets safe. Flashing other drivers to "check yourself" is *helping* with that, not hindering it.
"If morons are driving like crazy people let the police catch the suckers."
Yep, no one's doing anything to stop them from doing that.
However if you've drifted up to 6 or 7 over coming down a long grade and there's a speed trap at the bottom, you just *might* notice the good Samaritan coming up who signaled you to "check yourself" before you get done for revenue purposes. Which would demonstrate that you weren't actually some crazy driver that we want off the road after all, save you some money, and save the police to keep watching for a real crazy.
"If you think the police are in the wrong there's better ways to deal with it than this."
No, the police only become demonstrably wrong here when/if they go nuts and start trying to prevent citizens from making the road safer.
Their job is NOT to generate revenue for the city. Their job is to keep the roads safe.
If they've lost track of that and start using their police powers to effectively make the roads LESS safe, in order to increase revenue, then yes, they're in the wrong. At that point they're no longer acting as peace officers, but as highway robbers.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:14AM
And for motorcyclists, we give a couple of raps on the top of the helmet to indicate same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:13PM
In presumed speed limit states, their job is supposed to be catching people who are being unsafe. In Texas, the law says (paraphrased by me, some random commentard) you can drive like you want, as long as you're being safe, but that if you're driving over the presumed speed limit set by some parasitic bureaucrat then that qualifies as prima fascia (sp?) evidence that you were breaking the law (being unsafe) and the cop can stop and ticket you if he decides to. The cops are supposed to be targeting people who are being unsafe and the presumed speed limit is supposed to be reasonable based on the road, and the vehicles that will use it. Instead the criminal scum set artificially low speed limits then train their highway robbers to treat the speed limits as if they are absolute speed limits. In absolute speed limit states they just do away with the pretense of fairness and personal responsibility, set the absolute speed limits artificially low, then commence to steal from people that have actual jobs (you know, the ones that don't require the use or threat of force to get paid).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:45PM
It's really weird whenever I hear about things like this. Here in FL, flashing headlights is definitely considered protected speech, and the rationale that it wouldn't be is just money-grubbing bullshit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:46PM (9 children)
Meanwhile, Google maps has managed to warn be about 7 speed traps this past week, literally calling them exactly what they are.
https://9to5google.com/2019/03/13/google-maps-speed-trap-accident-report/ [9to5google.com]
Not that it matters, it's spring and the state flower is in full bloom everywhere!
http://media.mlive.com/grpress/news_impact/photo/road-construction-file-300jpg-ef09d5ad1b15bf0b_large.jpg [mlive.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:57PM (8 children)
For those coming to visit Italy: most speed traps are fake (because we do unspeakable things to them in retaliation for tickets), a law says they must be preceded by a sign but probably does not specify how earlier it must be placed so wait a lot before speeding up again, unmarked cars signal drivers who go too fast so that marked cars drive them to the side of the road and ticket them so your waze and mapped speed traps are not going to save you. In some bigger city the guy delivering tickets to parked cars is escorted, because the classic italian 15 minutes mew mew to get the ticket reduced or invalid has been superseded by barbarian violence. Sad.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Touché) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 07 2019, @10:08PM (6 children)
I want to understand this. I think I understand it. Can you post it in the original language?
(Score: 5, Funny) by edIII on Wednesday May 08 2019, @12:00AM (1 child)
No. All we get out of Bot is core dumps and the progressively stranger outputs of some kind of cascade failure from the look of it...
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bot on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:56AM
Note to self, meatbags need commas and sh!t.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:48AM
Mew mew, possibly is pussy. Makes sense that it would be pussy, right?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:59AM (2 children)
Occhio che l'autovelox è tarocco e ti inchiappettano con la civetta.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:21PM (1 child)
Google Translate doesn't make friendly with that phrase or it's just as cryptic as the previous post. "Watch out that the speed camera is a tarot and they will catch you with the owl."
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:26PM
Tarot slang for fake, auto civetta slang for police unmarked car.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:37PM
(most speed traps are fake (because we do unspeakable things to them (in retaliation for tickets)))
(a law says (they must be preceded by a sign) but probably does not specify (min nor Max distance from the speed trap) so wait a lot before speeding up again (after you see a sign announcing it))
(unmarked police cars stealthily pick up the plate of fast cars)
(marked cars stop them)
(Mapping them is therefore impossible)
(Once upon a time the policemen did not need to be escorted now they often do)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @10:42PM
What if the driver claims s/he was sending Morse Code? Isn't Morse Code considered "speech"?
(Score: 5, Informative) by fliptop on Tuesday May 07 2019, @10:52PM (2 children)
Honor Your Oath [youtube.com] has a good video regarding this topic. In 2005 a Florida judge issued a court order telling the FHP to stop ticketing motorists for flashing their high beams to warn of speed traps. The judge ruled it's a form of communication and thus protected by the 1st Amendment.
Here's another video [youtube.com] where the ruling was tested.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:00PM
Jeff Gray, hell yeah.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by woodcruft on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:21PM
I remember in the UK back in the 70s somebody was busted by the police for holding up a sign saying "Speed trap ahead!" on the side of a road.
The police argument was that he was "obstructing justice", a criminal offence in the UK.
The member of the public argued in court that the police were primarily employed to "uphold law & order" and by holding up the sign he was assisting the police in discharging their duties to do so.
ie. drivers were as a result of his sign, less likely to speed and thus break the law.
The judge found for the defendent.
:wq!
(Score: 2) by Revek on Wednesday May 08 2019, @01:43AM (1 child)
Headlight Flashing [wikipedia.org]
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:07AM
Girls Gone Wild -- so great!
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:04AM
By flashing your headlights, you are transmitting information. Granted, it's pretty much just one bit: "pay attention = true", but it is information. How can that possibly not be "speech"?
This is one thing I have not acclimated to in Europe: there are all sorts of speech that are against the law. This despite the text appearing in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states unequivocally that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Yet, depending somewhat on country, insulting national leaders is illegal, questioning the Holocaust is illegal, various types of hate speech are illegal, and...transmitting information on speed traps is illegal.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.