Oppose DGO 6.21 censoring SFPD with regard to public posts on social media!

Our Police Officers need MORE tools, not fewer.

The Police Commission wants to prohibit SFPD from using social media to hold criminals accountable.

DGO 6.21 is the newest unnecessary and dangerous hand-tying policy churned out by the unelected Police Commission in their relentless attempt to debilitate the SFPD.

SFPD needs the ability to investigate crimes in a world of emerging technology, and they need to be able to respond to current ways in which people communicate and organize online. SFPD must have the tools to catch online child predators as well as other dangerous organized criminals.

Not only does DGO 6.21 take away this extremely important tool from our SFPD, but it is also a glaring anti-democratic form of censorship. The Commission is trying to dictate what SFPD officers can and cannot read online despite the fact that the content is public. Will their next DGO ban our officers from reading the Chronicle or watching the evening news? This is a mind-boggling step too far, and perhaps it is time to have our City Attorney turn his attention to the unbridled, anti-public safety behavior of the Police Commission.

Here are three examples of social media assisting SFPD in arresting extremely dangerous criminals:

Let’s remind the Commissioners we are closely monitoring their decisions, and let’s once again tell our electeds to reign in this Commission.

Send an email to the Police Commission today!

Name*

First NameLast Name

Email*

example@example.com

What District do you live in?*

Subject:

Message to the Police Commission and Board of Supervisors:

Dear Police Commissioners,&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;DGO 6.21 far exceeds your authority and is an affront to our democracy: censorship of citizens’ access to public material.  There are many issues with DGO 6.21, but the most egregious are this Commission’s insistence on assigning onto SFPD the consequences stemming from the public posting of criminal content, rather than on the criminal who posted it, outright censorship, and the potential aiding of sexual predators and other dangerous criminals who groom our youth online.&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;What this Commission would have us accept, as far as public posts on social media are concerned, is that it is not the responsibility of the person posting the revealing content to bear the consequences of what they post to a public platform, rather it is the police’s responsibility not to look at it. Not only is the logic behind this DGO flawed and untenable, it violates our officers’ basic freedom to view and act on public content.  Even more disturbing, this DGO hinders SFPD’s ability to engage in undercover work that results in the protection from modern-day threats such as organized crime rings and online sexual predators.&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;The commission’s “concerns” about officers creating fake profiles, surveilling people, and then using their associations to jump to conclusions and “criminalize” people rather than investigating actual crimes are unfounded and based on hearsay. At a minimum, this commission should be required to provide data on how many crimes have been investigated or resulted in arrests where SFPD used fake social media accounts. Right now, the Commission is working off of assumptions from the DPA, ACLU, and the SF Bar Association, and assumptions are not a basis for creating policy changes that leave our most vulnerable populations less protected.  How does this Commission think law enforcement catches pedophiles and sexual predators preying on our children online? Nor are assumptions the basis for eliminating a real-world necessary tool for fighting all types of current-day crime. &#13;&#10;&#13;&#10; This Commission cannot prohibit SFPD from looking at public social media posts any more than it can ban SFPD from reading the newspaper, watching the news, or using their eyes to see what is happening as they walk down a street.  Furthermore, this Commission should be well aware that there is no expectation of privacy with regard to public posts, and by brazenly bragging on public platforms on social media about their crimes, criminals WANT the content to be seen by everyone, just as if they were walking down the street engaging in criminal activity, and they should, and must, take full responsibility for the consequences that follow the posting.  The burden certainly is not on SFPD to turn a blind eye to public admissions of crimes. That is the opposite of their job. As such, perhaps extreme DGOs such as 6.21 necessarily call for action by our CIty Attorney, who is cc’d on this email, to censure the Police Commission. &#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;STOP DGO 6.21 from advancing any further as it is a form of censorship as well as harmful to SFPD’s investigative efforts to solve crime.  STOP jeopardizing public safety and the safety of our children, with these unnecessary and bogus policies.

I'd like to join others in giving public comment at the Police Commission meeting on this issue.

Yes! Send me more information!Maybe next time.