Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Civil Liberties

St. Louis Cops Claim Free-Speech Right to Warn Employers About Your Tweets They Don't Like

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 10.22.2014 12:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | inventorchris2/Flickr
(inventorchris2/Flickr)
inventorchris2/Flickr

Leigh Maibes is a St. Louis-based real estate agent. Unrelatedly, Maibes has been actively tweeting—under the alias @stacksizshort—about recent events in nearby Ferguson, Missouri. But when some of her criticisms of area police tactics offended Officer Keith Novara, he called Maibes' employers to tattle on her. 

In a conversation Maibes recorded and posted to YouTube, Novara admits to calling and texting her boss to warn about her Twitter activity. "Yeah I was just letting the city businessmen know, in the city, that if their phones were blowing up that's what it was from," Novara says. 

But if her employers' phones were blowing up because of her Twitter activity, wouldn't they already be aware of this? Considering that Novara is a 21st century human being who ostensibly understands how phones work, his rationale reeks of bullshit.

Maybe Novara was hoping to get Maibes in trouble. Maybe he was just trying to stop her from further tweeting. But whatever his aspirational outcome, calling in his official capacity as a St. Louis police offer to inform Maibes' boss of her completely legal, unrelated-to-work activity seems an awful lot like criminal intimidation and harassment. 

The video (below) of Maibes' call with Novara is both infuriating and wryly amusing as he offers a litany of vague and nonsensical justifications. He was compelled to act, you see, because of her "inciteful" tweets, which were contrary to "the neighborhood ownership model". He doesn't "understand what (her) point is," because he "was not in violation of any law." 

"It doesn't constitute police harassment or intimidation to stop my activism work?" asks Maibes.

"No, not at all," Novara responds. In fact, it's Maibes who should be ashamed, really. "You think that your tweets were appropriate and everything is fine then as far as what you say against police and all that?" he asks.

Maibes filed a formal complaint, and Novara has since been placed under investigation (though not suspended) by the St. Louis Police Department, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He's being represented by the St. Louis Police Officers Association, which insists Novara's actions were protected First Amendment speech.

"The Association has hired an attorney that specializes in First Amendment rights to represent Officer Novara," said the union's business manager, Jeff Roorda, in a chilling statement. Roorda continued: 

It is confounding to us as an organization of law enforcement professionals that apologists for the so-called 'peaceful protestors' in Ferguson and the Shaw neighborhood defend throwing bricks, bottles and rocks at police officers as 'freedom of speech or freedom of expression'. Then, those very same people feign righteous indignation when a police officer who is fed up with the corrosive, anti-police rhetoric that this particular agitator has made in a public forum on social media, exercises his freedom of speech and freedom of expression in a truly peaceful manner.

(…) Police Officers are not second-class citizens. They enjoy First Amendment rights and every other right that is enjoyed by every other citizens and we will aggressively defend those rights to our last breath. 

This is clearly a First Amendment issue, just not in the way the police union seems to think it is. Lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield notes that "wearing a badge doesn't forfeit the free speech of the person," and had Novara merely called Maibes' employer as a griping citizen it would be a different matter. But that's not what he did. Greenfield continues:

Rather, (the call) came from Police Officer Keith Novara, and the speech of a person who presents himself in his official governmental capacity is no longer the individual's free speech, but the official person's speech. And the latter is not free.

(…)Novara's "exercise" of free speech, behind his official capacity as a police officer, was clearly intended as intimidation. 

"If a government actor is retaliating against someone who is engaged in First Amendment activity, that is not lawful," Jeffrey Mittman, executive director for the ACLU of Missouri, told the Post-Dispatch.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Mayhem in Canada: Multiple Shooting Attacks

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Civil LibertiesPoliceFergusonMichael BrownHarassmentFree SpeechMichael Brown
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (55)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. SugarFree   11 years ago

    Free speech or not, he should be fired. But since he won't, this gets to look like something that needs to be debated.

    1. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

      Now, now, Suge. hang on and "Dunphy" will be along to explain why this is all good and right and holy, and how the cop should get a bonus instead of a jail sentence for this.

      Because due process. Boo. yah.

  2. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    Protect Retaliate and Serve Intimidate

    1. Clich? Bandit   11 years ago

      One of the greatest subversive twists of our time was making the Prowl character into Barricade, epitomizing the modern societal shift from trusting the police to seeing them as psychopathic robots bent on punishment and enslavement.

      /overly analyzing Transformers.

      While I am joking...tell me there isn't a hint of truth.

      1. perlhaqr   11 years ago

        Hunh. I never realised Barricade was a revamp of Prowl.

  3. Rich   11 years ago

    Let the lawsuits begin.

  4. Riven   11 years ago

    "(...) Police Officers are not second-class citizens."

    No shit. Thanks to their immunity, I'd say they probably rank above first-class citizens, too.

  5. Restoras   11 years ago

    What a pussy of a cop.

