Current Events in St. Louis. *LONG*
jke...@my-deja.com
is at 200% tonight..Sit back for a wild ride.. (It might be best to just
move on now, and delete this before reading it)
For those of you outside St. Louis a history lesson. A few weeks ago 2
black males(and their car) were shot something like 24 times by 2
officers. 1 local cop, 1 dea. One man is confirmed to be a drug dealer,
the other wasn't. The police claim that the men were attempting to run
down the officers down with the car, therefor they shot and killed the
men. There was a security tape from the resturant parking lot. (*This is
key*)
Over the past couple weeks, 2 members from the NAACP, and Rev. Al
Sharpton's National Action Network, have demanded, rather loudly, they
want the video tape released, and the Prosecuting Attorney replaced by a
federal agent. The Prosecuting Attorney refused to release the tape.
So, they decided to block another interstate in Stl with people. (Some
might remember, Jessie Jackson coming to town July 12, 1999 and they
pulled the same stunt for something else. )
*ZOOM TO TODAY*
So they plan to block an interstate in St. Louis at 4pm to gain support
for the demands they want. The section of interstate they plan to block
is SMACK DAB in the center of the rich elitest, silver spoon fed WASP
old money rich honkies! Let me get the straight, these people don't care
about anyone who isn't a) white b) makes less than $10 Million a year,
why do we think that preventing them from getting home will INCREASE
their support for NAACP demands. Ok, what about the other 25,000 people?
Lets see, I can get home from work, or sit in traffic for 3 hours, and
fowl up traffic for the rest of the city all day. Yes, that will gain
the support of leagons of KKK members picking up trash along the Rosa
Parks Highway.
Anyway, at noon the protest was called off. Read all about it at the
post dispatch. Now, I don't know if this a typical example of the Post
slanting a story so far out of view that actually looks foney, or if
the leaders are actually idiots, but read for yourself.
(A reminder of the points: We are all powerfull, we want the tapes, and
we want the FBI involved.)
http://www.postnet.com/postnet/stories.nsf/ByDocID/1BDDA3B0FB307EAD86256
91B000683DE?Opendocument&Section=News&Subsection=&Headline=Highway+prote
st+fizzles
Now, they quote them for 2 reasons they canceled the protest.
They claim that even though 30 people showed up, they could have
commanded 1,000 people to show up.
Even though they only slowed traffic on one interstate to 30 mph with 12
cars, it proves that we still one by saying "yea, well take this"
The biggest reason to protest, the video tapes, are suddenly no concern.
Wait, these tapes show exactly what happened, if the men were killed in
cold blood. They were lowered from number one reason we will lose the
war, down to nothing somewhere between 12noon, and 4pm. WTF?
Was I the only one what felt after reading the Post Dispatch article
that the 2 leaders (Tiahmo Ra-uf and Eric Vickers) are nothing but
bumbling idiots? None of the quotes they have listed have anything to do
with anything else, they sound like nothing more than school yard
bullie statements. (see first 2 points right after article)
In closing:
If you don't know St. Louis is a RACIST town. Anyone who says it isn't
is lieing. Particular people might not be, but the town is. How do they
expect that by preventing a shitton of rich honkies from going home will
gain support for their cause? Do you think that 25,000 white people will
call down to the courthouse, and say "man, I was late to watch wheel of
fortune tonight, do whatever they want..." OR do you think they will
chalk this up to another cause to retry the consealed weapon issue, and
declair road rage a valid defence for murder? I am thinking the
latter!!!
Since when does releasing evdience from an ongoing investigation make
sence at all? I mean I thought that what due process was?? I mean, come
on, we all know that the Prosecuting Attorney will clear the officers on
any wrong doing, but we can't go on protesting, demanding he be removed
without allowing him to do his job, and allow us to catch him in doing
something wrong..
(I remember about a year, when the talk about building another bridge
across the Mississippi came up, the blacks were going to shutdown an
interstate then, saying they WOULDN'T get enough work from the project,
and made a shitton of demands. The fucking bridge hadn't even approved
to be drawn or anything, and the blacks are sure they wouldn't get
enough work from it.. WTF? )
All of this does nothing but reinforce Chad's 25 plan. But I must demand
that it be upgraded to 50, otherwise, I am going to take a hatchet to
any cross country internet link I can find in protest. This way,
everyone will say "Oh no, give him what he wants." And if ti doesn't
work, I can cut Booths DSL line, and say "Look, If I had wanted to, I
could have cut a really big cable, and stopped all of your porn!"
--jkeeton
Deja Sucks, but dickman sucks more for cutting my NNTP feed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John J. Adelsberger III
> Was I the only one what felt after reading the Post Dispatch article
> that the 2 leaders (Tiahmo Ra-uf and Eric Vickers) are nothing but
> bumbling idiots?
It took you until now to figure this out? These are the same idiots who
closed another highway before, you know... and for no more sensible reason.
> If you don't know St. Louis is a RACIST town. Anyone who says it isn't
> is lieing.
Thanks for that hot tip.
> --jkeeton
> Deja Sucks, but dickman sucks more for cutting my NNTP feed.
Actually, dhickman sucks more for 25 cents an hour, but you might
catch something:)
--
John J. Adelsberger III ETAONRISHDLFCMUGPYWBVKXJQZ
j...@lusars.net
Mike Hunter
> For those of you outside St. Louis a history lesson. A few weeks ago 2
> black males(and their car) were shot something like 24 times by 2
> officers. 1 local cop, 1 dea. One man is confirmed to be a drug dealer,
> the other wasn't. The police claim that the men were attempting to run
> down the officers down with the car, therefor they shot and killed the
> men. There was a security tape from the resturant parking lot. (*This is
> key*)
Strangely enough, the two (otherwise unarmed) black men had procured a special
driver's ed. car with two steering wheels and two sets of pedals, forcing the
god fearing officers to kill them both to narrowly save their lives.
> why do we think that preventing them from getting home will INCREASE
> their support for NAACP demands. Ok, what about the other 25,000 people?
> Lets see, I can get home from work, or sit in traffic for 3 hours, and
> fowl up traffic for the rest of the city all day. Yes, that will gain
> the support of leagons of KKK members picking up trash along the Rosa
> Parks Highway.
Would you be talking about it otherwise?
I tend to agree that the I-40 plan would have pissed a lot of people off and
maybe hurt their cause, but I'm sure that people said the same thing about
some of the protests that happened in the 60's that are now considered good.
Their plan has been a success. It had people in my office talking about the
shooting, it has it as the top story on the news, and it even made AUSB.
> If you don't know St. Louis is a RACIST town.
As compared to where? Sullivan? It ain't. Berkeley? It is.
> Since when does releasing evdience from an ongoing investigation make
> sence at all? I mean I thought that what due process was??
I am not sure how I feel about this part of it. What happened happened in
public, so to me it doesn't have that same air of "private evidence" as a
taped confession would. On the other hand, I can see wanting to get a jury
picked before the tape hits the air waves. Regardless, I think the tape is
tremendously important, and I think the authorities should be talking about
how very soon it will be released, rather than being indignant that it is being
demanded.
Mike
Mark Adelsberger
> Strangely enough, the two (otherwise unarmed) black men had procured a special
> driver's ed. car with two steering wheels and two sets of pedals, forcing the
> god fearing officers to kill them both to narrowly save their lives.
We don't know what happened. We don't know if it was right or
wrong. We weren't there, and we have partial reports.
Nor should we know what happened (or what anyone in particular
*thinks* happend) prior to the trial. That's what the trial
system's about. It's imperfect, and it's sometimes slower than
people might like, but it's better than the anarchistic three-
ring media circus that tries to pass judgement as soon as the
alleged crime is reported.
I agree that the video is important and eventually (e.g. after
the trial) it should probably be available to the public. But
for now, let the system do its job.
>> why do we think that preventing them from getting home will INCREASE
> Would you be talking about it otherwise?
Ok, they got people talking about it. But if most people are
talking about what idiots they think the leaders were (as keeton
is), then does that help them or hurt them? Personally, I tend
to believe (although I cannot prove it) that they did more to
bring public anger against themselves than against the people
they believe are killers.
--
mea
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>> Strangely enough, the two (otherwise unarmed) black men had procured a special
>> driver's ed. car with two steering wheels and two sets of pedals, forcing the
>> god fearing officers to kill them both to narrowly save their lives.
> We don't know what happened. We don't know if it was right or
> wrong. We weren't there, and we have partial reports.
I don't mean to say that you're wrong, but I think this begs the question:
can you come up with a reasonable scenario (aside from the driver's ed. car)
where it would be necessary to kill them both (assuming they were "otherwise
unarmed")?
I'd guess that your answer is "we'll see" and that there is no cause to
speculate....to which I reply that I don't find it acceptable to wait for
a couple weeks months years to produce a reasonable explanation by the po-po.
> Nor should we know what happened (or what anyone in particular
> *thinks* happend) prior to the trial. That's what the trial
> system's about. It's imperfect, and it's sometimes slower than
> people might like, but it's better than the anarchistic three-
> ring media circus that tries to pass judgement as soon as the
> alleged crime is reported.
Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but where is it written that the facts
of a crime are sealed until after trial? Although it's just one example,
Rodney King's beating was televised for weeks, and once the trial started, the
po-po managed to convince the jury that there was more too it than that. I
think the only thing written is that a trial be fair, and I don't think that
releasing the tape would preclude that, or even make it very much less likely.
