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

ACLU

ACLU Accuses Memphis Police of Monitoring the Private Communications of Black Lives Matter Activists

Domestic surveillance in Tennessee.

Zuri Davis | 7.27.2018 2:05 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
|||Austin McAfee/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Austin McAfee/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The Tennessee branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against the Memphis police, accusing the department of illegally surveilling Black Lives Matter activists.

The suit stems from the city's response last year to an open records request. When Memphis released the names of civilians who required a police escort during City Hall visits, several people on the list turned out to be activists who participated in "protests, rallies or other free speech activities in the city." The ACLU notes that many of these figures "had no criminal record or history of causing disturbances at City Hall." Nonetheless, individuals on the list could be escorted from certain properties and charged with criminal trespass if they return.

According to the lawsuit, the Memphis Police Department made the City Hall Escort List by tracking the social media posts of "local individuals or groups that were staging protests." Police Director Michael Rallings allegedly approved the list's creation in response to a 2016 "die-in" protest in front of the mayor's home. (No arrests were reported at the die-in.)

The lawsuit accuses officers of using activists' private Facebook posts to track their movements and meetings. Information including pictures, previous arrests, and connections with other activists were presented in weekly PowerPoint presentations. One of the weekly PowerPoints accused local activists of trying to use "legitimate community organizations to advance a radical agenda" and having an "expressed goal" to "embarrass law enforcement in order to undermine the bond between law enforcement and the community." The PowerPoint contained private social media posts and admitted to the use of undercover officers.

The police apparently followed activists' activities through a fake Facebook user account, accessed private social media communications, and placed undercover officers at meetings and events. All this, the ACLU argues, violates a 1978 consent decree that banned Memphis city officials from surveilling "constitutionally-protected political activities."

"Monitoring these public social media posts is simply good police work, which has allowed us to make operations plans to protect both demonstrators and counter-demonstrators, keeping everyone safe without violence," Rallings declared in a statement. According to The Appeal, he insists his "officers have never interfered with anyone lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights."

Rallings did not address the private communications in question.

That 1978 consent decree exists for good reason. "During the civil rights movement," the ACLU points out, "Memphis police engaged in the questionable practice of gathering domestic intelligence on demonstrators and activists in an attempt to intimidate people from exercising their right to free speech and assembly." Now as then, the city's cops are spying on nonviolent activists exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

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: A Supreme Court Decision About Sports Betting May Help Protect Sanctuary Cities from the Feds

Zuri Davis was an assistant editor at Reason.

ACLUTennesseePolicePolice AbuseSurveillanceFacebookCriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (46)

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. Ron   7 years ago

    If they are posting on face book then its not private therefore its okay to monitor face book. note who ever is monitoring facebook posts was given permission by the poster to monitor

    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      Note, police who monitor Facebook to gain information about lawful demonstrations are authoritarians regardless of the practice's legality.

      Point taken, nonetheless

      1. Social Justice is neither   7 years ago

        It's not like any of these demonstrations have ever turned violent or resulted in property damage.

        Even if their job was just peace keeping without the rest of it, making sure they had adequate resources available for potential trouble spots would still be their job. How they choose to go about doing it is a whole other thing.

        1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          Knowing when the demonstration is going to occur is public information, but spying on the leadership is a bit far, despite whether or not it's legal

    2. Rhywun   7 years ago

      The article seemed to imply that they created a fake FB account in order to monitor "private" posts (is that a thing?) - in other words it sounds like they were trying to infiltrate BLM. Naughty, naughty.

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        I'm going to have to plead ignorance. I know very little about Facebook besides the fact that people talk too much about themselves nowadays

        1. Rhywun   7 years ago

          Well, I know you can restrict the viewing of posts to "friends". The article doesn't mention anything about FB chat, which might be something I would reasonably assume to be private, so I guess that's not at issue. So that leaves the question of whether posts that are restricted to your circle of friends are really "private". I think a court would have to answer that.

          1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

            Also, you can have private groups whose posts are only visible to members.
            The article also says that they sent secret police to meetings to monitor people.

            It's basically a local, updated version of COINTELPRO, infiltrating and disrupting political movements.

            1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

              Now do the IRS

              1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

                They do nothing of the sort. Next?

                1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

                  Selective civil libertarians are a joke

                  1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

                    I don't like paying my taxes either. However, I don't see the IRS as particularly violative of rights. There may be mistakes here and there, but it's hardly like the NSA or FBI or many local police departments.

                    1. Sevo   7 years ago

                      Happy Chandler|7.27.18 @ 4:01PM|#
                      "I don't like paying my taxes either. However, I don't see the IRS as particularly violative of rights."

                      I guess all that IRS 'stuff' went right over your head, since you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
                      Or, more likely, you are a fucking lefty ignoramus lying at every chance you get.

      2. Cathy L   7 years ago

        Imply? It explicitly said they used a fake account.

        1. Rhywun   7 years ago

          Which begs the question: what is a "fake" account? I know people with more than one FB account. AFAIK there is no requirement to be a "real" person.

          1. BestUsedCarSales   7 years ago

            I have one that I built to monitor a bunch of City Event pages.

          2. Hugh Akston   7 years ago

            You should probably read this before you sign up then:

            1. Who can use Facebook
            When people stand behind their opinions and actions, our community is safer and more accountable. For that reason, you must:

            - Use the same name that you use in everyday life.
            - Provide accurate information about yourself.
            - Create only one account (your own) and use your timeline for personal purposes.
            - Not share your password, give access to your Facebook account to others, or transfer your account to anyone else (without our permission).

