'Attribution' Troll On Press Inc. Now 50% Less 'Troll-like!' Also: NOT Yelling At People Sells More Books!

from the two-steps-forward,-one-step-back dept

Late last week, we brought to you the epic (if in length only) story of an “attribution” troll going by the name of On Press Inc., which patrolled Twitter, hounding people into properly attributing a Shaun Shane poem using inhuman persistence and a grab bag of legal terminology.

As could be expected, once the secret troll-summoning words were revealed, many people rushed to their Twitter accounts to try their luck. They were not disappointed. Over at Boing Boing, Rob Beschizza tweeted an unattributed “Tongues Made of Glass,” and was quicky hit with the expected blast of canned tweets.

On Press must have realized something was up, what with the sudden (and huge) increase in non-attributed poem quoting. For a little while, the On Press accounts fell nearly silent. In a few hours, however, its responses suddenly became a whole lot friendlier.

It would appear that On Press Inc. has realized (thanks to a very public airing of dirty laundry) that its previous tactics weren’t earning it any friends, customers or respect. This new approach is bound to be more successful on all counts, if for no other reason than the old way did nothing more than paint both Shaun Shane and On Press Inc. as overbearing thugs, hardly the sort of people anybody wants to comply with, much less support. All in all, I imagine it was a very long and hectic day for whoever’s running the On Press Twitter horde. This tweet (my new favorite!) pretty much sums it all up.


So, On Press is to be applauded for turning this whole experience around and using the additional exposure to generate some sales and additional Shaun Shane fans. In fact, someone claiming to be On Press added this comment to the original post late Saturday afternoon.

We’d like to thank you

This is On Press. We actually have to thank you Mr.Cushing. While at first we dimissed your post as simpleminded reactionism, you have brought quite abit of attention to Shane’s work. So much so, that we have sold 3219 (as to this hour)of Shane’s book in the last two days( more than we do in a month) and have recieved thousands of emails stating how much people like his work. So, by all means keep going. Your the best advertisment we have. Most people seem to not accept your position that using someone’s work without credit is acceptable. With much thanks, On Press Inc.

Now, I’m not going to comment publicly on the veracity of those sales figures because that’s beside the point. I have to believe there has been an increase in sales for two reasons: 1. additional exposure and 2. a more pleasant “On Press experience” on Twitter. I’m also not going to comment on the penultimate sentence… yet.


While there’s a new On Press leaf being turned over on Twitter, it appears that it’s the same old On Press (only grudgier) away from that platform. I was first clued in to this by Kendra Albert, who tweeted me a link to her blog post dealing with her On Press experience. She tweeted the poem, along with a link to our story, and received this in response. (The following image is Kendra’s.)

All well and good, except that several hours later, a comment from someone claiming to be On Press appeared on a two-week-old post of hers to leave a comment/rant about copyright, infringement, giving proper attribution, etc. Another comment followed (credited to “onpress17”), but this one was a bit nastier.

Here let us speak for ourselves, This is On Press Inc. Tim Cushing (Techdirt) posted Shane’s Poem on his Twitter account without credit to Shane. He was told to remove the post. Which is our legal right to demand. He then responded in what can only be characterized as juvenile ranting.He has selectively posted what he wants on his bizarre rambling on his webpage.But we have screenshots of all his conversation. You cannot post Author’s work without credit to them. Not only is it illegal but unethical. If you published something and someone put it on the internet without credit to you and you contacted them and they refused to credit you and then post your work on the internet without your credit and then encouraged their friends to post the work without credit to you,w e wonder how you would feel. As we do. Shane should credit for his work. And that is all that was asked of Cushing to do

Finally, onpress17 appeared again to add a comment to her current post.

You post was not for commentary or reporting it was to incite. Which is not Fair Use. We understand that some people have a limited and overly simplistic understanding of Copyright Law, which to be expected of amateurs. But, let us put Mr.Cushings efforts in perspective. Of all the issues we deal with daily, he is quite minor and is hardly the first of his kind that we or other publishers have had to deal with . And we have quite abit of experince with resolving these types of issues. Though they take a little time. Secondly, Mr. Cushing has committed quite a few criminal and civil infractions that we are in the process of bringing to bare against him. But as we stated, legal proceedings take time. We have, and are sure that we will have too in the future, deal with sorts like Mr.Cushings as we have in the past. But, that is the nature of Publishing in this era and this issue will be resolved in our favor. However, we would suggest for you that you become better acquainted with the limitations of Fair Use.