Other viewpoints are welcome.
Mike
Andrew LeCren
> Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but where is it written that the facts
> of a crime are sealed until after trial? Although it's just one example,
> Rodney King's beating was televised for weeks, and once the trial started, the
> po-po managed to convince the jury that there was more too it than that. I
> think the only thing written is that a trial be fair, and I don't think that
> releasing the tape would preclude that, or even make it very much less likely.
The Rodney King video was the property of a private citizen and was what
broke the fact that a crime had been commited. In this case the crime occurred
and the video is just supporting evidence.
I do believe it necessary that it be kept confidential until after the trial,
otherwise you run the risk of violating the due process of law.
Starfox "As evidenced by the Rodney King trial."
--
Starfox - starfox (at) lusars dot net
"You can't be too careful, you can't agonize
over it. You can't be too careful, make
your mind up and go for it." - Moxy Fruvous
Mike Hunter
> The Rodney King video was the property of a private citizen and was what
> broke the fact that a crime had been commited. In this case the crime occurred
> and the video is just supporting evidence.
The tape is the property of Jack-in-the-box and was seized by the cops.
That still doesn't matter much to me.
> I do believe it necessary that it be kept confidential until after the trial,
> otherwise you run the risk of violating the due process of law.
You use the catchphrase "due process"....Due Process means that you have a
fair trial....does it not? If you're saying that releasing the tape would
make it impossible to have said trial, then it shouldn't be released. I
have a very hard time understanding how watching the tape would make it
impossible to be a juror. (To me) by that logic, if Kurt Warner were accused
of murdering his wife, the post-dispatch shouldn't be allowed to report on the
mode of her death, etc....think of all the potential jurors that would be
soiled if it were reported that she was _burtally_ raped and murdered instead
of just poisoned or something.
It's all a matter of degrees...
> Starfox "As evidenced by the Rodney King trial."
Evidenced? How?
Mike
Mark Adelsberger
> I don't mean to say that you're wrong, but I think this begs the question:
> can you come up with a reasonable scenario (aside from the driver's ed. car)
> where it would be necessary to kill them both (assuming they were "otherwise
> unarmed")?
First of all, what if I can't? I'm not the court, nor the
prosecution, nor the defense. Nor an officer who's been in
a similar situation.
Such a scenario either did or did not occur, regardless of
whether I can conceive of one. The tape should be available
in the trial, but it should not be available to me. Yet.
That said: If you're shooting at a moving vehicle, which is
coming right at you (in the dark, was it not, meaning you're
in its headlights), do you *really* think you can pick your
targets? Even if the passenger wasn't a threat to the
officer(s), that doesn't make his death a homicide if it was
an unintentional result of the officers' attempt to stay
alive.
> I'd guess that your answer is "we'll see" and that there is no cause to
> speculate....to which I reply that I don't find it acceptable to wait for
> a couple weeks months years to produce a reasonable explanation by the po-po.
Is a prompt explanation going to bring the men back to life
if the death was wrongful? The system may be slow, but it
serves a purpose. That purpose is to bring out the truth of
such issues. It may or may not function in any given case,
but it's far to early to circumvent it on the assumption
that it won't.
And speculation isn't just unnecessary, it is harmful to
justice. I recognize that there's emotional appeal to the
idea of "swift justice" when someone's been killed, but more
often than not, the swifter is the less just.
> Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but where is it written that the facts
> of a crime are sealed until after trial? Although it's just one example,
> Rodney King's beating was televised for weeks, and once the trial started, the
Well, a few often-argued-to-be-misleading seconds of that tape
were televised, repeatedly, in a manner designed to sway public
opinion to the point that even a 12-person jury would be called
liars if they didn't convict. Which is a perfect example of why
that tape shouldn't have been released, and this one shouldn't
either.
Once again, we weren't in the courtroom.
--
mea
Mike Hunter
> That said: If you're shooting at a moving vehicle, which is
> coming right at you (in the dark, was it not, meaning you're
> in its headlights), do you *really* think you can pick your
> targets? Even if the passenger wasn't a threat to the
> officer(s), that doesn't make his death a homicide if it was
> an unintentional result of the officers' attempt to stay
> alive.
That's what I think happened (for the most part.)
> And speculation isn't just unnecessary, it is harmful to
> justice. I recognize that there's emotional appeal to the
> idea of "swift justice" when someone's been killed, but more
> often than not, the swifter is the less just.
I'm not into swift justice either. (Talking out of my ass) from the
perspective of the black community, I find your perspective of "we'll tell
you when we're ready" unacceptable. This leads into the due process
argument...
>> Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but where is it written that the facts
>> of a crime are sealed until after trial? Although it's just one example,
>> Rodney King's beating was televised for weeks, and once the trial started, the
> Well, a few often-argued-to-be-misleading seconds of that tape
> were televised, repeatedly, in a manner designed to sway public
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which Adelsberger am I speaking with again?
> opinion to the point that even a 12-person jury would be called
> liars if they didn't convict.
They were aquited. Lighting LA on fire got them convicted (if you insist
on tying a media event to their conviction.)
> Which is a perfect example of why
> that tape shouldn't have been released, and this one shouldn't
> either.
The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police? WTF are
you talking about "released"? Chanel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play it
because of its content? Jack-in-the-box aside, take a look at the censorship
infrastructure that you're calling for here.
Mike
jf...@lusars.net
> impossible to be a juror.
Juries are supposed to be impartial at the beginning of the trial.
Releasing the tape to the public would make it difficult to find an impartial
jury.
> (To me) by that logic, if Kurt Warner were accused
> of murdering his wife, the post-dispatch shouldn't be allowed to report on the
> mode of her death, etc....think of all the potential jurors that would be
> soiled if it were reported that she was _burtally_ raped and murdered instead
> of just poisoned or something.
I don't follow that logic at all. The issue in the real case is
(presumably) whether or not the killings were done in 'self defense' on the
part of the policemen. The issue in your case is whether or not Kurt Warner
killed his wife. Two different questions.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Press every key to continue.
Mike Hunter
> I don't follow that logic at all. The issue in the real case is
> (presumably) whether or not the killings were done in 'self defense' on the
> part of the policemen. The issue in your case is whether or not Kurt Warner
> killed his wife. Two different questions.
The point I am getting at is that people in the jury pool are exposed to a lot
of details of crimes by the media. You're worried about someone getting hyped
up over a physical depiction of a crime(?), but the same shit happens in any
big-event type of crime. If you want to keep a clean jury pool, make them live
in caves.
Having said that, I do think there is room for not releasing some types of
details...like some kind of confession that was obtained improperly. What I
am disagreeing with is the notion that watching a few seconds of video tape,
taken out of context or not, is SO damaging that it's different from the more
traditional depictions of crimes and therefore worthy of being suppressed to
an extent unheard-of for more traditional juicy tid-bits.
Mike
Chase Watkins
> Mark Adelsberger <m...@wallace.lusars.net> wrote:
>
> > That said: If you're shooting at a moving vehicle, which is
> > coming right at you (in the dark, was it not, meaning you're
> > in its headlights), do you *really* think you can pick your
> > targets? Even if the passenger wasn't a threat to the
> > officer(s), that doesn't make his death a homicide if it was
> > an unintentional result of the officers' attempt to stay
> > alive.
>
> That's what I think happened (for the most part.)
Statements like "I think this or that happened" is the single most dangerous threat
to justice.
> > Which is a perfect example of why
> > that tape shouldn't have been released, and this one shouldn't
> > either.
>
> The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police? WTF are
> you talking about "released"? Chanel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play it
> because of its content? Jack-in-the-box aside, take a look at the censorship
> infrastructure that you're calling for here.
Should the citizen have had his tape seized by the police? Yes, that is called
evidence gathering and claims about private property and other BS won't put a stop to
it. Can you imagine how many cases have been decided by the seizure of evidence,
regardless of who it belongs to? Yes, Channel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play
the tape because of its content. Yes, that is the equilavent of censorship, but
there are some things that the media ought to not touch, at least for that time frame
considered. For example, if the jury is not sequestered, the media shouldn't be
allowed to play a voice recording of an alleged confession by John Doe to his best
buddy. Should the media be allowed to play it after the trial is said and done?
Perhaps. It all depends on the case itself...
jf...@lusars.net
> jf...@lusars.net wrote:
> details...like some kind of confession that was obtained improperly. What I
> am disagreeing with is the notion that watching a few seconds of video tape,
> taken out of context or not, is SO damaging that it's different from the more
> traditional depictions of crimes and therefore worthy of being suppressed to
> an extent unheard-of for more traditional juicy tid-bits.
I think it has to do with the fact that for the American public,
visual evidence tends to evoke much, much stronger emotion than verbal or
written evidence. A picture is worth 1000 words.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
...and that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
Edna Stafford
> (I remember about a year, when the talk about building another bridge
> across the Mississippi came up, the blacks were going to shutdown an
> interstate then, saying they WOULDN'T get enough work from the project,
> and made a shitton of demands. The fucking bridge hadn't even approved
> to be drawn or anything, and the blacks are sure they wouldn't get
> enough work from it.. WTF? )
i'm not going to bother with all the other stuff just cause i'm not
wanting to play with all that detail. however, while i understand why you
would be puzzled with the blacks making an issue of this before it is
even under way let me quickly mention: i once lived in east st louis
with my boyfriend who was going to work for one of the unions in that
area. i don't really recall how they managed it, but the union, situated
in st clair county, managed to have only two or three black men total.
in addition, the union members made a special note to mention to my
boyfriend that they went through special efforts to ensure there would
only be a couple of blacks within their union at any given point. of
course, anyone owning a foreign auto was placed into just about the same
category... anyway, random point being, with a mentality such as this
going into an organization in that particular location, i don't have any
doubt as to the certanty of lack of work opportunities within certain
areas...
