a Better Bubble™
No one cuts cops more slack than other cops. You really have to be an impressive kind of awful to lose the support of your Thin Blue Line brothers and sisters.
But the police department in Brookside, Alabama has managed to do exactly that. For years, no one had heard of or cared that the town of Brookside even existed… and that possibly includes a percentage of the town's 1,253 inhabitants.
That all changed when a new sheriff rolled into town, so to speak. It wasn't a sheriff (because the county already had one) but a new police chief, Mike Jones. Where town leaders may have seen nothing more than a vacancy in its two-employee department, Jones saw opportunity. He soon turned Brookside into Nottingham, Alabama, patrolling nearby highways to hit drivers passing by the small town with multiple fines and fees. Officers also engaged in unnecessary towing of vehicles over minor traffic violations, and apparently made up laws to justify stops, seizures, and traffic citations.
Chief Jones was hired in 2018. From 2018 to 2020, fines and fees from traffic citations rose 600%. This windfall went directly to expanding the revenue stream. Chief Jones hired seven more officers, obtained two drug dogs, one MRAP, and the disdain of nearby law enforcement officials. He also incurred the wrath of an untold number of Alabama residents, who were soon making trips to Brookside to attend once-a-month traffic court sessions -- sessions that resulted in Brookside officers being forced to route traffic and oversee parking for this monthly influx of out-of-towners.
The county sheriff had already received several complaints about the traffic enforcement extortion being performed by Brookside officers, who often operated in unmarked vehicles while wearing uniforms that gave no indication which law enforcement agency employed them. A nearby district attorney called the town a "black hole" where drivers are subjected to rights violations, harassment, and bogus citations.
National exposure caused this real life Boss Hogg to resign his position as police chief. And the Brookside PD is experiencing something most law enforcement agencies never do: criticism from their supposed brothers in arms.
As a local lawmaker held a second town hall to focus on policing in the tiny town of Brookside, the stories kept coming. Many told about being stranded on the side of the road. People spoke of stolen money, seized guns, towed cars and lost jobs. People shared stories of getting 11 or even 12 tickets in one traffic stop.
And the sheriff of Jefferson County, Mark Pettway, encouraged them to fight the charges in court.
“If you have a ticket and have not gone to court yet,” he told the crowd, “when you do go to court, plead not guilty.”
Again, he said, “When you go to court, plead not guilty.”
When other cops are telling civilians how to beat the rap, you know you've fucked up. The fact that "multiple state agencies" are now investigating the department is another clue.
It's not just cars Brookside cops were after. They'd take any property they could get their hands on.
One man, Jordan Cole, said Brookside was investigating his brother for car theft but ended up seizing his family’s home and arresting his elderly and disabled mother on a charge of hindering prosecution.
“They made us leave and we were told that if we step foot back on the property, we would be arrested,” Cole said. He said his family had to find somewhere else to live and ended up renting a run-down mobile home.
So far, the small town's governance has yet to turn on the PD. In fact, the town's officials have refused to step down, offering their far-from-tacit approval of the abuses that went on under Chief Jones. Not that their endorsement of the PD matters at this point. The exposure of the PD as a group of thieves and thugs wandering nearby roads has been enough to result in the resignation of most of the police force. Brookside will have to adjust to being just another insignificant dot on the road map, rather than an insatiable predator willing to convert residents of other towns into ATMs the PD's band of thieves could hit again and again.
Cherokee Street hosted the inaugural Brass Band Blowout on Saturday February 12th, 2022. For the first time ever, St. Louis's top brass bands shared the stage together, featuring Saint Boogie Brass Band, Red & Black Brass Band and Funky Butt Brass Band. The sold-out show was hosted by Cherokee Street Foundation, the street's nonprofit organization […]
The post Photos: Cherokee Street’s Brass Band Blowout appeared first on Cherokee Street.
Is there a contest in the Senate to see who can propose the highest number of unconstitutional bills? You might think that the leader in any such contest would have to be a crazed populist like a Josh Hawley or a Ted Cruz, but it seems like Senator Amy Klobuchar is giving them a run for the money. Last summer, she released a bill to try to remove Section 230 for "medical misinformation," as declared by the Ministry of Speech Director of Health and Human Services. We already explained the very, very serious constitutional problems with such a bill.