  6. heartburn   11 years ago

    How did Novara associate @stacksizshort with Leigh Maibes?

    1. Episiarch   11 years ago

      That was my first question upon reading this.

      1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown   11 years ago

        If you watch the video, it becomes clear they knew each other from the neighborhood and her work on the historical preservation society there. And she does use her real photo on her Twitter account.

        1. Episiarch   11 years ago

          Ah, OK. I couldn't WTFV so I didn't see that. Well, at least he didn't do something infuriatingly creepily illegal to get her real identity and then also not be punished for that. Look, there's a bright side! Yay!

          1. SugarFree   11 years ago

            There's a picture on Facebook of her with a black guy. This means the police can at least wing her and get away with it, right?

            1. Episiarch   11 years ago

              Yes, but because she's white, he has to be yelling "stop resisting" when he shoots her. Those are the rules.

              1. SugarFree   11 years ago

                I just can't sympathize with someone named "Leigh."

                1. Episiarch   11 years ago

                  How about Leighton?

  7. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

    I imagine the call went something like "One of your employees has been pissing off me and my fellow baboons with badges. On an unrelated note, nice business you got there..."

  8. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

    "apologists for the so-called 'peaceful protestors' in Ferguson and the Shaw neighborhood defend throwing bricks, bottles and rocks at police officers as 'freedom of speech or freedom of expression'. Then, those very same people"

    Ah, the "very same people" trope.

    OK, I'd like to see evidence that (a) *anyone* claimed throwing bricks, etc. is free expression and that (b) any of these people are at the forefront of criticizing the cop's intimidation tactics.

  9. Anonymous Coward   11 years ago

    Maybe Novara was hoping to get Maibes in trouble.

    Progtard Logic 101: I don't like what you say, so rather than construct an argument about why your position is wrong, I'm going to try and fuck up your livelihood.

    1. Episiarch   11 years ago

      I don't know if the cop is a progressive, he just seems like a power hungry piece of shit bully to me. Like most cops.

      1. Anonymous Coward   11 years ago

        ...a power hungry piece of shit bully...

        Amazing how you've managed to capture their mentality with such brevity.

      2. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

        If he's a power hungry piece of shit bully, then he's already 80% of the way there.

        All he needs to do is pick up the current SJW cant, and he can be a fully-fledged progtard.

        1. Bill Dalasio   11 years ago

          No, proggies are just a subset of power hungry piece of shit bullies. There are some who are conservative and some who are non-political.

  10. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

    OT, main post at Huffpo right now:

    Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

    All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania.

    The top tax rate that makes all citizens, including the highest 1 percent of earners, the best off is "somewhere between 85 and 90 percent," Krueger told The Huffington Post. Currently, the top rate of 39.6 percent is paid on income above $406,750 for individuals and $457,600 for couples.

    1. Suthenboy   11 years ago

      I forget, what were the tax receipts like when the top rate was 91%?

      1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

        The paper assumes that tax rates won't stop a future Bill Gates from wanting to start Microsoft. Instead, what it finds is that labor supply among the 1 percent would decline -- translation, they would work a little less -- but it "does not collapse." That's because of who the authors assume makes up the top income bracket: celebrities, sports stars, and entrepreneurs -- people with innate talents that are hugely rewarding, but only for a short period of time. They only have a few years to use their skills to make most of the money they will ever make. High tax rates don't lessen their degree of desire to be productive, the authors said.

        Doesn't matter, this time the assumptions are what counts.

        1. Andrew S.   11 years ago

          Anybody want to check with France to see how an extraordinarly high top tax rate is working out for them? And they didn't even go to 90%.

          1. Paul.   11 years ago

            Anybody want to check with France to see how an extraordinarly high top tax rate is working out for them? And they didn't even go to 90%.

            We've tried to reach Gerard Depardieu, but his phone just rings, no voicemail or anything.

        2. Bill Dalasio   11 years ago

          This is wrong on so many levels I can't begin to start.

          But, here's a try.

          the top income bracket: celebrities, sports stars, and entrepreneurs This is just idiotic. You can effectively ignore the first two categories. Our economy is not driven by Kobe Bryant and Kim Kardashian. And if Kindermann and Krueger think they do, they should turn in their PhDs and apologize to their students for wasting their time. And their entire argument of "hugely rewarding, but only for a short period of time" applies to the celebrities and sports stars, not the entrepreneurs who drive the economy. Entrepreneurship isn't exactly a depleting source of human capital. Perhaps most importantly it entirely misreads the nature of entrepreneurial human capital. Risk taking is vastly more important than direct labor contribution. The risk of a 90% tax rate isn't that Bill Gates won't work as hard. It's that the next Bill Gates will decide that the relative reward isn't worth dropping out of Harvard and securing a nice job in middle management or the bureaucracy to give up his entire youth on the next Microsoft.

          Really, this is just retarded.

      2. Catatafish   11 years ago

        And what performance metrics do they use to come up with this definition of "better off?"

