Peoria Mayor Sends Police to Track Down Twitter Parodist

[CaseyJones]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/18/pe...ice-to-track-d

Politicians can be a thin-skinned bunch. You'd think they'd let insults roll off their backs given how much power they have over the lives and livelihoods of others. But if you have all that power, why bother letting insults roll of your back when you can use that power to disproportionately punish people?

Jim Ardis, mayor of Peoria, Illinois, ordered police to track down whoever was responsible for a parody Twitter account mocking him.

As a result, police raided a West Bluff home, seized property, and detained three people for questioning. The Twitter account, @PeoriaMayor, has been suspended. According to the Journal Star, the account had all of 50 posts and an equal number of followers. The Twitter profile apparently did not initially indicate that it was a parody account, but added that label in early March.

The label was hardly necessary, though, to prevent reader confusion. The Journal Star explains that "police were informed of the account by Ardis on March 12. The tweets implied 'Mayor Ardis utilizes illegal drugs, associates with prostitutes and utilized offensive inappropriate language,' according to an affidavit filed for the warrant." Who would actually believe such tweets were coming from the mayor? Well, maybe residents of Toronto.

Nevertheless, police raided this home and intend to charge whoever was responsible for the account for false impersonation of a public official. The police chief also doesn't think it was obvious the account was a parody and thinks the impersonator "went to great lengths to make it appear it was actually from the mayor."

In the end, they didn't arrest anybody for running the Twitter account, but they did charge a guy with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, so that should allow them to justify the whole thing. They seized all things digital, including iPhones and two Xboxes. Hope nothing goes missing from the evidence locker! (To the Peoria police chief: That was a joke.)

[acptulsa]

First amendment? Bill of rights? Representative democracy?

Too good for the citizens of Peoria!

[Dr.3D]

The king want's that fellows head.

[acptulsa]

The king want's that fellows head.

Any Peorian with a lick of sense now wants the king's head.

[tod evans]

Don't pick on the anointed class.......

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

holy $#@! you can't even make fun of someone on the internet anymore without having some thugs break down your door, shoot your dog, rape your wife, choke your childre, and seize all of your worldy posessions?

[tod evans]

There's only one way to stop the abuse of power and it's got nothing to do with flowers or voting....

[Anti Federalist]

Mockery of public officers is not permitted, Mundane.


Fake Peoria mayor Twitter account prompts real raid of West Bluff house

http://www.pjstar.com/article/201404...#ixzz2zGnOyzV3

PEORIA — Police searched a West Bluff house Tuesday and seized phones and computers in an effort to unmask the author of a parody Twitter account that purported to be Mayor Jim Ardis.

The account — known as @Peoriamayor on the popular social media service that limits entries to 140 characters — already had been suspended for several weeks when up to seven plainclothes police officers executed a search warrant about 5:20 p.m. at 1220 N. University St.

Three people at the home were taken to the Peoria Police Department for questioning. Two other residents were picked up at their places of employment and taken to the station, as well.

One resident — 36-year-old Jacob L. Elliott — was booked into the Peoria County Jail on charges of possessing 30 to 500 grams of marijuana and possessing drug paraphernalia, but no arrests were made in connection with the Twitter account.

“They just asked me about the Twitter account, if I knew anything about it,” said Michelle Pratt, 27, a resident who was in the shower when officers first arrived at the front door. “They brought me in like I was a criminal.”

Pratt, who is Elliott’s girlfriend, said she spent more than three hours alone in an interview room before being questioned by detectives. One other resident, who declined to be identified, said he spent considerably less time in custody but was subject to the same type of questions.

“They said they had a search warrant and took all the electronic devices that had Internet access,” Pratt said. “They said there had been an Internet crime that occurred at this residence.”

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard said officers were investigating the creator of the Twitter account for false personation of a public official. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to a year in jail.

The @Peoriamayor account began in late February or early March with a photo of Ardis and a bio that stated he enjoyed serving the city and included his city email address.

The content of tweets, or entries on the account, ranged from ambiguous to offensive, with repeat references to sex and drugs — and comparisons of Ardis to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as Ford’s drug use while in office became public.

By about March 10, the bio of the Twitter account was changed to indicate it was a parody account.

Settingsgaard, however, 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,” Settingsgaard said in an email response to questions.

[belian78]

Yup, my area here. Everyone is upset about this. Its ridiculous, but I'm not surprised at their reaction. I hope charges are thrown out on the MJ, illegal search warrant as far as I'm concerned.

[JK/SEA]

there's a lesson in here somewhere...

[phill4paul]

Yup, my area here. Everyone is upset about this. Its ridiculous, but I'm not surprised at their reaction. I hope charges are thrown out on the MJ, illegal search warrant as far as I'm concerned.

Was it in the warrant? Was there probable cause to believe that MJ was there? Did they particularly describe that MJ should be seized?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Not that it matters anymore.

[Brian4Liberty]

First Amendment? No, you mundanes won't be needing that anymore.

Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...ple-29718.html

It seems that the person who originally was doing this impersonation could be sued for defamation in civil court, but sending in SWAT Teams to gather evidence is not part of a civil court process.

public figure

n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate).

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1681

What Is Libel?

Libel is published defamation of character, as opposed to spoken defamation of character, which is slander.

Libel:

Exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule.
Injures a person’s reputation or causes the person to be shunned or avoided.
Injures the person in his or her occupation.

Examples might include accusing someone of having committed a heinous crime, or of having a disease that might cause them to be shunned.

Two other important points:

Libel is by definition false. Anything that is provably true cannot be libelous.
“Published” in this context simply means that the libelous statement is communicated to someone other than the person being libeled. That can mean anything from an article that's photocopied and distributed to just a few people to a story that appears in a newspaper with millions of subscribers.

Defenses Against Libel

There are several common defenses a reporter has against a libel lawsuit:

Truth Since libel is by definition false, if a journalist reports something that is true it cannot be libelous, even if it damages a person’s reputation. Truth is the reporter’s best defense against a libel suit.
Privilege Accurate reports about official proceedings – anything from a murder trial to a city council meeting or a congressional hearing – cannot be libelous. This may seem like an odd defense, but imagine covering a murder trial without it. Conceivably, the reporter covering that trial could be sued for libel every time someone in the courtroom accused the defendant of murder.

Fair Comment & Criticism This defense covers expressions of opinion, everything from movie reviews to columns on the op-ed page. The fair comment and criticism defense allows reporters to express opinions no matter how scathing or critical. Examples might include a rock critic ripping into the latest Britney Spears CD, or a political columnist writing that she believes President Bush is doing a horrible job.

Public Officials vs. Private Individuals

In order to win a libel lawsuit, private individuals need only prove that an article about them was libelous, and that it was published.

But public officials – people who work in government at the local, state or federal level – have a tougher time winning libel lawsuits than private individuals.

Public officials must not only prove that an article was libelous and that it was published; they must also prove it was published with something called “actual malice.”

Actual malice means that:

The story was published with the knowledge that it was false.
The story was published with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.

Times vs. Sullivan

This interpretation of libel law comes from the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Times vs. Sullivan. In Times vs. Sullivan the court said that making it too easy for government officials to win libel suits would have a chilling effect on the press and its ability to aggressively report on the important issues of the day.

Since Times vs. Sullivan, the use of the “actual malice” standard to prove libel has been expanded from just public officials to public figures, which basically means anyone who is in the public eye.

Put simply, politicians, celebrities, sports stars, high-profile corporate executives and the like all must meet the “actual malice” requirement in order to win a libel suit.

For journalists, the best way to avoid a libel suit is to do responsible reporting. Don’t be shy about investigating wrongdoing committed by powerful people, agencies and institutions, but make sure you have the facts to back up what you say.

http://journalism.about.com/od/ethic...sm/a/libel.htm

[thoughtomator]

This stops only when tyrants start disappearing, only to show up weeks later with no limbs and no skin.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Mockery of public officers is not permitted, Mundane.


Fake Peoria mayor Twitter account prompts real raid of West Bluff house

http://www.pjstar.com/article/201404...#ixzz2zGnOyzV3

The blackedmailed Supreme Court Justices ruled you can mock any poitician you wish. Your 1st Amendment privilege...

Think about the violations, then waste of resources, taxpayer money, for th Fahrenheit 451 witch hunt... $#@!ing government morons

[phill4paul]

This stops only when tyrants start disappearing, only to show up weeks later with no limbs and no skin.

Meh, just disappearing. It'll take 'em longer to catch on.

[Brian4Liberty]

This stops only when tyrants start disappearing, only to show up weeks later with no limbs and no skin.

Wouldn't change a thing, except to expand the Police State, and take away your few remaining rights.

[thoughtomator]

Wouldn't change a thing, except to expand the Police State, and take away your few remaining rights.

There are no remaining rights.

[milgram]

Another suspended account -- https://twitter.com/MayorJimArdis

Still residing in the first amendment zone -- https://twitter.com/NotPeoriaMayor
https://twitter.com/PowerDrunkMayor


Surprised they still have all this info on the city website:

http://www.peoriagov.org/mayors-office/

ABOUT THE MAYOR
Contact Information

City Hall:
Office of the Mayor
419 Fulton St, Suite 207L
Peoria, IL 61602
City Hall Phone: (309) 494-8519
JArdis@peoriagov.org

Home Address:
6141 N. Evergreen Circle
Peoria, IL 61614
Home Phone: (309) 692-1149
Cell Phone: (309) 678-4758
JArdis@peoriagov.org

[Occam's Banana]

Well ... at least now I know one thing that won't play in Peoria ...

[twomp]

More Fake Twitter accounts should be created. Of the mayor, the police chief and everyone involved. THE lesson learned from this is learn 2 proxy.

