Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Somewhat similar premise to the recent settlement that came out for the man arrested for posting a meme in Tennessee https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-tennessee-man-was-ja...
- The city issued a boil water advisory about about 13 or 14 days after her arrest.by thekevan
- they said to make sure you boil it slowly though, so the local frogs don’t jump out! /sby luxuryballs
- I once stated to one of my fathers aqaintences in the local town council that I was considering refuseing to pay my water bill on the grounds that water is defined as a coulorless, odourless liquid, and what comes out of my tap is niether, his imediate request was "can I use that?" and so, not too long after we got a significant upgrade to the towns water, which is now of a much better quality, withmore upgrades all the time.by metalman
- I predict it won't stand.
“We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state.”
that is pretty solidly "free speech", not defamation, not allegations of anything, not "libel"‡
‡libel noun 1. a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation
Example: he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector of taxes
-defamation -defamation of character -character assassination
2. (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration
verb 1. defame (someone) by publishing a libel
Example: the jury found that he was libelled by a newspaper
---- But law can be complex and "injustices" happen all the time, so we'll see...
- This week, there was two different settlement close to $800K related to someone posting and getting arrested about what charlie kirk said.
This woman shouldn't settle for anything less.
- Do you have information on this? I’m curious to see.by p_j_w
- 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.by nkrisc
- "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law."by LocalH
- Never heard of Ken Paxton, I suppose?by kibwen
- Oh don't worry, the enforcement is extremely selective.by dpe82
- The charges have already been dismissed: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/charges-dismissed-against-...
Good on the grand jury for not indicting this ham sandwich.
by scoofy - The chief of police stands proudly by his decision. This will happen again.by p_j_w
- That town now has not just a bad water problem, but a large free speech lawsuit problem.
Maybe they could dock the Chief's retirement account?
by pfdietz - They always knew the charges wouldn’t stick. The punishment they were handing out was she had to spend a night in jail and spend money on a lawyer.
They already dished out the punishment, so they don’t care that it was dismissed.
by cortesoft - I'm not a lawyer, but I think qualified immunity should not apply to constitutional violations. Giving an opt-out for those violations is antithetical to the very substance of our (US) constitution.
- The problem with that is sometimes it's not clear if something is a constitutional violation. Here, it was clear, but in general you don't want to do that.
Something that should be exempt from qualified immunity are actions that go against court orders.
by pfdietz - yup, i think a majority of people would agree with you, so why hasn't it happened? I think the answer is that elected representatives are more beholden to public sector unions than their constituents.by balderdash
- Qualified Immunity should not apply ever. Period. No one should be above the law for any reason ever.by jazzypants
- It's weird to me that courts don't at-least attempt to review if the conduct was in good faith and plausibly reasonable given the facts know at the time.
The idea that officials aren't personally liable for mistakes made in good faith isn't bad. But somehow the US tends to produce a lot of cases where good faith requires a lot of faith :)
by jopsen - It literally is not supposed to. The ruling that is currently used for the precedent is Harlow v Fitzgerald, which states:
> The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
It seems to me that a reasonable person would know this violates constitutional rights if you arrest people that criticize the government.
by cortesoft - It seems suspicious to me that they do not include the "offending" Facebook post. It seems like this is it, and it seems completely in the realm of journalism,
https://scontent.fcps4-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/6654022...
by nnutter - wouldn't they be guilty of the same crime?by sidewndr46
- This link doesn't seem to loadby xeromal
- It's in the article. The pictured post by "Southern Belle Watch".by jolmg
- I was immediately reminded of this old piece on water quality issues and local politics...
> An Enemy of the People [..] is an 1882 play [..] that [..] centers on Dr. Thomas Stockmann, who discovers a serious contamination issue in his town's new spas, endangering public health. His courageous decision to expose this truth brings severe backlash from local leaders [..]
by rami3l - This is the sort of comment that really enriches my life. Not only would I not have known about this author (I'm an english-only speaker), but I clicked onto another work ("Ghosts" in english, possibly more accurate as "Again Walkers" per the wiki), and this quickly grabs my interest:
"Because of its subject matter, which includes religion, venereal disease, incest, and euthanasia, it immediately generated strong controversy and adverse criticism."
This author wrote stuff that broke norms with taboo. That alone doesn't make the work meaningful, but the accolades mentioned in the article make me think of him as a P.T. Anderson of his time. Thanks for the reference and link!
by alsetmusic - 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.by vjvjvjvjghv
- I think everything is consistent with the perspective Texas represents toward the united states. It's fine if Texas doesn't implement reforms and fails. (There are 49 other states and may the ones that invent or adopt the best practices survive.)
- That's not a fair assumption in the current political environment.
Those who have lots of money will get fair hearings under the court, but those with less power might not. There's a reason people like Elon Musk write into agreements that they must be settled in particular Texas courts.
by epistasis