~e
jf...@lusars.net
> Statements like "I think this or that happened" is the single most dangerous threat
> to justice.
Well, that, and people who can't post in 80 columns.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Actually, Microsoft is sort of a mixture between the Borg and the Ferengi.
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter wrote:
78 columns....damn you.
>> The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police? WTF are
>> you talking about "released"? Chanel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play it
>> because of its content? Jack-in-the-box aside, take a look at the censorship
>> infrastructure that you're calling for here.
> Should the citizen have had his tape seized by the police? Yes, that is called
> evidence gathering and claims about private property and other BS won't put a stop to
> it.
Explain. A guy tapes police beating a black man. He's supposed to call the
police to come and keep this tape safe for him? Fuck, man.
Can you imagine how many cases have been decided by the seizure of evidence,
> regardless of who it belongs to? Yes, Channel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play
> the tape because of its content. Yes, that is the equilavent of censorship, but
> there are some things that the media ought to not touch, at least for that time frame
> considered.
You can't dub a blood sample.
It _is_ censorship. As far as I'm concerned, if this is the kind of justice
you're into, move to Europe or Cuba or something.
For example, if the jury is not sequestered, the media shouldn't be
> allowed to play a voice recording of an alleged confession by John Doe to his best
> buddy. Should the media be allowed to play it after the trial is said and done?
> Perhaps. It all depends on the case itself...
They have laws in Canada about not publishing poll results around election time
because it tampers with the electorate. It's censorship. The fact that you're
changing the time instead of the content isn't relevant to me.
The only reason I can justify censorship is the pointed, profound, and
crutial welfare of the people. I.e. I agree it should be illegal to publish
secret missle codes or something. I am very very unconvinced that the Rodney
King tape caused the officers to get an unfair trial, and that the tape in
question would lead to that.
Mike
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>> jf...@lusars.net wrote:
>> details...like some kind of confession that was obtained improperly. What I
>> am disagreeing with is the notion that watching a few seconds of video tape,
>> taken out of context or not, is SO damaging that it's different from the more
>> traditional depictions of crimes and therefore worthy of being suppressed to
>> an extent unheard-of for more traditional juicy tid-bits.
> I think it has to do with the fact that for the American public,
> visual evidence tends to evoke much, much stronger emotion than verbal or
> written evidence. A picture is worth 1000 words.
[patriotic music]
Sounds a lot like "you can't handle that pornographic image" or music video
or whatever.
That's the point: don't _make_ sweeping judgments about what the American
public can and cannot handle emotionally.
That's the premise of America: we can handle having rights. If you don't like
it, I heard Elian is looking for a roommate, and jja turned him down.
Mike
jf...@lusars.net
> jf...@lusars.net wrote:
>> I think it has to do with the fact that for the American public,
>> visual evidence tends to evoke much, much stronger emotion than verbal or
>> written evidence. A picture is worth 1000 words.
> Sounds a lot like "you can't handle that pornographic image" or music video
> or whatever.
> That's the point: don't _make_ sweeping judgments about what the American
> public can and cannot handle emotionally.
> That's the premise of America: we can handle having rights. If you don't
> like it, I heard Elian is looking for a roommate, and jja turned him down.
Damn, Mike. Have you been OD'ing on Jon Katz and "Your Rights Online"
on /. again?
I don't think it's an issue of what the public can "handle"
emotionally. (Frankly, most of the American public can't handle wiping it's
own ass emotionally, but they all still try anyway. Thankfully.) It's
an issue of what has a greater chance of "tipping the scales of justice"
disproportionately in one direction or another before "due process" has been
allowed to happen. It's the same concept as sequestering juries.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with drawing that line,
or with where the line has been drawn. I will say, however, that there is
no legal reason why that tape should have to be released, as far as I can
tell. The tape is now property of the Jack-In-The-Box company, presumably
to be entered into court records and custody, at which point it becomes the
Judge's discretion as to whether or not to close the records of the court.
If the Judge fails to do this (I'm not completely up to date on the whole
issue, he may have already) then under the Sunshine Laws, the tape can be
acquired by the public. Otherwise, tough shit. The jurors will see it.
Nobody else gets to. Fair? Depends on your definition of fair.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
It's not a bug, it's tradition!
Mike Hunter
> I don't think it's an issue of what the public can "handle"
> emotionally. (Frankly, most of the American public can't handle wiping it's
> own ass emotionally, but they all still try anyway. Thankfully.) It's
> an issue of what has a greater chance of "tipping the scales of justice"
> disproportionately in one direction or another before "due process" has been
> allowed to happen. It's the same concept as sequestering juries.
I'm all for that concept. It's a matter of extremes. If what you want is a
society where the focus is on not tipping the scales of justice, then there
are a whole slew of things I can suggest. Like forbidding news reports on
suspects' pasts, on the character of the victim, on the crime itself....
Good point about JITB not _wanting_ (necessarily) to share it.
Mike
Mark Adelsberger
>> Well, a few often-argued-to-be-misleading seconds of that tape
>> were televised, repeatedly, in a manner designed to sway public
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Which Adelsberger am I speaking with again?
Ok, I can't prove that was the intent (although I believe it
was). Maybe they just knew that the segment that happens to
be prejudicial also would happen to get the best ratings.
Either way, that was the effect, and that effect should be
prevented.
> The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police? WTF are
> you talking about "released"? Chanel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play it
> because of its content? Jack-in-the-box aside, take a look at the censorship
> infrastructure that you're calling for here.
I'm speaking in general principles. You're the one assuming
a particular policy through which to implement those principles.
I said nothing about seizure of the tape or censorship.
However, I do believe that the public should not have seen the
tape prior to the trial. And yes, there is content that a
media source should be disallowed from showing if, by showing
it, one jeopardizes others' rights.
Mark Adelsberger
> The only reason I can justify censorship is the pointed, profound, and
> crutial welfare of the people. I.e. I agree it should be illegal to publish
> secret missle codes or something. I am very very unconvinced that the Rodney
> King tape caused the officers to get an unfair trial, and that the tape in
> question would lead to that.
I hold that a threat to a person's rights is a stronger reason
than the "welfare of the people". If you hold that nobody's
rights are jeopardized by early release of evidence, then I
think you're wrong. Neither of us is qualified to prove the
issue, tho I cannot logically see the basis for your point of
view.
Anyway, consider this: The judge, not the media, has the
authority to decide what evidence is admissible in trial. If
the media circumvents this by releasing evidence before the
trial has even begun, justice is obstructed.
Is it plausible that this tape will not be admitted to trial?
I can think of no reason for that. But I'm in no position to
make that judgement, and neither is the media. If we make the
rule "the media can broadcast evidence if there's no chance
that it will be rejected as evidence in court", then someone
has to decide whether a given piece of evidence meets that
criteria. Nobody but the judge presiding over the trial,
having heard whatever relevent motions and arguments might be
made, has the right to make that decision.
--
mea
jf...@lusars.net
> Ok, I can't prove that was the intent (although I believe it
> was). Maybe they just knew that the segment that happens to
> be prejudicial also would happen to get the best ratings.
> Either way, that was the effect, and that effect should be
> prevented.
[snippage]
> However, I do believe that the public should not have seen the
> tape prior to the trial. And yes, there is content that a
> media source should be disallowed from showing if, by showing
> it, one jeopardizes others' rights.
This isn't a direct reply to Mark's comments, but what he said
reminded me of this:
Another aspect of this is the type of media involved. Whether anyone
likes to admit it or not, this is also important. We're speaking about a video
tape, thus implying that the public's impression of said video tape would be
based (presumably) on a television 'news' program's presentation of the
contents of the tape. Television 'news' these days has very skewed priorities
when it comes to _what_ to show, and _how_ to present it. TV 'news' isn't about
journalism anymore. It's about ratings....and in case you haven't watched
TV 'news' lately, getting those ratings involves putting the slant on a story
that you think will win you the most watchers. So, if titling a news segment
in which they're going to air this video tape "The Truth Behind x White Police
Officers Brutally Slaying 2 Blacks in St. Louis" is going to get more people
to watch their show, they will do that. Hell, why not "When Police Officers
Attack! 7pm on FOX!"? Journalistic ethics is dead when it comes to
television (and in print and radio it's gasping its last). Does anybody
really think 700000 people viewing the tape on TV isn't going to sway some
large percentage of those people to feel exactly how the TV producer wanted
them to about it? If the news media were unbiased, I might feel differently
about whether the tape should be released.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
0 and 1. Now what could be so hard about that?
Mike Hunter
> I hold that a threat to a person's rights is a stronger reason
> than the "welfare of the people". If you hold that nobody's
> rights are jeopardized by early release of evidence, then I
> think you're wrong.
They are jeopardized. But others' rights are unquestionably violated (in some
scenarios) by the limitation of free speech.
