Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

Texas woman arrested for Facebook post about town water quality

https://reclaimthenet.org/texas-woman-arrested-for-facebook-post-about-town-water-quality
loading story #48251551
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.
The point of the arrest was not to win. The point was to inconvenience the whistleblower, cause her grief, and maybe as a bonus make her spend a night or two in jail. Nobody doing this remotely believed that they wouldn't have to settle. They did it to show that if you speak out against them, they'll arrest and inconvenience you. So the next person who gets a thought to speak out might decide not to bother.

Same for the guy in TN who got arrested for posting that anti-conservative meme. Nobody thought they would win, but they want to make everyone else think twice about criticizing a particular political side.

>They did it to show that if you speak out against them, they'll arrest and inconvenience you. So the next person who gets a thought to speak out might decide not to bother.

some of my students have expressed that they wish they could get arrested for a meme and walk away with a couple hundred grand.

i, of course, have told them that they would be playing with fire. but they are still viewing it as a potentially life-changing payday. so, for some subset of people, they might be having to opposite of the desired chilling effect.

Yea, an arrest on your record, even if you're acquitted and/or get a settlement for police wrongdoing, can still mess you up. There are employers and landlords who will ask you / check whether you were ever arrested, regardless of the outcome of the arrest. Mere involvement with Law Enforcement puts a permanent black mark on your record and can interfere with basic things for the rest of your life.
You must not have ever been poor because the idea of several thousand dollars right now completely obliterates any notion of "maybe less money later, possibly"

Particularly if you're young and poor.

Humans don't really work the way you're implying from your armchair.

I was poor (as in, well below FPL), the son of two immigrants, for many years.

That’s precisely how I thought - getting involved with a “get money now” scheme was not worth the “no money ever again” it often came with. I watched friends do things like this and face consequences later.

Not to discourage anyone from protesting, but not all poor people think alike.

I was a poor refugee, but different people take such situations differently. For my family, it was a stern adherence to law and rules, an extreme low risk approach. For others, granted, it was dismissal of law and rules. Certainly, being poor and hungry made us even more averse to conflicts with the law / police / society / system. Again, others drew opposite lessons and approaches.
> stern adherence to law and rules, an extreme low risk approach.

Were any of the people who took risks also subject to deportation upon arrest? I expect they were all USA citizens with less to lose. Genuinely interested if this is not the case, because this seems very explainable if that aspect is different between you and them.

There's poor and stupid, and then there's poor and smart
I can tell you which one is significantly more common
Ironically some of the smartest people I know aren't at all wealthy.
How would being arrested for memeing be a black mark? It would be a hilarious talking point that I would be more than happy to chat with a landlord, employer, or literally anyone else about. Anyone who would hold that against you is pretty much a textbook example of a bad person (banal evil or some such).
Some won't ask for details and just reject. Which of course sucks but they may view it as less risky than trying to evaluate the details and make a judgement call.

That said if you do go into circumstances - "I did it to get arrested and get a payout" could also be viewed as a red flag - says "may screw you/the company for money". Probably not the employee / tenant / etc you might want.

I think you are underestimating how anal the entire job and rental application process has become. You won't have the chance of talking to anyone. An automated system runs your name against a database before any human is involved in the process. And why would any human bother talking to someone with an arrest history when there are probably tens, if not hundreds, of applicants who are just as competent as you?
In a perfect world, sure. But realistically, people don't dig into the context. They see an arrest on your record and move to the next guy. Either that or, some automated system sees you checked 'yes I was arrested before' and filters you out automatically.
You don't even get a chance to explain it. Their background check software sees that you were arrested once, and discards your résumé.
I could see firms doing background checks not caring about those nuances or taking the time to consider why the individual was arrested.
Especially if it’s just an AI review
I could see less savoury companies(which is nearly all of them) to see potential whistle-blower like this as a risk in future. Most people are bad people after all. Especially those in hiring roles.
You’d be more than happy to chat. They often won’t give you that chance.
For low level jobs the biggest risk is being automatically filtered out early in the job application process then dying in a cardboard shelter on the sidewalk
I wouldn’t rent my house to someone who has been arrested for memeing. It’s an unnecessary risk with absolutely no upside for me. What happens when they decide to meme on their landlord?
>What happens when they decide to meme on their landlord

nothing? maybe a laugh? it’s a meme not a murder

Then you're part of the problem.

Convicted, sure. Merely arrested, with no conviction? Then you'd be an asshole

> Convicted, sure.