    2. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      Yep! Because there's nothing worse than rich people investing their ill-gotten gains into capital to be used to create more wealth! If they do this then they may provide more goods and services while creating new jobs! Oh, the horror! We must take that money away from them and use it to pay government salaries!

      1. MJGreen   11 years ago

        That's simply the 1%'s sneaky way to make more profits without doing anything!

    3. Brandon   11 years ago

      "Economists"

      1. Certified Public Asskicker   11 years ago

        Two of them!

  11. SugarFree   11 years ago

    This link has a screenshot of the texts he sent to her employer before the call.

    And a picture of the scumbag.

    1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown   11 years ago

      Oh wow, I hadn't seen those...

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        I really would like some more context on the first text. Sort of sounds like her employer ratted her out.

  12. Every Cop is a Criminal   11 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYuD5uuo8Jg

  13. Every Cop is a Criminal   11 years ago

    Reminds me of former San Francisco columnist Harley Sorensen. I wrote an comment to one of his columns and the POS threatened to tell the non-profit I worked for and all of their major funders what I was doing on company time. As if people don't take lunch or breaks. I immediately informed his editors of the threat by forwarding it to them. POS.

    1. Mongo   11 years ago

      Some cats ain't happy unless they're gagging on some pig's dick....

  14. The Last American Hero   11 years ago

    Now c'mon guys, I have been repeatedly assured that cops are working class heroes who don't use their power to abuse or harass the citizens. So don't believe your lying eyes when you see the texts.

  15. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

    So what happened? Did Novara's employer (hopefully) tell him to go pound sand?

    1. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

      Sorry, meant Maibes's employer.

      1. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

        I liked it better the first way.

  16. AlmightyJB   11 years ago

    It's too bad only a small percentage of the population ever sees these stories. If would be great if there was Cops Behaving Badly primetime TV show that details all of these types of bullying behavior. I'm afraid unfortunately that not only would the show be bullied iff the air within a week, a vast percentage of the population would still take the cops side no matter hiw egregous the behavior.

    1. AlmightyJB   11 years ago

      What's interest is I what one of those shows about chick cops in maricova county. It was like a top ten show. In at least 9 of the 10 situations the cops grossly overreacted. Probably the 10th as well but that one was on the line so I gave them that. It was ridulas really.

      1. AlmightyJB   11 years ago

        Maricopa. Ridiculas.

    2. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      What are you talking about? There's COPS, Alaska State Troopers, North Woods Law, and a host of other programs that follow compliance enforcement officers as they go around bullying and intimidating anyone they come into contact with.

  17. Paul.   11 years ago

    Maybe Novara was hoping to get Maibes in trouble. Maybe he was just trying to stop her from further tweeting. But whatever his aspirational outcome, calling in his official capacity as a St. Louis police offer to inform Maibes' boss of her completely legal, unrelated-to-work activity seems an awful lot like criminal intimidation and harassment.

    He was frustrated. There was no victim per se. He was just shooting his gun into the dirt.

  18. John Schultz   11 years ago

    Don't forget that union mouthpiece, Jeff Roorda, is a statehouse rep in Missouri and is running for the state Senate this election cycle. He's also a former cop and critical of body cameras, even before the Michael Brown incident:

    http://blogs.riverfronttimes.c.....s_safe.php

  19. JoeTheLesser   11 years ago

    "You think that your tweets were appropriate and everything is fine then as far as what you say against police and all that?"

    The real criminal is whoever taught this cop English as a kid.

  20. The artist known Dunphy   11 years ago

    Imo, the crux of the issue was making the call in his official capacity

    Note, he could do so while off duty, and even identifying himself AS a police officer, as long as he makes it clear he is not making the call in his official capacity.

    I'll be interested to see how the case plays out

    I've written editorials identifying myself as a LEO, as well as strength training articles, but those were not in official capacity, and that is the issue imo

    Heck, taking you could decide to engage in this practice in mass and again as long as the individual representatives were not acting in official capacity and on duty it would not be a issue as far as their absolute right to do so

  21. Dan Reason   11 years ago

    It is also a Tort, wrongful interference with contract. The elements are: 1. An economic relationship between one person and another with the probability of future economic benefit to the person;

    2. Knowledge by the interfering party of the relationship between the first two;

    3. Intentional act(s) by the third person with the intent to disrupt the relationship;

    4. Actual disruption of the relationship; and

    5. Damages to the first person that are proximately caused by the acts of the third person.

  22. MasterDarque   11 years ago

    Nice breasts on her plus nice set of balls to call this state sponsored thug on his obvious bullshit. Cheers to her.

  23. AlmightyJB   11 years ago

    Just to be clear. The reason he did this is because he is a piece of shit. No other reason. I only mention it because she was asking him why.

  24. woodNfish   11 years ago

    Just more proof that most cops are thugs.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive

M. Nolan Gray | From the July 2025 issue

Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction

Ronald Bailey | From the July 2025 issue

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!