> Anyway, consider this: The judge, not the media, has the
> authority to decide what evidence is admissible in trial. If
> the media circumvents this by releasing evidence before the
> trial has even begun, justice is obstructed.
The same could be said if the media were to publish an editorial on how
terrible the accused is. Ban that too? While we're at it, people should
be prohibited from discussing the case around the water cooler, because
that makes it less likely that they could be impartial if they were chosen
to be jurors.
The TV shouting some message could have just as much of an obstruction effect
as any tape.
It's all a matter of degrees. And when it comes to free speech, I come down
very solidly freedom's side 9 times out of 10.
As I tried to flame Justin with; I find the arguments against disclosure to
taste like your standard "there are some things the American people can't
handle and need to be protected from." It's a crazy-ass idea in the first
place that we have common folk come in for a week and make legal decisions
when it would surely be less tamper prone if they were legal professionals.
But that's contrary to the good affects of having "peers" as jurors.
Mike
jf...@lusars.net
> They are jeopardized. But others' rights are unquestionably violated (in some
> scenarios) by the limitation of free speech.
You're confusing free speech with access to information.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Loose bits sink chips.
John J. Adelsberger III
> think the only thing written is that a trial be fair, and I don't think that
> releasing the tape would preclude that, or even make it very much less likely.
I think it would be better if they cooperated with the media by announcing
that they would provide the evidence to the public as it became known to
jurors. That way, the need to ensure a fair trial("less likely" isn't really
good enough; you have to do it right or someone can and should appeal and/or
try to get a mistrial declared, which does not work in the interest of
getting to the bottom of the matter in any way,) can be addressed while
still ensuring that the evidence comes out in a timely manner.
Of course, if we didn't have courts clogged by stupid trials of things
that shouldn't even be criminal, the whole system would move a lot
faster and you'd get your tapes sooner.
John J. Adelsberger III
>> traditional depictions of crimes and therefore worthy of being suppressed to
>> an extent unheard-of for more traditional juicy tid-bits.
> I think it has to do with the fact that for the American public,
> visual evidence tends to evoke much, much stronger emotion than verbal or
> written evidence. A picture is worth 1000 words.
Also note that until VERY recently, details tended NOT to be given to the
public until the trial. Only in the last decade or so have trials become
realtime media events complete with evidence shown on the six o'clock news.
Not everyone in the legal profession thinks that was a good idea.
John J. Adelsberger III
> Even if the passenger wasn't a threat to the
> officer(s), that doesn't make his death a homicide if it was
> an unintentional result of the officers' attempt to stay
> alive.
Unless you're in Texas, that wouldn't fly if you weren't a cop, and
something IS wrong about that. Sure, cops take more risks than most
of us, but the idea that cops should be immune to involuntary
manslaughter charges bothers me a LOT, because it surely leads to more
carelessness and willingness to kill people and take risks of killing
people. Now, if you wanted to argue that involuntary manslaughter
should be off the books entirely, I might or might not agree, depending
on the particular law, which differs from state to state.
Mike Hunter
>> The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police? WTF are
>> you talking about "released"? Chanel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play it
>> because of its content? Jack-in-the-box aside, take a look at the censorship
>> infrastructure that you're calling for here.
> I'm speaking in general principles. You're the one assuming
> a particular policy through which to implement those principles.
> I said nothing about seizure of the tape or censorship.
You said nothing about censorship? What do you call what you're talking about?
I see no legitimate reason to not use that word just because it's dirty.
The whole idea that I'm driving at (with a heaping helping of "degrees" and
loopholes) is that you can't implement a system that does what you're saying
without stomping on freedom. In a fairy world, we completely agree that a
juror should not be biased for any reason. Here on earth, it's about degrees.
> However, I do believe that the public should not have seen the
> tape prior to the trial. And yes, there is content that a
> media source should be disallowed from showing if, by showing
> it, one jeopardizes others' rights.
You're fond of "jeopardize." The accused's right is to a fair trial, including
an impartial jury. Stomping on the rights of EVERYONE because you're worried
about _jeopardizing_ the rights of one person isn't a good trade off. If I
taped the Rodney King beating, I believe I have a fundamental right to
distribute that tape, and others have a fundamental right to watch it. If I
beat Rodney king, I have a fundamental right to a fair trial, I agree. I don't
think the two are incompatible.
Mike
John J. Adelsberger III
> Mark Adelsberger <m...@wallace.lusars.net> wrote:
>> Well, a few often-argued-to-be-misleading seconds of that tape
>> were televised, repeatedly, in a manner designed to sway public
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Which Adelsberger am I speaking with again?
You don't think the media tried to orchestrate a lynching there? Are you
an idiot?
>> opinion to the point that even a 12-person jury would be called
>> liars if they didn't convict.
> They were aquited.
Which was a miracle. Notice how pissed the media was after that? For
weeks there were stories about the "injustice" of the acquittal.
> The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police?
That is what happens to evidence. Of course, if the cops don't present
everything they seize to the proper authorities, that's called tampering
with evidence, and is criminal(and a good way to end your career as a cop.)
> Jack-in-the-box aside, take a look at the censorship
> infrastructure that you're calling for here.
Oh, the tape would still have made it out, but it would have been a whole
lot easier to find a jury because that tape would have come out after the
jury had already had it presented in the context of the trial.
Mike Hunter
>> scenarios) by the limitation of free speech.
> You're confusing free speech with access to information.
The argument I'm making in my head is the one about the rights of the guy who
taped the Rodney King beating. I claim that is a speech issue.
I wonder if Slobodan Milosovitch likes to call what he does "limiting access
to information."
I'd be amazed if I spelled that right.
Getting back to the government's "obligation" to release the tape now (which
maybe be what you are arguing about)....I'll think more.
Mike
Mike Hunter
> If the news media were unbiased, I might feel differently
> about whether the tape should be released.
"If you were projecting a message I agreed with, I might feel differently about
letting you say the truth."
John J. Adelsberger III
> It _is_ censorship. As far as I'm concerned, if this is the kind of justice
> you're into, move to Europe or Cuba or something.
I don't remember who said it, but this quote seems to sum up the position
your opponents are taking:
"Those who are afraid of Communism lack faith in democracy."
A democracy is not a proper environment for an investigation, no matter
how much you may love the freedom democracy brings. There are some
matters in which mob rule is precisely what you do NOT want. Turning
a trial into a media circus is such an issue - the "public interest,"
if that term has any meaning at all, is in justice. It is not in
being allowed to watch two men get shot in their car. There is no
benefit to giving that tape out so that Channel 5 can air it, unless
you own a stake in Channel 5. On the other hand, the tape, at least
potentially, -could- make finding an impartial jury difficult.
The thing to remember when you think about this(it will remove some of
the emotional bias,) is that juries can be swayed both ways by leaked
evidence. Sure, we might see that tape and say "well, they're obviously
guilty," but we might as easily see the car tearing towards two
frightened men who then did what they thought they had to do, and decide
that there's no way this is anything but an unfortunate tragedy.
Neither of those produces a fair jury.
Chase Watkins
> Chase Watkins <cwat...@umr.edu> wrote:
> > Mike Hunter wrote:
>
> 78 columns....damn you.
Well, shit, my settings somehow got reset to default in Netscape... Yes, it's probably my
fault.
> >> The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police? WTF are
> >> you talking about "released"? Chanel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play it
> >> because of its content? Jack-in-the-box aside, take a look at the censorship
> >> infrastructure that you're calling for here.
>
> > Should the citizen have had his tape seized by the police? Yes, that is called
> > evidence gathering and claims about private property and other BS won't put a stop to
> > it.
>
> Explain. A guy tapes police beating a black man. He's supposed to call the
> police to come and keep this tape safe for him? Fuck, man.
It's the law. If they don't, it's obstruction of justice.
> Can you imagine how many cases have been decided by the seizure of evidence,
> > regardless of who it belongs to? Yes, Channel 5 shouldn't have been allowed to play
> > the tape because of its content. Yes, that is the equilavent of censorship, but
> > there are some things that the media ought to not touch, at least for that time frame
> > considered.
>
> You can't dub a blood sample.
Ask OJ about that one. Man, he made a mockery of the legal system.
> It _is_ censorship. As far as I'm concerned, if this is the kind of justice
> you're into, move to Europe or Cuba or something.
Guess what? You're living in your version of "Europe or Cuba or something" because the
media isn't allowed to release to the masses every piece of information that they have.
For example, when the Unabomber sent a manifest to certain newspaper, the newpapers had to
get permission from the FBI to print it because the manifest was evidence in itself.
> For example, if the jury is not sequestered, the media shouldn't be
> > allowed to play a voice recording of an alleged confession by John Doe to his best
> > buddy. Should the media be allowed to play it after the trial is said and done?
> > Perhaps. It all depends on the case itself...
>
> They have laws in Canada about not publishing poll results around election time
> because it tampers with the electorate. It's censorship. The fact that you're
> changing the time instead of the content isn't relevant to me.
Why not? The timing of the release can be just as important as the content itself.
> The only reason I can justify censorship is the pointed, profound, and
> crutial welfare of the people. I.e. I agree it should be illegal to publish
> secret missle codes or something. I am very very unconvinced that the Rodney
> King tape caused the officers to get an unfair trial, and that the tape in
> question would lead to that.
Who cares if the officers got a fair trial or the release of the tape caused them to get an
unfair trial. It's all in the possibility of denying those officers due process.
