I assume she will get a settlement, the city (the taxpayer) will pay for it and nothing else changes. There will be even less money for infrastructure repair and people will keep voting for the same people.
nkrisc [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yikes, they’ll have to arrest most of the current federal administration if they ever set foot in Texas if that post meets the criteria for that particular law. That’s going to cause problems.
dpe82 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Oh don't worry, the enforcement is extremely selective.
SilverElfin [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The craziest part is the police defending this action as a “cut and dry” case. Meanwhile the lawsuit this woman just filed will hurt taxpayers and not the corrupt city officials and police that caused this. We need to ban all forms of immunity - none for cops, politicians, or judges. They need to be personally liable for their actions.
thot_experiment [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It's absolutely not the slightest bit crazy if you've paid attention to how cops behave at any point in the last history of the country. 100% agree about personal responsibility. You must understand that when the cops says that oversight means they can't do their job, that means they view their job as bullying, harassing and killing citizens, so yea, we should put a stop to that. 1312
Bender [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I will not put the blame on the bobbies, that's too convenient. Someone had to order them to do this. That's who needs to be permanently ousted from all levels of government and their voting rights rescinded.
ggoo [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> It's absolutely not the slightest bit crazy
Imo, speaking like this normalizes their behavior - it was crazy then and it's crazy now.
Bilal_io [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I hear you, but there has to be some balance between full immunity and no immunity at all. The one thing that comes to mind is rich and powerful people, because they have unlimited resources to sue and ruin the lives of cops, judges and politicians, which would lead to these officials avoiding to hold rich and powerful individuals accountable even when they have committed crimes.
mcdonje [3 hidden]5 mins ago
"would"? There is currently a disparity in how rich and poor people are policed.
I get the point that there should be some limited immunity so they can do their jobs. Debatable, but worth the debate.
The argument about the repercussions of eliminating immunity is logical. It just seems like one of those things where there are multiple factors contributing to undesirable outcomes, and that makes it necessary to talk to experts.
ben_w [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I'm not a lawyer, but what you're describing sounds to me like an example of strategic lawsuits against public participation, just where the targeted "public" isn't a member of the general public but a public servant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
thot_experiment [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You're so close! Instead of patching the issue maybe let's solve the root problem of spiky power distribution among humans. We don't need to make sure cops have immunity to prosecute powerful people. We need to not have powerful people.
(though realistically speaking yes there's probably some level of procedural immunity that probably makes sense, similarly with business bankruptcies not ruining the people who start the business)
p1esk [3 hidden]5 mins ago
We need to not have powerful people
What does this even mean?
rightbyte [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Exactly which types of politicians, judges etc would be targeted by liability do you think? The unrighteous politicians? The judges in favour of those in power?
nozzlegear [3 hidden]5 mins ago
In my experience (I sued my town for violating my first amendment rights), the city will have insurance that will cover any damages or settlement they have to pay. Their premiums will likely go up, but the impact to taxpayers is probably minimal.
casey2 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Even making them pay their own lawsuit insurance premiums would be enough to stop 90% of abuse.
No change will happen until cities stop using police revenue for discretionary spending.
thinkingtoilet [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Just more actions from free speech loving Republicans. Exactly like that guy in Tennessee who got $800k.
6stringmerc [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Not surprised. Tarrant County told the US Marshals my styrofoam cooler with vomit in it was a “bomb threat” and charged me with use of a DEADLY WEAPON. Honestly. If my public defender hadn’t colluded with the Prosecution it wouldn’t be on my record today.
This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better in the US. I’m a nonviolent cripple. Meanwhile a pardoned Jan 6 rioter just told a City Counsel “they should be strung up” and isn’t even being charged. Totally depends what team you’re on right now.
vjvjvjvjghv [3 hidden]5 mins ago
"Meanwhile a pardoned Jan 6 rioter just told a City Counsel “they should be strung up” and isn’t even being charged."
A great candidate to get some money from the lawfare fund.
nadermx [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Imagine the town of flynt getting arrested for having your government fail you.
userbinator [3 hidden]5 mins ago
[flagged]
stouset [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I would imagine it’s hard to be reminded of things that didn’t actually occur.
userbinator [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Wow. The brainwashing is still real, half a decade later.