Convicted ... for memeing? I think that would still be absurd. I don't think landlords should be denying tenants for obviously unrelated matters.

When you’re basically trusting a multi hundred thousand dollar asset to someone basically on faith, you basically are looking for a zero drama situation, so I can see why a lot of “out of the ordinary” activities would raise a red flag for potential landlords. I would not have an appetite to even be a landlord because people suck and will destroy things just to spite you. And in the tenant situation, good luck suing the tenant for it, they don’t have any money to pay. You’re lucky in some states if you can evict them within a year for not paying rent. So yeah, it’s not a surprise that landlords are interested in choosing VERY boring tenants to rent to, not activists.
If your house became a meme house, you might actually make more money off renting it.
Then make part of the settlement having the arrest expunged.
I have an arrest on my record. It has never, to this day, impacted my life negatively. (Aside from the actual experience, including paying legal fees - I certainly didn't get a settlement out of it.)
This is really far from true, unless you're talking about federal security clearances.
> Yea, an arrest on your record

What an awful data environment

The fact that you were arrested, charged even, if not convicted should not be discoverable by third parties

Uncivilised

> The fact that you were arrested, charged even, if not convicted should not be discoverable by third parties

That's how people get disappeared in failed states.

It's perfectly fine to force the state to clearly declare whom they have detained and their reasons for doing so. We also need to recognize that arrests are very often preposterous (or worse, retaliatory) and not hold it (absent other information or further proceedings) against people.

... subsequent to release.

The fact that someone is in custody should be always available. But it should not be up to Joe Random to pay $11 to my State Patrol to find out why I was arrested last week, especially if I wasn't charged.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the nature of information propagation in the universe, but how do you propose to require the state to declare whom it has detained one week, and then to make that information unavailable the following week?

(and even if you were able to change the nature of reality as you suggest, why accommodate the state's desire to deny such an action after-the-fact?)

I think regulating the retention and processing of information is entirely feasible even in circumstances where the information is initially available for a different purpose. This is in fact the legal status quo in Europe as well as many non-EU countries.

Now there is no absolute guarantee that, if someone has the information, and they are legally required to delete it or not use it, that they don't break the law. But it works in the case of balancing the need to avoid people being disappeared against preventing dragnet misuse of arrest data by employers and landlords. Maybe organised crime employers would systematically break the law if maintaining a database illegal, but they also probably don't mind people with arrest records.

As someone who lives this reality (arrest but no conviction), it's in practice not really so bad. It's never come up with a landlord. The last time it came up was after being accepted to grad school and I had to fill out a form about it. You do just carry with you the knowledge that if you ever get pulled over the cop can pull it up about you and have reason to hassle you more.
Given that you’re posting on HN and went to grad school, I wonder whether you’ve worked a minimum wage job. Most of those applications ask whether you’ve ever been arrested. It’s been a long time since I worked one of those jobs, but I remember that all of the applications I filled out back then asked me. Thankfully the answer was no.

Working minimum wage jobs is demoralizing on multiple levels. The jobs are often physically exhausting (I unloaded trucks and stocked shelves among other things). But the worst part is that the entire system treats you with disdain. You walk away with the strong feeling that nobody gives a shit. I knew that I wanted and could have better things but many of my coworkers internalized a different message.

Not sure, would you (as a cop) help them with content creation?
"I'm going to hassle you because my brethren have hassled you before."

Yup, sounds about right.

They don't call it a brotherhood for nothing.
My choice of wording was not an accident.
to clarify, is this a 'record' in the abstract sense of 'something that can be known about your past' (someone googles your name and a news article mentions arrest) or some kind of literal record with arrest records etc accessible (publicly? by employers?) in the US?
{"deleted":true,"id":48251918,"parent":48250996,"time":1779573135,"type":"comment"}
this is gonna have chilling effects on free speech in america. people are gonna be thinking twice about criticising authorities after a pattern of this happening on a national level is established
If you let them make you think twice before posting, you're letting them win.

I'm not saying that I don't think twice about how to word things or that I'm some sort of free speech warrior. I'm saying that when I make concessions, I feel bad about it. Try to be brave and keep speaking openly about your contempt for the people in charge.

Which is why I believe criminal records should only be kept for serious crimes (killing, etc.), anything less, the record gets deleted after few months completely. Otherwise, just as you said, the black mark on the records are worse than serving a whole year in prison, and can be used to exploit others.
While there are a few other ways it can happen, my state likes to say that certain criminal records are available for expungement.