Mike Hunter
>> Which Adelsberger am I speaking with again?
> You don't think the media tried to orchestrate a lynching there? Are you
> an idiot?
Absoluitely not. They played it because it made people watch.
>> They were aquited.
> Which was a miracle. Notice how pissed the media was after that? For
> weeks there were stories about the "injustice" of the acquittal.
Nevermind the fires...
>> The private citizen should have had his tape seized by the police?
> That is what happens to evidence. Of course, if the cops don't present
> everything they seize to the proper authorities, that's called tampering
> with evidence, and is criminal(and a good way to end your career as a cop.)
It's just as good as evidence if it's not the only copy. You're Mr. big
property rights. You tape the cops beating the fuck out of Johnny Black,
you're telling me that they have the right to take the origional AND the
copy you made to get drunk and laugh at? And to subsequently sell the tape
to "A Current Affair" for beer money?
I don't buy this "speech defered is different from speech prohibited" nonsence.
Mike
Benjamin Carter
: As I tried to flame Justin with; I find the arguments against disclosure to
: taste like your standard "there are some things the American people can't
: handle and need to be protected from." It's a crazy-ass idea in the first
: place that we have common folk come in for a week and make legal decisions
: when it would surely be less tamper prone if they were legal professionals.
: But that's contrary to the good affects of having "peers" as jurors.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought anyone accused of a crime could
waive their right to a jury trial and just have the judge decide the
verdict and sentencing.
Then again, I have very little detailed knowledge of the legal process
and could just be blowing smoke.
--
-Ben Carter
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
Chase Watkins
>
> Getting back to the government's "obligation" to release the tape now (which
> maybe be what you are arguing about)....I'll think more.
The government's obligation? HAHAHA! You've got to be kidding about
that one... The government's obligation (as much as I hate it) is to
ensure that a fair trial is obtained. If that comes at the expense of
everyone else's rights, tough shit. That's the way it is and I believe
that it is far better than the alternative.
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Chase Watkins <cwat...@umr.edu> wrote:
>> > Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>> 78 columns....damn you.
> Well, shit, my settings somehow got reset to default in Netscape... Yes, it's probably my
> fault.
I don't want your excuses or your sob stories, I want 78 columns!
>> Explain. A guy tapes police beating a black man. He's supposed to call the
>> police to come and keep this tape safe for him? Fuck, man.
> It's the law. If they don't, it's obstruction of justice.
Bullshit. Watch Law and Order or something, toolio. There's no CASE to
obstruct until charges are brought. Seriously, you're suggesting that all
photographic evidence of crimes has to be turned over to the police
exclusively? Scary.
>> It _is_ censorship. As far as I'm concerned, if this is the kind of justice
>> you're into, move to Europe or Cuba or something.
> Guess what? You're living in your version of "Europe or Cuba or something" because the
> media isn't allowed to release to the masses every piece of information that they have.
> For example, when the Unabomber sent a manifest to certain newspaper, the newpapers had to
> get permission from the FBI to print it because the manifest was evidence in itself.
I understand that and there is room in my heart for such. If a tape were going
to bring down America, I'd say they shoulnd't be allowed to publish it. I
agree that America isn't responsible enough as a country to have secret
nuclear missle codes on the front page or something. It just takes a lot of
stroking to get me up as far as that goes.
>> They have laws in Canada about not publishing poll results around election time
>> because it tampers with the electorate. It's censorship. The fact that you're
>> changing the time instead of the content isn't relevant to me.
> Why not? The timing of the release can be just as important as the content itself.
Exaclty, they're both censorship and I think you should have a REALLY good
reason to pull it off, and this tape ain't enough.
>> The only reason I can justify censorship is the pointed, profound, and
>> crutial welfare of the people. I.e. I agree it should be illegal to publish
>> secret missle codes or something. I am very very unconvinced that the Rodney
>> King tape caused the officers to get an unfair trial, and that the tape in
>> question would lead to that.
> Who cares if the officers got a fair trial or the release of the tape caused them to get an
> unfair trial. It's all in the possibility of denying those officers due process.
That's scary. The whole point of America is that the possibility of somebody
going off the handle and fucking someone over isn't enough to deny freedom.
Hence we let people out at night and own guns^H^H^H^Hknives and buy gasoline.
You're assuming what "truth" is going to do to people, judging it as bad, and
therefore denying them their rights.
Mike
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
> : As I tried to flame Justin with; I find the arguments against disclosure to
> : taste like your standard "there are some things the American people can't
> : handle and need to be protected from." It's a crazy-ass idea in the first
> : place that we have common folk come in for a week and make legal decisions
> : when it would surely be less tamper prone if they were legal professionals.
> : But that's contrary to the good affects of having "peers" as jurors.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought anyone accused of a crime could
> waive their right to a jury trial and just have the judge decide the
> verdict and sentencing.
True.
You have a right to a jury trial by impartial jurors as well, though.
jf...@lusars.net
> Getting back to the government's "obligation" to release the tape now (which
> maybe be what you are arguing about)....I'll think more.
If you really want some food for thought there, pick up the book
"Transparent Society" by David Brin.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
There's no place like ~
jf...@lusars.net
>> If the news media were unbiased, I might feel differently
>> about whether the tape should be released.
> "If you were projecting a message I agreed with, I might feel differently
> about letting you say the truth."
Whoa there! That's an impressive version of twisting my words. Been
taking lessons from jja?
Try "If I knew you wouldn't twist the truth to fit your own agenda, I
would feel differently about allowing you to present the truth to the public."
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
John J. Adelsberger III
> Ask OJ about that one. Man, he made a mockery of the legal system.
I know less about OJ than almost anyone else, because I got sick of the
media trial long before most people did. I not only don't know whether
he's guilty, but I don't care. Given that:
Why are you so sure? Because you saw it all on TV. BUT, you didn't see
it all on TV. You saw some of it on TV. The media can make anyone look
as guilty as OJ looks to you. Now, regardless of what you think of OJ,
is that what you want from a "justice" system?
John J. Adelsberger III
> John J. Adelsberger III <j...@wallace.lusars.net> wrote:
>> You don't think the media tried to orchestrate a lynching there? Are you
>> an idiot?
> Absoluitely not. They played it because it made people watch.
Of course that was their MOTIVE. That doesn't mean they didn't
orchestrate a lynching. Remember the distinction between motive
and method.
> I don't buy this "speech defered is different from speech prohibited"
> nonsence.
In that case, if a black man ever attacks you in a big city, make damned
sure you don't fight back unless there's no taping equipment available.
Otherwise, your innocence will hardly matter. (Think about it that way;
would _you_ want to be the one who _might_ get a bad jury just so a
bunch of soccer moms could watch you defending yourself on national
television? Who cares if it is guaranteed? Who even cares if it is
_likely_? That court can put an end to your enjoyment of life
permanently. Decisions like that can't be "well, this probably won't
hurt anything.")
John J. Adelsberger III
> Whoa there! That's an impressive version of twisting my words. Been
> taking lessons from jja?
I agree with your assessment, but notice that just about everyone here
disagrees on the implications of various positions, and that usually
when we say "you twisted my words," we mean "you stated what I said,
but bundled it with assumptions I don't make."
Amusing that it happens over and over, people make accusations over and
over, but nobody has ever actually come out and admitted that the root
cause is that we disagree over what a given position actually entails,
and that there are generally no hidden agendas involved.
Chase Watkins
>
> Chase Watkins <cwat...@umr.edu> wrote:
>
> > Ask OJ about that one. Man, he made a mockery of the legal system.
>
> I know less about OJ than almost anyone else, because I got sick of the
> media trial long before most people did. I not only don't know whether
> he's guilty, but I don't care. Given that:
>
> Why are you so sure? Because you saw it all on TV. BUT, you didn't see
> it all on TV. You saw some of it on TV. The media can make anyone look
> as guilty as OJ looks to you. Now, regardless of what you think of OJ,
> is that what you want from a "justice" system?
Which is exactly my point.
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>> jf...@lusars.net wrote:
>>> Mark Adelsberger <m...@wallace.lusars.net> wrote:
>>> If the news media were unbiased, I might feel differently
>>> about whether the tape should be released.
>> "If you were projecting a message I agreed with, I might feel differently
>> about letting you say the truth."
> Whoa there! That's an impressive version of twisting my words. Been
> taking lessons from jja?
> Try "If I knew you wouldn't twist the truth to fit your own agenda, I
> would feel differently about allowing you to present the truth to the public."
"If I knew you would tell the truth, according to me, I would feel better
about allowing you to speak in public."
Chase Watkins
> >>
> >> 78 columns....damn you.
>
> > Well, shit, my settings somehow got reset to default in Netscape... Yes, it's probably my
> > fault.
>
> I don't want your excuses or your sob stories, I want 78 columns!
Fine! Be that way!
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>>> You don't think the media tried to orchestrate a lynching there? Are you
>>> an idiot?
>> Absoluitely not. They played it because it made people watch.
> Of course that was their MOTIVE. That doesn't mean they didn't
> orchestrate a lynching. Remember the distinction between motive
> and method.
"tried"
>> I don't buy this "speech defered is different from speech prohibited"
>> nonsence.
> In that case, if a black man ever attacks you in a big city, make damned
> sure you don't fight back unless there's no taping equipment available.