So, it appears that On Press (or people pretending to be On Press) is playing nice on Twitter, but is still just as brutish (and confused) everywhere else. Someone claiming to be On Press also visited Boing Boing’s writeup on this story to add the following:

We would really like to see if you’ll come out from hiding behind this cowardly shield of words, on some poorly excuted blog that list no way of getting a hold of you and give us some real world contact information. For surely, if you presume you are right then there can be no harm in having us settle this in court. Or perhaps your just a wanna be revolutionary that does nothing more than talk hiding behind some silly childish ranting on a webpage. Or are you really up ” to putting your money where your mouth is ” as they say. So give us some contact information and stop being so cowardly.

All of this coming from the very anonymous On Press Inc., which has yet to supply anyone with a URL, email address, contact name or anything else. Someone claiming to be On Press also visited Michael Geist’s blog to set the record straight on a “misquote,” using the name “Tammy.” (h/t to Eric Lorenzo). And there’s plenty being said in the reviews section of On Press’ solo book offering over at Amazon. “Michael Bradshaw” has waded into every opposing review to deliver gems such as these:

“…he (Cushing) acted like some idiotic kid and wrote this fake review. Notice he has not bought the book… And anybody who would go to these lengths rather than first credit an Artist is seriously deranged… Anyone who support this type of unethical childish behavior is as emotionally disturbed as Cushing is .”

“Cushing never read Shane’s book he’s just an immature idiot who knows how to nothing more than respond like a child when confronted with his immturity.”

“Tim Cushing and the other guy have posted fake reviews when Cushing posted Shane’s poem without credit and was asked to credit him instead of being a decent human being decide to write a fake review in immature retaliation. Only a moron does stuff like that”

In addition, on the day of the original post, this email was sent to Techdirt’s Facebook account. [Interjections in brackets are my comments.]

Ah, Mr. Cushing we are quite amused by your efforts. Your investigation techniques need some work, but they are interesting to review nonetheless. As, for some of the misinformed opinions you’ve stated in your post ( quite bizarre in it’s length) let us correct you. Shaun Shane is dead and died of cancer in 2010 and is buried in Connecticut. [Link to an obituary, perhaps?] He willed all his work and ownership of his copyright to On Press Inc. [Documentation?]

As for Tim Roth, who attempted to verify that you were employed and Techdirt , he is in New York.

[There don’t appear to be any Tim Roths registered to practice law in New York. There’s a “Timothy Rothwell” in New Jersey. And as for it being “Tim Roth” who called, the voice on the phone (which sounded quite similar to the voice in Shaun Shane’s videos) clearly said “James Roth” and the call itself was made using a Texas phone number (the same number belonging to one of the names that has been going around supporting Shaun Shane online, Anne Murphy). It’s possible that there is another Tim Roth out there not listed in the official listings for NY lawyers, but who is a lawyer. It would help to see some proof though. For now, it’s a misdemeanor to impersonate an attorney in New York. If any impersonation is being done in Texas (where the calls originated), it’s a third-degree felony. There may not be any impersonation going on, but we pass along this info as a courtesy to On Press.]

But most importantly after being contacted to remove your post of Shane’s poem ,which you used illegally and not in compliance with any copyright law. ( Your use of it on Twitter does not meet Fair Use protection Guidelines; and despite your protest to the contrary, you cannot use copyrighted work – and it is copyrighted – without permission from the publisher) you showed willful intent to incur further infringement of our property and encouraged other to do (quite illegal Mr.Cushing)

[You’ll have to point out where exactly I “encouraged others to do” so. I believe your tactics, once exposed, had more to do with any uptick in uncredited poem tweets than anything I said in my post. And, once again, I’d like to see some proof of your claim that On Press holds this copyright. So far, all I’ve seen is one phrase in the opening pages of a print-on-demand book composed of someone else’s poems.

And as for your claim I showed “willful intent to incur further infringement,” please take some time to point out exactly where that occurred.]

Additionally, we have just been in contact with Amazon concerning your fake review of Shane’s book and have forwarded them the complete conversation with you ( we take screenshots of all conversations involving copyright infringement.) we had on Tweeter and your Twitter post stating that you had just made a review on Amazon in retaliation for being legally contacted to credit Shane or remove the post. Additionally, Twitter can, and does terminate accounts for copyright infringement.