If you think this is somehow "wrong" and that was "right", or vice-versa, you do not believe in free speech.
stouset [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Indeed the brainwashing is still alive and well.
It’s been five years since multiple COVID-19 vaccines have been widely available and administered worldwide, and just about the worst common side effects have been a small risk of mild, self-resolving myocarditis in mRNA vaccines and an increased risk of clotting for adenoviral vector vaccines which have been either discontinued or fallen out of use.
Past those, there have been rare (~5 per million doses) cases of Guillain-Barré or anaphylaxis, but those are broadly in line with risk profiles for other vaccines.
Despite repeated insistence from chronically-online nutjobs, the sky has not fallen, and the well-known, well-published, and well-studied risks of these vaccines remain drastically lower than the risks of actually contracting the disease they inhibit. Which is the whole goddamn point.
galangalalgol [3 hidden]5 mins ago
To make it more explicit. Censorship is always bad. There is no censorship for the good of the people. If fewer people had gotten vaccines because we didn't censor claims it was dangerous, maybe more people would have died. Maybe hospitals would have shut down from crowding. We can't know for sure. But because that was censored, amongst other things, the trust in government dropped even lower. This in turn is allowing populists from both parties to win and local state and national levels. Populists always hurt the economy and damage individual freedoms. There is no substitute for trust, and it is a generational project to rebuild it. Censorship of any speech errodes it and harms all of us more than letting people who are probably wrong speak.
thinkingtoilet [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Provide proof of someone getting arrested for a social media post.
userbinator [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Did the ones posting about the water provide "proof" also?
nilslindemann [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Lying is not free speech.
gdulli [3 hidden]5 mins ago
We should call this obsession "longest Covid". Certain people will be on this until they die.
bfkwlfkjf [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Land of the free
nozzlegear [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This is newsworthy because it's a clear and flagrant violation of her rights.
Source: I was threatened with a lawsuit by my own town for criticizing them online, but the ACLU helped me counter sue and win a settlement for violating my first amendment rights.
poly2it [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Was the comment you are replying to edited?
vjvjvjvjghv [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I assume you mean "Land of the fee"
6stringmerc [3 hidden]5 mins ago
World Cup Tourists about to get some “civic lessons” if they buy that too much, mmmhmmm.
userbinator [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This reminds me of the suppression of reports of serious side-effects from the COVID-19 vaccines when those came out.
Lesson learned: don't use your real identity when posting online.
HN.zip
Imo, speaking like this normalizes their behavior - it was crazy then and it's crazy now.
I get the point that there should be some limited immunity so they can do their jobs. Debatable, but worth the debate.
The argument about the repercussions of eliminating immunity is logical. It just seems like one of those things where there are multiple factors contributing to undesirable outcomes, and that makes it necessary to talk to experts.
(though realistically speaking yes there's probably some level of procedural immunity that probably makes sense, similarly with business bankruptcies not ruining the people who start the business)
What does this even mean?
No change will happen until cities stop using police revenue for discretionary spending.
This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better in the US. I’m a nonviolent cripple. Meanwhile a pardoned Jan 6 rioter just told a City Counsel “they should be strung up” and isn’t even being charged. Totally depends what team you’re on right now.
A great candidate to get some money from the lawfare fund.
If you think this is somehow "wrong" and that was "right", or vice-versa, you do not believe in free speech.
It’s been five years since multiple COVID-19 vaccines have been widely available and administered worldwide, and just about the worst common side effects have been a small risk of mild, self-resolving myocarditis in mRNA vaccines and an increased risk of clotting for adenoviral vector vaccines which have been either discontinued or fallen out of use.
Past those, there have been rare (~5 per million doses) cases of Guillain-Barré or anaphylaxis, but those are broadly in line with risk profiles for other vaccines.
Despite repeated insistence from chronically-online nutjobs, the sky has not fallen, and the well-known, well-published, and well-studied risks of these vaccines remain drastically lower than the risks of actually contracting the disease they inhibit. Which is the whole goddamn point.
Source: I was threatened with a lawsuit by my own town for criticizing them online, but the ACLU helped me counter sue and win a settlement for violating my first amendment rights.
Lesson learned: don't use your real identity when posting online.