> Otherwise, your innocence will hardly matter. (Think about it that way;
> would _you_ want to be the one who _might_ get a bad jury just so a
> bunch of soccer moms could watch you defending yourself on national
> television? Who cares if it is guaranteed? Who even cares if it is
> _likely_? That court can put an end to your enjoyment of life
> permanently. Decisions like that can't be "well, this probably won't
> hurt anything.")
I would definately support releasing a tape of me doing anything in public for
any reason on principle.
Mike
jf...@lusars.net
No. Wrong again. You're assuming the truth is biased, no matter
what. "If I knew you would present the story in a non-biased manner, I would
feel differently about allowing you to present the truth."
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Speak softly and carry a cellular phone.
Mike Hunter
> No. Wrong again. You're assuming the truth is biased, no matter
> what. "If I knew you would present the story in a non-biased manner, I would
> feel differently about allowing you to present the truth."
The whole premise of this whole freedom of speech thing is that no one is
given the job of judging what is and is not biased. That's for the sheeple
to decide.
"If I felt you were presenting the story in a non-biased manner, I would
feel differently about allowing you to present it."
Mike
Mark Adelsberger
> They are jeopardized. But others' rights are unquestionably violated (in some
> scenarios) by the limitation of free speech.
Whose rights would those be in _this_ scenario? You assume
that just because a person owns a tape they have the right
to convey the information on that tape to anyone else? Would
you like to back that claim up?
Doesn't matter to me, really. The rights of the accused to a
fair trial are more important than the "right" of anyone with
information to have it broadcast on the news.
Besides, what makes it ok to jeopardize rights in the name of
free speech if its not ok to jeopardize the "public welfare"
in the name of free speech?
>> Anyway, consider this: The judge, not the media, has the
>> authority to decide what evidence is admissible in trial. If
>> the media circumvents this by releasing evidence before the
>> trial has even begun, justice is obstructed.
> The same could be said if the media were to publish an editorial on how
> terrible the accused is. Ban that too? While we're at it, people should
Not the same thing. An editorial is "some guy's opinion". The
tape is perceived as cold hard fact. And yet it's the judge's
decision whether the jury should see that "cold hard fact", and
even the judge can't make that decision pre-trial.
I'm talking about restricting the flow of evidence. The things
you equate to that have nothing to do with evidence.
Now I'm not claiming you can make the system perfect. I'm saying
you nonetheless do things to make it as good as possible.
> be prohibited from discussing the case around the water cooler, because
> that makes it less likely that they could be impartial if they were chosen
> to be jurors.
> The TV shouting some message could have just as much of an obstruction effect
> as any tape.
And these things are exactly why jurors are sequestered. The
system is imperfect in that you can't have them sequestered
retroactive to when the crime occured. And it's more of a
problem now in the "information age" than it was when the system
as we know it came to be. But that doesn't mean we should throw
our hands up and say "here, everyone, look at the evidence,
we'll just take that pesky right/duty of the judge to control
the trial and throw it out."
> It's all a matter of degrees.
Which is exactly why your black-and-white answer to the situation
is inappropriate.
> And when it comes to free speech, I come down
> very solidly freedom's side 9 times out of 10.
Sounds like a personal problem.
> As I tried to flame Justin with; I find the arguments against disclosure to
> taste like your standard "there are some things the American people can't
> handle and need to be protected from."
That's because you haven't looked at the issue close enough to
see the differences. Consider this:
Censorship in the context of porn and the like prohibits you
from giving information to someone on the premise that said
person cannot "handle" it as you put it. The person to be
"protected" is the person who would choose to receive the
information.
Restricting the flow of evidence isn't about protecting the
people who would receive it; it's about protecting the
accused, who has a right to said protection.
Of course, sometimes anti-porn censorship says its about
protecting _children_, who allegedly can't yet make decisions
about their wellfare as regards viewing porn. So why is that
kind of censorship wrong? Because it usurps the job of
protecting the child from the parents, whose rightful job it
is.
Likewise, the accused can't really protect himself if some
schmoe decides to start circulating evidence that his jury
shouldn't see. So who's job is it to look after those rights?
largely the judge. And for the judge to do that job, he must
have control over what evidence the jurors see. Once the
jurors are tucked away and sequestered, the judge can do this
easily even if evidence is on the news, and that's ok with me.
But the judge cannot do his job, and justice cannot be served,
if evidence is in public circulation pre-trial.
That said, I have some questions about your analogy. Not to
imply my views on each of these issues just yet, but...
We're talking about broadcasting this information. Do you favor
complete non-restriction on the broadcast of pornography?
What if I illicitely make a tape of my neighbor sunbathing nude?
Can I ignore her right to privacy in the almighty name of free
speech?
How about if jja makes a tape of himself nude and carries it
around with him, showing it on a little TV screen as he walks?
After all, it's his tape.
For that matter, do you oppose indecent exposure laws?
You might claim that what I'm doing here is slippery-slope
argument, which is a fallacy. Indeed that's true. And your
arguments about the water cooler and supressing editorials are
*also* slippery-slope arguments.
> It's a crazy-ass idea in the first
> place that we have common folk come in for a week and make legal decisions
Well, the premise of our government, tho you can't tell it by
looking at the government of today, is that *everybody* involved
in governing should be "common folk" who come in for a short
time and then return to their real lives. I'd say that having
people who's job (and therefore interest) lies in creating new
laws, and others who's job (and therefore interest) lies in
finding loopholes in the law even at the expense of the truth
and of justice, is the idea that's crazy-ass. I happen to think
the jury system is a pretty good idea.
> when it would surely be less tamper prone if they were legal professionals.
Less prone to certain types of tampering, maybe. But just because
the jorors would know more about their jobs doesn't mean they'd
choose to do a better job. Legal professionals may have a price,
and if there's a closed pool of jurors who sit on all the trials
that have juries, such a juror is a great opportunity as someone
for a career criminal to put on his payroll.
--
mea
Mark Adelsberger
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought anyone accused of a crime could
> waive their right to a jury trial and just have the judge decide the
> verdict and sentencing.
I believe that may be true, but he also has the right *not* to
do so, and polluting the jury (thereby forcing him to either
do so or accept an unfair jury trial) is a violation of his
rights.
Mark Adelsberger
> You're assuming what "truth" is going to do to people, judging it as bad, and
> therefore denying them their rights.
Wait a minute... once again, whose rights are we talking about:
the people with the information (in which case you could argue
censorship), or the people who would _get_ the information (in
which case its an access-to-information issue, and there's a
lot less room to talk about "rights")?
jf...@lusars.net
> jf...@lusars.net wrote:
>> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>>> jf...@lusars.net wrote:
>> No. Wrong again. You're assuming the truth is biased, no matter
>> what. "If I knew you would present the story in a non-biased manner, I would
>> feel differently about allowing you to present the truth."
> "If I felt you were presenting the story in a non-biased manner, I would
> feel differently about allowing you to present it."
Ok, so you changed it to active rather than passive. We've basically
boiled down to saying the same thing. We've lost the point of the discussion,
though. I don't care whether the story that is presented agrees or disagrees
with my opinion...the point is that the story, as presented, should not have
an opinion, but should be non-biased. It should consist of facts. Facts
make up the truth. Anything beyond that is bias. And my point is that as
far as I can tell, television news is incapable of presenting just those
facts in a manner without bias, thus I don't feel they should be allowed to
present those facts to the public, for the reason that the bias they applied
would, in all likelihood, affect the feelings of one or more potential jurors,
thus tainting the legal process.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Weird enough for government work.
Mark Adelsberger
>> I'm speaking in general principles. You're the one assuming
>> a particular policy through which to implement those principles.
>> I said nothing about seizure of the tape or censorship.
> You said nothing about censorship? What do you call what you're talking about?
> I see no legitimate reason to not use that word just because it's dirty.
I said the tape shouldn't be in the public. You inferred that
I thought someone should stop it from getting there (e.g.
censor it), but at that point in the thread, I had said no such
thing. Upon further reflection, I belive that the tape should
be legally prevented form being in broadcast, and you'll find
my arguments for that position elsewhere in the thread.
Nonetheless, you jumped the gun by a *long* shot shouting
"censor!" and "seizure of private property!" in response to
what I said.
In any event, using loaded language is in fact an impediment
to a decent conversation, so I do see a legitimate reason not
to fly off the handle with such accusations.
> without stomping on freedom. In a fairy world, we completely agree that a
> juror should not be biased for any reason. Here on earth, it's about degrees.
And exposure of jurors to evidence without the judge's having
approved said exposure is clearly a few degrees too far.
> You're fond of "jeopardize." The accused's right is to a fair trial, including
> an impartial jury. Stomping on the rights of EVERYONE because you're worried
EVERYONE? I thought we were talking about the one person with
the tape? The only thing we're taking form EVERYONE is a "right"
that doesn't exist -- to see evidence pertaining to a crime that
has not yet been to trial.
Maybe you mean that if we take one guy's "right" to broadcast his
tape, we're taking EVERYONE's right to broadcast EVERYONE's tape.
Ok, and if we take away one accused person's right to a fair
trial, then we take away EVERYOHE's right to a fair trial.
Or are you deluded enough to think that while you might one day
have information you want to propogate, you couldn't ever end up
on trial?
> about _jeopardizing_ the rights of one person isn't a good trade off. If I
In the instance of "right to a fair trial", jeopardizing is the
same as taking away. (Or since you seem to require loaded
language today, "TRAMPLING".) Fairness is by its nature an
issue of probability.