[Good thing you made screenshots because all of your accounts are suspended. In fact, as of the evening of Feb. 18th, I can’t find a single one up and running.]

Copyright Infringement is a crime and you cannot use anyone’s copyrighted work without crediting them, period. There are no exceptions. We have to say that you have provided with us quite a lot of material to begin prosecution against you for copyright infringement. Also, Mr. Cushing we suggest you become more informed about how legal proceedings are conducted. it takes roughly a month to three months to begin the initial stages of prosecution. On Press Inc.

[I’ve got nothing to add to this — other than that there is a whole body of law that talks about limitations and exceptions in copyright law, so to say that “there are no exceptions” is simply incorrect. Moreover, I suggest a crash course on the difference between criminal copyright law and civil copyright law.]

I’d also like to address that last sentence of the self-congratulatory comment left here at Techdirt by On Press.

“Most people seem to not accept your position that using someone’s work without credit is acceptable.”

[“Most people” apparently being “Bob.”] Reading the entire post would show that my position is very clearly the opposite. Just like every other writer for Techdirt, I properly attribute the work (and words) of others. Every article posted has links to the source material. Quotations from the source are clearly set off by the use of blockquotes and italics. As I stated in my post, I don’t have any problem with seeking attribution. I just didn’t care for the method On Press was using. “Using someone’s work without credit” has never been acceptable, professionally or privately.

Now, bearing in mind that On Press is still considering naming me in a lawsuit for “copyright infringement, defamation of character and making false claims,” there’s not much I can do about the offending tweet and faux review. I can’t delete them or alter them in any way. The last thing I need is accusations that I’m trying to alter or cover up evidence. As long as there’s a legal threat dangling above my head, the tweet and review will stay where they are, unaltered.

Finally, even with this turnaround on Twitter, On Press still has some issues of its own. For one, it continues to claim it’s a division of Knopf, despite the fact that Knopf itself told us directly that it has no division by that name. In fact, Knopf itself offered to “release the hounds.”

Speaking of Twitter profiles, it appears the background photo On Press is using is a Shutterstock offering. This doesn’t mean On Press hasn’t paid the license fee (only $19!), but if it just grabbed it thoughtlessly from somewhere on the internet (without attribution), that would be a real shame.

Then there’s the issue with its claim of ownership of Shane’s work. On Press claims it owns it, despite it never having been registered at the Copyright Office. This doesn’t necessarily rule out ownership, but it does make one wish for a bit more proof than an uploaded video/flipbook. If Shaun Shane is dead (as On Press has repeatedly stated), who or what is controlling his work?

Shane’s only “published” book is a print-on-demand title from a company that doesn’t seem to exist outside of tweets and comments. Without any more information to go on, this book (and its attendant copyright) seems about as legitimate as a scraperbot’s Amazon offering compiled from eHow articles and Wikipedia pages. Some sort of chain of evidence needs to be presented before anyone can start filing copyright infringement lawsuits. If On Press has any information related to this, I greatly encourage it to clue the rest of us in on its existence.

Now, On Press has made some great strides in its day-to-day attribution work and I’d like to see it continue down that positive path. I’d also like to see it drop its “division of Knopf” wording and be a bit more open about its relationship to Shaun Shane (or his estate), but I’m not expecting any miracles. I’d also like to see it drop the legal threats but, understandably, it’s quite angry with me right now and I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. On the bright side, I did receive this little note in my Twitmail late last week.

As someone’s who’s witnessed the awesome power of the Popehat Signal, I’d hate to be the entity whose legal threats have prompted the lighting.

All in all, though, I’d say more good than bad has come out of this. At the very least, unsuspecting teen retweeters aren’t being smacked around by baseless threats involving IP addresses, police departments and lawsuits filed against their parents. While there is evidence that On Press is a bit more “aggressive” away from the confines of Twitter, for the most part it looks like a more positive effort is being made. Old habits die hard, but hopefully the newer, friendlier face of On Press will become the new “normal.” Perhaps this will lead to enough book sales that On Press/Shaun Shane can set up an actual web site and offer more than one title. As I’ve said before, I have no problem with giving proper attribution. I have a big problem, however, with using threats, insults and good, old-fashioned trolling to get these results.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: on press inc.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “'Attribution' Troll On Press Inc. Now 50% Less 'Troll-like!' Also: NOT Yelling At People Sells More Books!”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Dark Helmetsays:


First, you used my tweet to Knopf in your article without contacting me!?!?!? Don’t you know that ALL MY TWEETS ARE PROTECTED FROM PUBLICATION!?!?!?!?