One of the criteria: "The person has reached 120 years of age."

Cool.

And the ones who get the "payday" are just the ones we've heard of.

How many people didn't get media attention, don't have the ability (time/money) to sue, lost that case, and those where the intimidation and "punishment" was successful?

At some level the people doing this intimidation believe it'll be successful. Is that from experience?

Yes; it works. That’s why they do it.
> some of my students

When I was young, I might have thought this way for sure. I didn't expect to have a future anyway and this would have potentially been a cool level-up that I'd seize.

Responding to someone in another comment that happened after the parent, when I was young and had no real prospects (despite coming from a well-off but not super wealthy family), I had a lot of mental health issues and emotional issues that didn't seem possible to resolve and it wasn't realistic to think I'd finish a college degree or start a career. Imagine being a well-educated white male in the USA who expects to be trapped working retail forever while peers get white-collar jobs and you can see the appeal. Fortunately, decades of hard work and treatment can make a world of difference, but that's not anything you can bet on when you're young and desperate.

Students are young and often have nothing to lose, aside from missing opportunities.
Opportunity cost is a real cost.
I have some alternative timeline SpaceX shares available - they are very valuable.

Are you interested in buying some from me using your money on this timeline?

>so, for some subset of people, they might be having to opposite of the desired chilling effect.

Those ones are the easiest though, are they not? Someone going into it with convictions (or even chickening out because they are aware of the consequences) have consolation and inner reserves. Some kid angry that he can't get a six figure salary at age 22 fresh out of college might regret it as soon as they're in the clink, but if that doesn't get them... the 6-10 years of lawyer-wrangling and stress certainly will. All for the payday to not even go half as far as they think... it'll pay down some bills, there won't be any sports cars.

not with that attitude there won’t! straight into investments, don’t touch for a few decades and she’ll be right. then again most people desperate for money don’t think like that unfortunately
Mostly this

> They did it to show that if you speak out against them, they'll arrest and inconvenience you. So the next person who gets a thought to speak out might decide not to bother.

That needs reiterating because an uncomfortable amount of people think this sort of thing simply doesn't affect them.

This is why the saying “you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride” exists.

They know the charges won’t stick, they are using the process of fighting the charges itself as the punishment.

The process is the punishment.
Much like peter thiel’s lawsuits against Gawker, which included funding a guy who dubiously claimed to have invented email and sued Gawker for pointing out this was absurd.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-email-inventor_n_...

YC and its founders worship him like a hero.

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.

I don't think that's the full picture. Activist judges have been a problem for awhile now, and it seems to be mostly influenced by ideology rather than purely money.
It's certainly obviously true that one political party used "we will find judges who will overturn one particular court case" as a fundamental part of their campaigning for decades...
People are disagreeing, but I think they're seeing the word "activist" and assuming a different meaning than what I think OP meant. I suggest reframing as "politically motivated" judges. I don't think it's difficult to deny OP's comment using those terms.
You can't really venue shop for an "activist" judge but you can for one who will side with the powerful over the weak. Your comparison is itself not a full picture.
{"deleted":true,"id":48250874,"parent":48250840,"time":1779566268,"type":"comment"}
That's quite a claim. You need to cite your sources for this one, if you want to be taken seriously.
I'm not sitting on a precompiled list I can just drop into a comment. But I do have a pretty hard rule about investing more effort than someone else already has. So this would be an unequal trade for me to go spend the rest of my Saturday building a list for someone who wrote two sentences on the internet.

To add slightly more flavoring, I think its a pretty reasonable view to assume that the massive fracturing happening in the American political scene is most likely affecting the judicial branch. Perhaps you disagree. Take it as an opinion. Don't take it seriously. Whatever floats your boat.

How about this: what's an example of an activist judge, according to you?

Bonus question: do you enjoy watching Fox?

I'm not OP, but Matthew Kacsmaryk is definitely an activist judge, no matter what the fuck Fox news thinks of him.
I read somewhere that aliasxneo eats turds with a fork and knife. I'm not sitting on a precompiled list of sources, and it would be unfair to ask me to spend my Saturday building a list for someone whom I read eats turds with a fork and knife.

I won't say what aliasxneo does to add slightly more flavoring, but I think it's a pretty reasonable to assume it's gross and lazy.

Kudos for taking the time to type all of that out lol. I clearly hit a nerve.
Take it as an opinion. Don't take it seriously. Whatever floats your boat.
OP said (in a sibling comment) that they aren't out to educate you by doing work for you. I'll give you quick examples: the judge in Texas who made the morning-after pill illegal. The supreme court (not worthy of proper noun anymore) overturning Roe vs Wade. Those two should be enough to detect a pattern and then easily verify whether that's a trend or not.