> taped the Rodney King beating, I believe I have a fundamental right to
> distribute that tape,
Do you? A "fundamental right"? Which means the media is
required to broadcast it for you? And those you've videotaped
have no rights regarding the distribution of a reconrding of
them? (I'm speaking of King moreso than the police, but the
police as well.)
> and others have a fundamental right to watch it.
Do they? Even if you wouldn't choose to distribute it, you'd
be compelled to? If not, then their right must not be too
fundamental.
> If I
> beat Rodney king, I have a fundamental right to a fair trial, I agree. I don't
> think the two are incompatible.
You've ignored without rebuttal those arguments that say they are,
and you've provided no support for the claim that they aren't,
so I guess the argument is a forced draw.
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>> They are jeopardized. But others' rights are unquestionably violated (in some
>> scenarios) by the limitation of free speech.
> Whose rights would those be in _this_ scenario? You assume
> that just because a person owns a tape they have the right
> to convey the information on that tape to anyone else? Would
> you like to back that claim up?
If I'm sitting on my porch and see something, I have a right to tell any and
all consenting adults of what I saw. I see very little justification for some
force to come in and tell me I can't. You may see a distinction between
telling and drawing a picture and taking a picture and taking a movie, but I
do not.
> Besides, what makes it ok to jeopardize rights in the name of
> free speech if its not ok to jeopardize the "public welfare"
> in the name of free speech?
Good point. Degrees.....
If I thought the release of the tape would make a fair jury trial impossible,
I might agree. As it stands, I do not.
>> The same could be said if the media were to publish an editorial on how
>> terrible the accused is. Ban that too? While we're at it, people should
> Not the same thing. An editorial is "some guy's opinion". The
> tape is perceived as cold hard fact.
I don't think it's your place to judge how people perceive things. I do not
disagree that all the damn sheeple out there listen to sound bites, etc, but I
think when you start making public policy on that assumption, you have made a
big mistake. Just like taking their guns away (God please don't hit me with
lightening.)
> I'm talking about restricting the flow of evidence. The things
> you equate to that have nothing to do with evidence.
But your fundamental justification is the purity of the jury pool.
> Now I'm not claiming you can make the system perfect. I'm saying
> you nonetheless do things to make it as good as possible.
Choose your poison.....
>> The TV shouting some message could have just as much of an obstruction effect
>> as any tape.
> And these things are exactly why jurors are sequestered. The
> system is imperfect in that you can't have them sequestered
> retroactive to when the crime occured. And it's more of a
> problem now in the "information age" than it was when the system
> as we know it came to be. But that doesn't mean we should throw
> our hands up and say "here, everyone, look at the evidence,
> we'll just take that pesky right/duty of the judge to control
> the trial and throw it out."
I can see this argument in the current situation in StL. The judge has the
tape, Jack-in-the-box GAVE them the tape, there's an argument there. Where
I really get riled is my fake Rodney King scenario.
> Which is exactly why your black-and-white answer to the situation
> is inappropriate.
It ain't black and white. I am unconvinced of the risk of showing the tape.
> Censorship in the context of porn and the like prohibits you
> from giving information to someone on the premise that said
> person cannot "handle" it as you put it. The person to be
> "protected" is the person who would choose to receive the
> information.
I don't agree. Anti-pr0n ppl would say that not only does it damage the person
viewing the pr0n, but it damages society through that person causing subsequent
damage.
> Of course, sometimes anti-porn censorship says its about
> protecting _children_, who allegedly can't yet make decisions
> about their wellfare as regards viewing porn. So why is that
> kind of censorship wrong? Because it usurps the job of
> protecting the child from the parents, whose rightful job it
> is.
I disagree that that kind of censorship is wrong. :)
> We're talking about broadcasting this information. Do you favor
> complete non-restriction on the broadcast of pornography?
See above.
> What if I illicitely make a tape of my neighbor sunbathing nude?
> Can I ignore her right to privacy in the almighty name of free
> speech?
Probably. I was thinking about that very question earlier today. I don't
know what "good" laws would be on snooping....if (s)he were sunbathing in
public, then I say SELL THAT SHIT. If not....not sure.
> How about if jja makes a tape of himself nude and carries it
> around with him, showing it on a little TV screen as he walks?
> After all, it's his tape.
> For that matter, do you oppose indecent exposure laws?
Goes back to as-yet-undiscussed protection of children in "public".
> You might claim that what I'm doing here is slippery-slope
> argument, which is a fallacy. Indeed that's true. And your
> arguments about the water cooler and supressing editorials are
> *also* slippery-slope arguments.
I don't know the definition of this slippery-slope argument, but I always
kind of thought looking at logical consequences was a good thing to do when
discussing an issue.
>> It's a crazy-ass idea in the first
>> place that we have common folk come in for a week and make legal decisions
By crazy-ass, I meant "strange seeming"...but I believe it is best.
Mike
Mike Hunter
Like...both. I'm not feelin' the distinction. What is freedom of speech w/o
speakers? And what is it without an audience?
Mark Adelsberger
> Mark Adelsberger <m...@wallace.lusars.net> wrote:
>> Even if the passenger wasn't a threat to the
>> officer(s), that doesn't make his death a homicide if it was
>> an unintentional result of the officers' attempt to stay
>> alive.
> of us, but the idea that cops should be immune to involuntary
> manslaughter charges bothers me a LOT, because it surely leads to more
I said nothing about invol. manslaughter. I was talking about
murder. However, even involuntary manslaughter first requires
wrongdoing, and accidental death doesn't necessarily imply
wrongdoing.
If the cop was unnecessarily reckless about shooting at the
car, string 'im up! But let the court system, which is designed
to figure such things out, have a crack at making the decision
before shouting about how we need to circumvent it.
I'm not saying anyone should be unaccountable for his actions
just because he was in danger of dying; I'm saying that there
are circumstances in which an accidental death cannot be
blamed on the person holding the gun, the perceived need to
find someone to blame notwithstanding. It's not a pleasant
answer since it leaves nobody to punish, but I'd say if it
wasn't the passenger's own fault it may well have been the
driver's fault.
--
mea
Mike Hunter
> Ok, so you changed it to active rather than passive. We've basically
> boiled down to saying the same thing. We've lost the point of the discussion,
> though. I don't care whether the story that is presented agrees or disagrees
> with my opinion...the point is that the story, as presented, should not have
> an opinion, but should be non-biased.
I feel like you're confusing your journalistic oath with your politics. You
can make an argument that public TV has responsibilities because the air waves
are a gift from the government, but in the sense of rights, it's not wrong
for a news source to have a bias. I agree with you that sheeple don't realize
that the TV has a bias, but I say it's a bad thing to base public policy on
that "fact." It's the sheeple's job to recognize the bias or not.
It should consist of facts. Facts
> make up the truth. Anything beyond that is bias. And my point is that as
> far as I can tell, television news is incapable of presenting just those
> facts in a manner without bias, thus I don't feel they should be allowed to
> present those facts to the public, for the reason that the bias they applied
> would, in all likelihood, affect the feelings of one or more potential jurors,
> thus tainting the legal process.
And I say that you're over-stating the impoossibility of a fair trial and under-
valuing the rights of consenting adults to exchange information.
Let's arm wrestle.
Mike
--
31337!!!
Mike Hunter
> Nonetheless, you jumped the gun by a *long* shot shouting
> "censor!" and "seizure of private property!" in response to
> what I said.
I don't agree. I find it to be a very short walk from what you were saying
to where you are now.
>> without stomping on freedom. In a fairy world, we completely agree that a
>> juror should not be biased for any reason. Here on earth, it's about degrees.
> And exposure of jurors to evidence without the judge's having
> approved said exposure is clearly a few degrees too far.
Not so clear to me.
>> You're fond of "jeopardize." The accused's right is to a fair trial, including
>> an impartial jury. Stomping on the rights of EVERYONE because you're worried
> EVERYONE? I thought we were talking about the one person with
> the tape?
You are....and indeed that is an important right.
> Or are you deluded enough to think that while you might one day
> have information you want to propogate, you couldn't ever end up
> on trial?
Unafraid of the sheeple.
> In the instance of "right to a fair trial", jeopardizing is the
> same as taking away. (Or since you seem to require loaded
> language today, "TRAMPLING".) Fairness is by its nature an
> issue of probability.
I agree. Which is why the water cooler talk must be banned.
>> taped the Rodney King beating, I believe I have a fundamental right to
>> distribute that tape,
> Do you? A "fundamental right"? Which means the media is
> required
Now now now....insert the word "willing" or "interested" as needed.
>> If I
>> beat Rodney king, I have a fundamental right to a fair trial, I agree. I don't
>> think the two are incompatible.
> You've ignored without rebuttal those arguments that say they are,
> and you've provided no support for the claim that they aren't,
> so I guess the argument is a forced draw.
"Arguments"? Unless I've missed something, you're argument is that such a tape
will hopefully bias the jury pool. My "argument" is that it would not.
Mike
Mark Adelsberger
> If I'm sitting on my porch and see something, I have a right to tell any and
> all consenting adults of what I saw. I see very little justification for some
You may think you do, but you don't. If you are a witness in a
crime, and you meet a juror in that crime, you can't freely talk
to him. (Remember that not all juries are sequestered throughout
the trial.) The "right" to talk about what you know is not
absolute.