Second, you did not, despite showing the image entirely, credit me within your article? Don’t you know that this is copyrightmarkent infringement of the 34th degree and that there are no exceptions to the made up laws in my head?

Enough talk, Cushing. I’ll be by to eat your face off later. Also, my made up attorney who is confused by his own first name and isn’t quite sure what state he’s from will be contacting you to verify your employment or something. I don’t know, legal shit is confusing, you assclown! ROAR!!!


First, you used my tweet to Knopf in your article without contacting me!?!?!? Don’t you know that ALL MY TWEETS ARE PROTECTED FROM PUBLICATION!?!?!?!?

Dude. I tried contacting you before this ran, but every time I called I got a recording that said, “We’re sorry, but the number you are trying to reach is drunk.”

As for the rest of your claims… well, let’s just say that I, too, have an in-house legal team composed of unsuspecting family members and acquaintances who often leave their Facebook accounts logged in while AFK…

Dark Helmetsays:


“Dude. I tried contacting you before this ran, but every time I called I got a recording that said, “We’re sorry, but the number you are trying to reach is drunk.””

Oh, that’s bullshit. You and I both know that legally it doesn’t count as drunk unless you tweet dick pics of yourself, you dolt….


Don’t blame me. I’m not the one who court-ordered the installation of a breathalyzer in the mouthpiece of your phone. I’m just repeating what the phone told me.

As for the tweeted junk shots? I long ago programmed my phone to forward any texts from you containing attachments to your mom. (And for extra lulz, my mom.)

Dark Helmetsays:


“As for the tweeted junk shots? I long ago programmed my phone to forward any texts from you containing attachments to your mom. (And for extra lulz, my mom.)”

You DICK. As I’ve proven over lo these many years, I’m perfectly capable of sending my own mother pictures of my slightly paler helmet, jerk!


Re: So did OnPress learn something?

Maybe they have learned that drama, misrepresentation and infringement is giving a lot of press. Since Tim is willing to/have to give them more advertisement, he is giving them something they couldn’t buy for thousands of dollars…

As I implied to the first article, this can only be “performance art” trying to create a debate about what propper attribution is and gaining attention for their book. Anything else and I hope Tim gets sued. Then the fourth ammendment will take care of a lot of the problems in this case!


Re: Re: So did OnPress learn something?

When you suggested that I agreed with you about it being performance art. But now I don’t think it is so much. More like a publicity stunt as some form of bizarre guerrilla marketing attempt. For it to be performance are there really needs to be an underlying statement of sorts in it which appears now to be completely undermined by the Jeckel and Hyde responses.


We would really like to see if you’ll come out from hiding behind this cowardly shield of words, on some poorly excuted blog that list no way of getting a hold of you and give us some real world contact information. For surely, if you presume you are right then there can be no harm in having us settle this in court

IOW – “I can’t sue you if I don’t know who you are!”

Sounds like someone has been getting some Teri Buhl legal advice.


How to make a buck out of the spectacle.

– Techdirt could have some virtual currency like TD Dollars that are available on the store.

– In the store there should be some icons for popcorn, sodas and the like so people could buy those by lets say $0.001.

– Posts should have a “give soda to this fellow”.
– Every time a poster achieved $10 bucks, Techdirt would give nine and keep one(management fee dude). Only registered users would be able to collect since it would need an account to send it to.

Stupid idea I know, but would you bet that people would actually pay others for their comments and want to reward them to how witty and intelligent they are?

I am betting that people would want to do that and it would drive voluntary registration.

Who knows maybe a mega-super-post-star emerges and goes on Larry King to describe how to succeed by only posting stuff online.

Chris Brandsays:

What is it that publishers do ?

If I were looking for a publisher, I’d want one who knows the difference between “abit” and “a bit”, “Your” and “You’re”,
“bare” and “bear” (unless “we are in the process of bringing to bare against him” is actually the kind of offer Tim might like), etc. Oh, and don’t they even have a spellchecker to flag “recieved” ?


