Ct. Police to Prosecute People Posting False News on the Shooting "In Any Manner"

UPDATE: The link I had was apparently edited and doesn't accurately portray what was said.
See this post for a transcript of the UN-EDITED video www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...

I would like to know what laws are being broken by discussing this event on a public website. If the Police spokesman is to be believed then there will be thousands arrested.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


So what now, only the MSM has a legal right to discuss or disseminate information about a crime that is headlines all over the world?

Rubbish.

As long as the 'indepenent journalist' posting information or thoughts and theories isn't pretending to be an 'official source of information' or attached to the police force investigating, there's NO law being broken, by discussing and offering information on ANY subject.

I'd like to see that fat twonk try and prosecute me.

Not exactly the whole story. The crux of what he was saying was about people posting hoaxed information. Did you notice the edit in that video? That's the part that was taken out.

Connecticut officials cautioned against the spread of false information on social media sites in the wake of Friday’s massacre.

Anyone who posts fake material about the rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School or killer Adam Lanza could face arrest, Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said at a press conference Sunday.

“There has been misinformation coming from people posing as the shooter in this case, using other IDs, mimicking this crime and crime scene,” Vance said, adding that some of the posts are of a “threatening manner.”

nydailynews.co m

No...he said that those posting what they claim to be inside info which may jeopardize the investigatiion or knowingly false info will be investigated and prosecuted if warranted.

They are chipping away at are constitutional rights...hell our rights as any human beings to warn others of the goings on.

This is only going to show how wrong the us judicial system is, prosecuting people for their freedom of speech.

reply to post by OneisOne


good point
but what could and would be classed as fake?
all the discrepancies that we are discussing here at ATS?
it seems like a perfect ploy to basically right off anything and everything that dosnt fit into the OS!

Here is what he said, without the edit.



Clearly about people posting knowingly false and threatening information.

reply to post by GezinhoKiko


I read in the times that he said people posing as the killer are hindering the investigation and wasting police time and it is those who will be found and prosecuted.

reply to post by OneisOne


Thank you! I wondered if he didn't know the Constitution or if we woke up Behind the Iron Curtain.

I don't hear his actual words in the video as anything like that in your link to a text article.

The words on the article in your link are understandable and don't imply the same as the video's words.

well thats good at least its not a complete blanket ban on the subject.

btw embed disabled.

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
www.youtube.com...

This video was posted yesterday. How did we miss it?

Ct. policeman says people posting about the school shooting will be prosecuted.

What about all the mainstream media reports that were inaccurate?

They want ONLY the official story posted and all the news to come from them.

What about the School Superintendent who gave an interview yesterday?

This is beyond believable.

edit on 17/12/2012 by Trexter Ziam because: (no reason given)

Well now.. I've been posting for a few days now. Please, tell me what would REALLY piss him off the most? I'll make it my next lengthy thread.

I'm sorry, but tin pot dictators in a police uniform impress me less than a junkie on a street corner. At least the Junkie knows he's the bottom of society and makes no bones about it. This power tripping freak is the bottom and plays like he's the top. Well..... Bring it on and have at it if anyone would ever like to attempt a criminal prosecution of me on grounds of reporting a valid news event or speaking about current events happening in the world around us.

I would *LOVE* the opportunity to be the name on the case that runs THAT one up the the Supremes....and I WELCOME the opportunity to have that test case dropped in my lap like Mana from Heaven. Oh...it would be my Xmas Gift x's 10.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Dude the OP's vid edited out what really was said.
Not You OP just the the vid.

We forgive you wabbit tired pal?

They're concerned about FALSE information, wrabbit.

Go back and re-read.

Reading comprehension isn't one of ATS's stronger suits.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


The conn police will prosecute in their state they have not jurisdiction without higher court ruling to do that outside their state lines.

unfortunately the vid isnt available in the UK
thanks for clearing up the confusion oneisone



thanks boymonkey

reply to post by OneisOne


Thank you! Your embed didn't work, but, I finally got to hear it from your video link.

Phew! So, it's not Iron Curtains Day afterall.

OK, I finally found a transcript of what he said. This will help those that can't see the video I posted earlier (that is if they read it!)

One thing that's becoming somewhat of a concern and that is misinformation is being posted on social media sites.

There has been misinformation coming from people posing as the shooter in this case, posing using other I.D.s, mimicking this crime and crime scene and criminal activity that took place in this community. There's been some things and somewhat of a threatening manner.

It is important to note that we have discussed with federal authorities that these, these issues are crimes, they will be investigated statewide and federally, and prosecution will take place when people perpetrating this information are identified.

Again, all information relative to this case is coming from these microphones and any information coming from other sources cannot be confirmed and, in many cases, it has been found as inaccurate.

So, I simply, that's the newest twist today that we want to make sure that's perfectly clear that social media web sites that contain information relative to this case are not being posted by the Connecticut State Police, are not being posted by the Newtown police, are not being posted by any authorities in this case.

So, any of that information and people that are that are putting that information up there in any manner all right, can be construed as a violation of state or federal law will be prosecuted, will be investigated and prosecuted. Questions, I can take a few, understanding that we still are active in this case, OK.

So there it is. Full transcript (of the CNN video) at the link: transcripts.cnn.com

reply to post by OneisOne


You are a life-saver! Thanks again from those of us with hearing deficiencies as well as those who cannot see videos. This makes more sense now.

reply to post by OneisOne



earlier I thought this was an attempt at getting people to stop discussing the story, but now that I see it without the edit (ie without the truth hidden), it seems more like he is talking about obstruction of justice? Kind of doubt that can be considered here..

The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

Source

Don't think this applies except for people being directly questioned? Or can slowing the cops down from outside the case actually be a crime? Would get less tips in the future if they go that way, don't you think?


Here is a story where they are looking for criminal charges against a guy who tweeted false news about hurricane sandy:

At least one elected official has asked that criminal charges be considered in the case.

New York City Councilman Peter Vallone says he has asked the Manhattan district attorney's office to look into the possibility that Tripathi's tweets were the digital equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

"The Manhattan DA is taking this very seriously," Vallone, a Democrat, told Buzzfeed, while acknowledging it may be a hard case to make. "I hope the fact that I'm asking for criminal charges to be seriously considered will make him much less comfortable and much less smug."

Source

Notice in this hurricane case he mentions the Fire in theater metaphor...

Question Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? (Posted by: Anonymous )

Answer
Though the image often represents illegal speech, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.

Source


Sounds like they will have a really hard time going after anybody unless they are directly involved with messing up the crime scene.. I just don't see how people pretending to be the shooter online affects their investigation when they have already decided there was ONE shooter..

Are they looking for another??