Actually, just checking out newsworthy rulings in Texas might take care of everything. The corruption there is astounding.

Anybody paying attention would know that there are several activist judges in Texas, feeding into the activist 5th circuit -- the only appeals court that has been very often overturned by the current supreme court for being too conservative.

Just in case you're being honest about your own ignorance on this matter, you can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Kacsmaryk

What’s an activist judge? Do you believe a judge can just rule whatever they want outside the framework of law?
So many do, starting with the supreme court lately.
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.)
What do you think “fails” means exactly? How does Texas fail in a way that doesn’t harm innocent people in both Texas and the rest of the country/world?

Texas is larger (in both population and economy) than most countries in the world.

loading story #48250514
> Texas is larger (in both population and economy) than most countries in the world.

Californian here, we're bigger than Texas, laughed at the plight of ordinary people who voted for the terrible outcome they got when there was a massive winter storm and no electricity in 2021. Of course, I want good things for all people and I don't want anyone to suffer (this extends to my political enemies unless you're at the top making decisions that cause harm and then I'm flexible).

I honestly could see the hilarity of that disaster while still having compassion for the people on the ground. They voted based on social disagreements rather than competency and reaped the rewards. That said, there are very few actual competent leaders in USA government regardless of professed party. It's just that Texas keeps re-electing grifters who are nakedly corrupt (Ken Paxton and Ted Abbot come to mind). The citizens of the state are so blind as to punch themselves in the face when they vote.

"Ted Cruz says leaving Texas during winter disaster was 'obviously a mistake' as he returns from Cancún"[0]

0. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/18/ted-cruz-cancun-powe...

loading story #48250526
loading story #48250889
loading story #48250638
loading story #48250911
loading story #48250439
loading story #48250685
loading story #48250224
loading story #48250656
loading story #48252909
loading story #48250443
loading story #48250627
loading story #48251801
loading story #48251731
loading story #48261446
loading story #48250468
loading story #48257254
loading story #48251040
loading story #48255489
loading story #48251043
loading story #48251746
loading story #48255479
loading story #48256536
loading story #48252507
> The city’s mayor, Dennis Haws, told reporters the pipes date back to the 1950s

How long should water pipes remain useful? Am I outrageously naive to think more than 75 years?

Perhaps they have been doing no maintenance....

loading story #48250318
loading story #48252449
loading story #48250900
loading story #48252543
If you look at the legal system through the lens of "what benefits the wealthy or powerful?" you will more accurately guess what is going to happen and this goes from local issues such as this one all the way to the Supreme Court.

We just had the Broadview 6 case dismissed (with prejudice) this week. The Broadview 6 included former Chicago Congressional primary contender, Kat Abugazaleh. It was a bullshit set of charges for daring to protest an ICE facility. It was always going away but what was more disturbing is the prosecutorial misconduct [1]. The level of misconduct should rise to the level of disbarment. It will get referred to the bar and it'll probably be some slap-on-the-wrist sanctions however.

Prosecutors hold a lot of power and can make your life hell. They need to be held to a very high standard and any whiff of this kind of misconduct should forever bar you from being a prosecutor or a judge.

In this case the prosecutor basically engaged in witness tampering (effectively) with the grand jury proceedings and then tried to cover it up by redacting those parts of the grand jury transcripts. Those redactions basically amount to committing perjury, making false filings to the court under oath.

That's the lengths prosecutors will go to to crush protests. This goes equally for exposing incompetence, negligence or corruption by the town for mismanaging the water supply. This kind of overreach and misconduct is all too common.

[1]:https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/broadview-6-trial-cance...

loading story #48249977
loading story #48251482
loading story #48253745
loading story #48249898
Where is JD Vance preaching about free speech like he did in the UK. Twat.
loading story #48252609
loading story #48251706
loading story #48251301
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.
loading story #48250087
loading story #48250072
loading story #48250066
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.
loading story #48251175
loading story #48250901
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.

loading story #48250585
loading story #48250098
loading story #48251206
loading story #48252303
loading story #48250229
loading story #48250006
loading story #48249982
loading story #48251386
loading story #48251021
loading story #48250176
loading story #48251146
loading story #48250327
loading story #48250279
loading story #48249975
loading story #48250571
loading story #48250788
loading story #48251156