On The Subject Of Shaun Shane

My first thought was “Yay! Hugs all around!”
But reading further I thought “Nay! Thugs do abound.”
And my final thought is “Meh. This guy’s a clown.”

“Three Thoughts”, a poem by Baldaur Regis. Copyright 2013 On Press, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reading this work is expressly forbidden.

Yakko Warnersays:

What, nothing?

I tried posting the quote on my own Twitter feed, and I didn’t get a single response.

Just like that one sleepover in grade school. Everyone said if I said “Bloody Mary” to my reflection in the bathroom mirror, something cool would happen, but nothing ever did.

Maybe it’s because I actually included correct attribution in my tweet. I put ” — some guy desperate for attention “.



I might be an old grognard, but back in my day it was considered wittier to attribute (or playfully misattribute) quotes to the people who are due credit for them.

So, this whole tl;dr post is about how some guy on the Internet posted a tweet containing a sequence of words that had been published in some other guy’s poetry before.

It’s all stupid. So now, a market opportunity has been created by the copyright’s holder response, and they vent their sour grapes about how the guys serving that market somehow stole from them? That money would have been spent in some other manner anyway, being disposable income; it didn’t cost anything to send the twitter spam, unless they subcontracted it (and that was stupid, as the following demonstrates). Then the people who were following-on-twitter the copyright holder publicized the fuck it I’m too drunk so I’ll post this pseudonymously because there might be an idea worth saving in all that rant. Cheers and goodnite.



A glass tongue may be worse than no tongue. You ever heard someone speak without a tongue? It doesn’t sound to careful to me. The idea is asinine, and I?d be ashamed to take credit for saying that. And to that I say!

If only our hands were made of chainsaws, how much more careful would we be when we scratch?

If only our eyes were made with laser beams, how much more careful would we be when we stare?

If only our thoughts were made of lightning, how much more careful would we be when we brainstorm?


I am no Twitter user..but..

I noticed that the long tweets from On Press Inc….I only ever saw similar messages like that when my texts with Verizon were longer than 120 charters in length….is that a normal thing for Twitter to do that on a non-mobile platform??? If not, we now know how On Press Inc. is tweeting via SMS text through a mobile carrier.


Re: I am no Twitter user..but..

INATU either, but I don’t think so. It seems to me that they just continued a new tweet where the previous one dropped off. Since thy’re using a script to do most of this anyway, it would be simple enough. At one point in the conversation, they even backtracked a couple of words and changed them mid-sentence between tweets.


To be fair, while Tim’s original tweeting was perfectly legitimate in the interest of journalistic investigation, many of the other re-tweets were simply trolling for a response.

Not that I really care… trolls and other bullies have as much right to voice their opinions as anyone else no matter how annoying or stupid those voices and opinions may be.


A few observations that were not addressed...

“But most importantly after being contacted to remove your post of Shane’s poem ,which you used illegally and not in compliance with any copyright law. ( Your use of it on Twitter does not meet Fair Use protection Guidelines; and despite your protest to the contrary, you cannot use copyrighted work – and it is copyrighted – without permission from the publisher) you showed willful intent to incur further infringement of our property and encouraged other to do (quite illegal Mr.Cushing)”

First, the first sentence there isn’t a sentence at all but rather a fragment. You would think that a publisher (and I use the term loosely) would have a basic comprehension of the language, especially considering that in this they claim that written words are their business. Second, it doesn’t appear that you were contacted with any sort of request to remove the post containing the content, but rather only the baseless threats including the initial one that your account was going to be terminated. Third, I don’t see anywhere where you reposted it again (except of course in the two articles on Techdirt which of course is in the context of commentary on the situation and thus most certainly is fair use and contained the attribution that they initially were complaining about) so I don’t quite see how in any way that your actions could be construed as “willful intent to incur further infringement” (the key word there being FURTHER).


Also found this googling the woman on facebook that states that she works at On Press Inc. It seems she has pissed off others as well (not really that surprising). I hadn’t seen the other persons name though.


“Just as a friendly reminder. when quoting someone elses work, be sure to site where the source is coming from or you too could deal with extra annoying emails from people such as Bill Slateson and Alexandria Hopewell from the alleged On Press Inc. heres their website, looks legit right? doubtful. How some people chose to spend their time is beyond me. http://onpressinc.com/

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ┬╗

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it