And now she's back with a new bill, the NUDGE Act (Nudging Users to Drive Good Experiences on Social Media) which she announced by claiming it would "hold platforms accountable" for the amplification of "harmful content." You might already sense the 1st Amendment problems with that statement, but the actual text of the bill is worse.
In some ways, it's an improvement on the health misinformation bill, in that she's finally realized that for any bill to pass 1st Amendment scrutiny it needs to be "content neutral." But... it's not. It claims that it's taking a "nudge" approach -- popularized from Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler's 2008 book of that name. But the whole point of "nudges" in that book is about small tweaks to programs that get people to make better decisions, not threats of government enforcement and regulations (which is what Klobuchar's bill does).
The bill starts out fine... ordering a study on "content-agnostic interventions" to be done by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to look for such content-agnostic interventions that would "reduce the harms of algorithmic amplification and social media addiction." And, sure, more research from independent and trusted parties sounds good -- and the NSF and NASEM generally are pretty credible and trustworthy. Perhaps they can turn up something useful, though historically, we've seen that academics and government bureaucrats who have no experience with how content moderation actually works, tend to come up with some ridiculously silly ideas for how to "fix" content moderation.
But, unfortunately, the bill goes beyond just the studies. Once the "initial study report" has been delivered, the bill then tries to force social media companies to adopt its recommendations, whether or not they'll work, or whether or not they're realistic. And... that is the unconstitutional part. You can call it "content-agnostic" all you want, but as soon as you're telling companies how they have to handle some aspect of the editorial discretion/content moderation on their sites, that's a 1st Amendment issue. A big one.
The bill requires the Commission it creates to start a rulemaking process which would release regulations for social media websites. The Commission would determine "how covered platforms should be grouped together" (?!?), then "determine which content-agnostic interventions identified in such report shall be applicable to each group of covered platforms..." and then (play the ominous music) "require each covered platform to implement and measure the impact of such content-agnostic interventions..."
And here's where anyone with even a tiny bit of trust and safety/content moderation experiences throws back their heads and laughs a hearty laugh.
Content moderation is an ever-evolving, constantly adapting and changing monster, and no matter what "interventions" you put in place, you know that you're immediately going to run into false positives and false negatives, and more edge cases than you can possibly imagine. You can't ask a bunch of bureaucrats to magically come up with the interventions that work. The people who are working on this stuff all day, every day are already trying out all sorts of ideas to improve their sites, and through constant experimentation, and adaptation, they keep gradually improving -- but it's a never-ending impossible task, and the idea that (1) government bureaucrats will magically get it right where companies have failed, and (2) a single mandate will work is beyond laughable (even excluding the constitutional concerns).
Also, the setup here seems totally disconnected to the realities of running a website. "Covered platforms" will be given 60 days to submit a plan to the Commission as to how they'll implement the mandated interventions, and the Commission will approve or disapprove of the plan. And any changes to the plan need to also be approved by the Commission. Some trust and safety teams make multiple changes to rules all the time. Imagine having to submit every such adjustment to a government Commission? This is the worst of the worst kind of government nonsense.
If companies fail to implement the plans, as the Commission likes, then the bill says the websites will be considered to have committed "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" enabling the FTC to go after them with potential fines.
The bill has other problems, but seems to just be based on a bunch of tropes and myths. It would only apply to sites that have 20 million active users (why that many? who the hell knows?), despite the fact that over and over again we've seen that laws that target companies by size create very weird and problematic side effects. The bill is nonsense, written by people who don't seem to understand how social media, content moderation, or the 1st Amendment work.
And, bizarrely, the bill might actually have some support because (astoundingly?!?) it has bipartisan backing. While it's a Klobuchar bill, it was introduced with Senator Cynthia Lummis from across the aisle. Lummis has, in the past, whined about social media companies "censoring" content she wanted to see (about Bitcoin?!?), but also was a co-sponsor of a bill that would require social media companies to disclose when the government pressures them to remove content, which is kinda funny because that's what this bill she's sponsoring would do.
I'm all for doing more credible research, so that's great. But the rest of this bill is just unconstitutional, unrealistic nonsense. Do better, Senator.
stLouIST