            1. Rhywun   7 years ago

              you must:

              Or else they'll kick me out? Oh noes!

          3. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

            An account run by police that pretends to be a member of the community.
            Kind of like the Stasi attending meetings pretending to be dissidents.

            1. Ron   7 years ago

              also like when the Hillary campaign sent in rabble rousers into Trump rallys

              1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

                Right. Government agents in private forums, versus private citizens in public forums.

                Exactly the same! Also, one is a figment of your imagination.

    3. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

      Ron, you have a point. The cops did not hack into Facebook accounts. They set up a fake account and asked for access to the posts which the activists gave them. It's underhanded, and I suppose the cops should not do it, but I don't know if it is bad enough to be illegal.

      1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

        It certainly violated the court order.

  2. Just Say'n   7 years ago

    This is the same ACLU that tried to force a Catholic diocese to release internal communications about their support for pro-life demonstrators, right?

    Too bad they have no consistent principles

    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      I suppose adhering to whatever left-wing politics dictates at the moment is a principle. Just not an admirable one.

      1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

        This is what progressives mean when they say they care about people, not rules.

    2. BestUsedCarSales   7 years ago

      This is the same ACLU that tried to force a Catholic diocese to release internal communications about their support for pro-life demonstrators, right?

      Did they call people lamers or something in the communications? Seems weird to push hard for internal communications stating something that they both publicly support and are probably the entity most universally associated with that stance.

      1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

        They were trying to make a clumsy argument that the Church had influenced a Texas law that required that aborted fetuses to be buried. In part, it was retaliatory, because the Church had argued that it would bury the fetuses at no cost, which undercut the argument about cost to providers with regards to the law.

        1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

          Actually, I got to double check if that was the incident that I was thinking about

          1. Hugh Akston   7 years ago

            Just click on the link in your initial comment.

            1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

              What I appreciate about your old man brand of libertarianism Hugh is that it's perpetually stuck in 1968. Don't worry, you'll get Tricky Dick some day

  3. Fist of Etiquette   7 years ago

    I guess all crime in Memphis has been eradicated since they have the time and public resources to go into precrime.

  4. majil   7 years ago

    Go to Nashville , Least expensive Town I have ever partied in and better music than I heard in Memphis (even at BB King's Bar. )
    O(h and FTP

    1. The Laissez-Ferret   7 years ago

      +1 Agreed. Nashville has a huge music scene beyond just country and is much cleaner and safer.

    2. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

      Didn't make it to Nashville. Went to Memphis because it was Elvis' Birthday, and, I figured I should.
      TIL: You don't want to stay near Graceland.

  5. Enjoy Every Sandwich   7 years ago

    Hm, I thought only libertarian kooks didn't trust the government. (You guys know the police are part of the government, right?)

  6. Cathy L   7 years ago

    Huh, I thought violated the terms of service of a website like this was a federal crime.

    1. Just Say'n   7 years ago

      Many things can be true.

      - What the police have done in this situation, regardless of it's legality, is authoritarian

      - Violating terms of services is not a crime, but open the company up for civil penalties

      - The president doesn't understand the distinction between "civil" and "criminal"

      - You are the queen of false equivalencies

      1. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

        It is also true that it is in violation of a court order.

    2. Happy Chandler   7 years ago

      I think unauthorized access (ie stealing passwords, rooting servers, etc) is a crime.
      Giving fake information is not.

  7. Just Say'n   7 years ago

    Speaking of police misusing Facebook.

    From WaPo:

    "The Justice Department plans to alert the public to foreign operations targeting U.S. democracy under a new policy designed to counter hacking and disinformation campaigns such as the one Russia undertook in 2016 to disrupt the presidential election.

    The government will inform American companies, private organizations and individuals that they are being covertly attacked by foreign actors attempting to affect elections or the political process.

    "Exposing schemes to the public is an important way to neutralize them," said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who announced the policy at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, according to prepared remarks. "The American people have a right to know if foreign governments are targeting them with propaganda."

    1. Rhywun   7 years ago

      Meh. Imagine all the damage these idiots could do if they were applying themselves to real problems instead of spinning their wheels on made-up nonsense. This is the FedGov equivalent of yelling at your kids to go play outside until supper.

  8. buybuydandavis   7 years ago

    "Spying is only bad when you do it to the Left. When you spy on Right wing political candidates, that's totally great."

  9. Jason Dawes the Elder   7 years ago

    So.....what I'm getting from this is that the cops read facebook.

    Outrageous.

  10. Sevo   7 years ago

    We should be concerned regarding an ACLU claim why? Is there any reason to take their claims as more valid than the SPLC?

  11. Inigo Montoya   7 years ago

    Ordinarily I'd side with BLM here because they correctly identify a problem but just misdiagnose the cause (thinking police brutality is due to racism when it's mostly police unions), but the ACLU is dead to me. When they say people have way too much freedom and that just antagonizes government, they can kiss my big behind.

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

A Broad Ruling Against Trump's Immigration Policies Illustrates Alternatives to Universal Injunctions

Jacob Sullum | 7.3.2025 4:40 PM

Environmental Regulations Are Literally Baking Europeans to Death

Jack Nicastro | 7.3.2025 3:38 PM

Federal Prison Guards Allegedly Beat an Inmate to a Pulp. The Supreme Court Says He Can't Sue.

Billy Binion | 7.3.2025 2:48 PM

Jurassic World Rebirth Chases Summer Movie Nostalgia

Peter Suderman | 7.3.2025 1:40 PM

The $4 Trillion 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Breaks the Bank and Violates Congress' Own Budget Rules

Veronique de Rugy | 7.3.2025 11:25 AM

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!