[acptulsa]

More Fake Twitter accounts should be created. Of the mayor, the police chief and everyone involved. THE lesson learned from this is learn 2 proxy.

Or, in other words, parody only out of state mayors.

[Weston White]

Keeping in mind that we are not familiar with the totality of facts involved in this case, but it seems to be more a matter of impersonation than defamation or libel (which is harder to prove for those that enjoy the public’s limelight). However, looking at the actual law (I am presuming this is the one effecting the criminal charge), it appears that yet again public “officials” are clearly abusing their powers and misapplying public statutes—which is a dangerously, serious concern for our modern day ravenous politicians. Clearly, they are aware that if all the guy was doing was making comments on a social network account and nothing more than the requirements for application of the statute has not been met.

Clearly, if all he had done was mockingly post self-admissions, incriminating insults on a social network Website and the like, the requirements have not been met (e.g., has SNL ever been criminally charged for poking fun of President George Bush? Quick let’s lock up Will Ferrell!):

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that a person commits false personation when he or she falsely represents himself or herself: to be another person and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another; to be a representative of some person or organization and does an act in such false capacity with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another; or to be another person by Internet website or electronic means with intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud another, or by such communication falsely represents himself or herself to be a public officer or public employee to induce another person to submit to such authority or act in reliance on such false representation. Provides that the trier of fact may infer that a person is falsely representing himself or herself to be a public officer or a public employee or an official or employee of the federal government if the person wears or displays without authority any uniform, badge, insignia, or facsimile thereof by which such public officer or public employee or official or employee of the federal government is lawfully distinguished, or if the person falsely expresses by his or her words or actions that he or she is a public officer or public employee or official or employee of the federal government or is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department and so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such false official authority, to solicit funds or to otherwise cause another person to act in reliance upon that false representation.

Senate Floor Amendment No. 2
Replaces substance of the bill. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that in addition to other violations, a person commits a false personation when he or she knowingly and falsely represents himself or herself to be: (1) another actual person and does an act in such assumed character with intent to intimidate, threaten, injure, defraud, or to obtain a benefit from another; or (2) a representative of an actual person or organization and does an act in such false capacity with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another. Provides that a violation may be accomplished in person or by any means of communication, including but not limited to the use of an Internet website or any form of electronic communication. Provides that the trier of fact may infer that a person falsely represents himself or herself to be a public officer or a public employee or an official or employee of the federal government if the person: (1) wears or displays without authority any uniform, badge, insignia, or facsimile thereof by which a public officer or public employee or official or employee of the federal government is lawfully distinguished; or (2) falsely expresses by word or action that he or she is a public officer or public employee or official or employee of the federal government and is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...ionID=84&GA=97
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...072000050K17-2

And a random local lawyers’ point-of-view:
http://www.skokiecriminallawyer.com/...rsonation.html

[Brian4Liberty]

Keeping in mind that we are not familiar with the totality of facts involved in this case, but it seems to be more a matter of impersonation than defamation or libel (which is harder to prove for those that enjoy the public’s limelight). However, looking at the actual law (I am presuming this is the one effecting the criminal charge), it appears that yet again public “officials” are clearly abusing their powers and misapplying public statutes—which is a dangerously, serious concern for our modern day ravenous politicians. Clearly, they are aware that if all the guy was doing was making comments on a social network account and nothing more than the requirements for application of the statute has not been met.

Clearly, if all he had done was post self-additions, incriminating insults and the like the requirements have not been met (e.g., has SNL ever been criminally charged for making for of President George Bush?

Yeah, if what you quote is what they actually tried to charge someone with, there was no crime. The law was not violated.

Power corrupts...

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Anyone want to head down to Peoria and hand out flyers of the mayor kissing another man with me?

[fr33]

Haha looks like people are making new ones:

https://twitter.com/JimArdisMayor
https://twitter.com/DipshitJimArdis

[LibForestPaul]

There are no remaining rights.

Bingo, only privileges. Iron Fist is already here. Velvet glove will be coming off soon.

[belian78]

Was it in the warrant? Was there probable cause to believe that MJ was there? Did they particularly describe that MJ should be seized?



Not that it matters anymore.

Nope, no MJ in the warrant, only electronics. But like you said, like it matters anymore. Plus, this kid is acting like it's all some kind of joke, I doubt he's gonna get a lawyer to get it all dropped.

[belian78]

More Fake Twitter accounts should be created. Of the mayor, the police chief and everyone involved. THE lesson learned from this is learn 2 proxy.

A bunch have already sprung up so I hear. LoL

[belian78]

Anyone want to head down to Peoria and hand out flyers of the mayor kissing another man with me?

You serious? I wouldn't pass em out, but I'd sure help ya hang em all over Peoria. LoL

[ghengis86]

lol...the fake accounts are hilarious. although someone found the mayor's daughter's Pintrest account:
http://www.pinterest.com/dominiardis/
https://twitter.com/DipshitJimArdis/...067392/photo/1

https://twitter.com/DipshitJimArdis