Now, the two differences between that and releasing the tape:
1) pre-trial vs. during trial
If a witness talks to "some guy" pre-trial, then he's not talking
to a juror, so that's ok, but...
2) talking to a person / handful of people vs. talking to the
entire TV-watching population of the united states
Now you're surely talking to a juror again. It's one thing
to talk to a friend and therefore make him inelligable
as a juror -- that should get sorted out in jury selection
anyway. It's another thing to severely dillute the pool of
elligable jurors. The lawyers only get to strike so many.
> I don't think it's your place to judge how people perceive things. I do not
> disagree that all the damn sheeple out there listen to sound bites, etc, but I
> think when you start making public policy on that assumption, you have made a
> big mistake. Just like taking their guns away (God please don't hit me with
> lightening.)
I didn't say "people will react differently because they're
stupid and it's television". I said "people will react differently
because they have half a brain cell or more and it's EVIDENCE, not
an editorial, that they're looking at."
Perhaps it's not my place to say how people will react, but I don't
really think I'm too far out on a limb here. It's also not your
place to say "aw, people will react the same to an editorial as
to evidence." If it's anyone's place, it's the court system's. And
the court system says: no tape for you.
Sure, we could pretend we don't know anything about people and
disallow any rule that supposes people will react in any
particular manner. So since we don't *know* that jurors will take
their duty seriously, lets just skip that. And since we don't
*know* that congress will stand up to their responsibilities,
let's scrap that, too.
>> I'm talking about restricting the flow of evidence. The things
>> you equate to that have nothing to do with evidence.
> But your fundamental justification is the purity of the jury pool.
Which is a matter of degree. Some methods are justified to
preserve that purity; others are not. Which are depends on
many factors, among them the severity of the risk.
Just because condoms aren't 100% effective isn't a good
reason to have unprotected sex.
> Choose your poison.....
Mmm... Fat Tire Ale...
> It ain't black and white. I am unconvinced of the risk of showing the tape.
Then since you flatly reject arguments describing the risk and
don't counter-argue them, our only option is to regard this as
a fundamental disagreement and leave it at that.
>> Censorship in the context of porn and the like prohibits you
>> from giving information to someone on the premise that said
>> person cannot "handle" it as you put it. The person to be
>> "protected" is the person who would choose to receive the
>> information.
> I don't agree. Anti-pr0n ppl would say that not only does it damage the person
> viewing the pr0n, but it damages society through that person causing subsequent
> damage.
Some abstract notion of "damage to society" also is a flawed
motivation, and it also isn't the motivation for holding back
the tape. So it serves just as well in my argument as does
the motivation of "protecting the person from himself". The
point is, anti-porn censorship isn't about protecting a
concrete right that someone posesses, and is therefore not
comparable to restricting the flow of evidence.
Nonetheless, I still hold that it's generally about protecting
the person from himself, and that the harm to society is seen
as a secondary effect of the person harming himself.
>> Of course, sometimes anti-porn censorship says its about
>> protecting _children_, who allegedly can't yet make decisions
>> about their wellfare as regards viewing porn. So why is that
>> kind of censorship wrong? Because it usurps the job of
>> protecting the child from the parents, whose rightful job it
>> is.
> I disagree that that kind of censorship is wrong. :)
I'm undecided on whether I think it is, and I think it may
depend on context. I should have said "Here's how one could
argue that such censorship is wrong"... blech. Too much
typing today.
Anyhow, so now you're making more exceptions to my "right to
have my tapes broadcast"/"right of consenting adults to see it"?
(Even if your intent is to keep it from children, if you keep
it off the air you're interfering with the "rights" of the
adults and of the person who distributes the porn, if they have
the rights you claim the public and a tape owner have...)
So it's not that those rights are fundamental as you previously
said; you can violate them in cases where it meets your politics.
But nobody *else*'s reasons are ever good enough, eh?
> Probably. I was thinking about that very question earlier today. I don't
> know what "good" laws would be on snooping....if (s)he were sunbathing in
> public, then I say SELL THAT SHIT. If not....not sure.
Is her back yard public just because I can see over the fence?
> I don't know the definition of this slippery-slope argument, but I always
> kind of thought looking at logical consequences was a good thing to do when
> discussing an issue.
Logical consequences, yes. But saying "if you do X, you might
as well do Y" is not looking at logical consequences. It's
slippery-slope logic, and it's incorrect.
Banning talk around the water cooler is not a logical consequence
of banning circulation of evidence. It's a different, more
drastic measure. Some claim that by doing the latter you're
moving down a "slippery slope" toward the former; such arguments
are a load of crap that only holds up in a world of absolutes.
--
mea
Mark Adelsberger
> speakers? And what is it without an audience?
You do not have a right to an audience. You (generally) have
the right to say what you please if you can find an audience.
The two are not the same.
Mark Adelsberger
> The whole premise of this whole freedom of speech thing is that no one is
> given the job of judging what is and is not biased. That's for the sheeple
> to decide.
So it's the job of the people being manipulated to decide if
they're being manipulated? Interesting theory, but not good
enough as a protection for the rights of the accused.
I'm not saying that there should be some overseeing authority
that decides which media sources are unbiased enough to
report the evidence. There definitely should not be, because
that's just another body with biases.
But I do agree with the spirit of what jferg's saying: In
the abstract, if it were known that the news media were
unbiased, then I'd be *less* opposed (but I think still not
unopposed) to letting them show the tape. However, it cannot
be known, especially in today's media environment, that the
news media will treat a story without bias.
Mark Adelsberger
> that "fact." It's the sheeple's job to recognize the bias or not.
I disagree, if their failure to do so could cost another man his
rights. I'm not interested in protecting the people from the
bias; I'm interested in protecting the accused from being smeared
in the Almighty Name of Boosting Ratings.
Mark Adelsberger
> I don't agree. I find it to be a very short walk from what you were saying
> to where you are now.
I think that people shouldn't smoke. I don't think there should
be a law against smoking. That I think the tape shouldn't be
public doesn't *imply* that I think the law should keep it from
being public. As it happens, I now believe it should.
Saying "I think the tape shouldn't be public" is a matter of
value judgement. Saying "the tape should be censored" is a
matter of policy.
Now I've said it three ways. If you still don't see the
difference, that's a personal problem and you'll just have to
accept or reject that the authority on my meaning is me.
>> And exposure of jurors to evidence without the judge's having
>> approved said exposure is clearly a few degrees too far.
> Not so clear to me.
So the judge shouldn't be *able* to refuse to admit evidence?
> I agree. Which is why the water cooler talk must be banned.
Keep your slipperly slope to yourself; I'll not be arguing
it further.
--
mea
jf...@lusars.net
> I feel like you're confusing your journalistic oath with your politics. You
> can make an argument that public TV has responsibilities because the air waves
> are a gift from the government, but in the sense of rights, it's not wrong
> for a news source to have a bias. I agree with you that sheeple don't realize
> that the TV has a bias, but I say it's a bad thing to base public policy on
TV news makes the pretense of following that journalistic oath, yet
fails to do so. They shouldn't be allowed to have their sensationalism and
their integrity too.
> Let's arm wrestle.
I'll kick you in tha' NUTS!
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
John J. Adelsberger III
> "If I knew you would tell the truth, according to me, I would feel better
> about allowing you to speak in public."
Mike, face it. This is not what the man said. He's talking about expecting
that if they show the tape, they SHOW the tape, instead of showing the same
8 seconds where the guys' heads explode over and over 50 trillion times a
day. He's talking about expecting that they're going to title the piece
something like "Footage from the scene of a shooting" rather than "Two cops
brutally slaughter some black guys." In short, it isn't about telling
anyone's version of the truth; it is about showing what is there and not
trying to sensationalize it.
John J. Adelsberger III
> I disagree, if their failure to do so could cost another man his
> rights.
It is interesting to me that Mike chooses to talk about "protecting rights"
but refuses to protect the rights of anyone who actually has something at
stake in the case that his rights are violated. Face it; being disallowed
from showing one particular video tape for a limited time is a consequence
of no consequence. Being convicted of a double homicide is not. If they
are guilty, showing that tape isn't going to be what gets them convicted;
if they're innocent, NOT showing that tape until the proper time might well
get them convicted.
John J. Adelsberger III
> In any event, using loaded language is in fact an impediment
> to a decent conversation,
I'd agree with the specific case you're applying this to here. However, the
"loaded language" argument is far too broad to be generally true. It can be
used to disparage the use of any term referring to something that actually
matters to people, because if it matters, then it evokes feeling, and if it
evokes feeling, then it must be "loaded language." That was one of the most
entertainingly transparent lunacies we were taught in college. It CAN be
true, but it can also be a way to make an ass of yourself, and the
distinction isn't inherent in the argument itself, but only in the case-by-
case judgement of the person using it.
John J. Adelsberger III
> John J. Adelsberger III <j...@wallace.lusars.net> wrote:
>> Of course that was their MOTIVE. That doesn't mean they didn't
>> orchestrate a lynching. Remember the distinction between motive
>> and method.
> "tried"
Ah, so it is OK to try to subvert justice, thereby screwing over innocent
people permanently, as long as you happen to fail despite your best effort.
I'll keep that one in mind.
John J. Adelsberger III
> I said nothing about invol. manslaughter. I was talking about
> murder. However, even involuntary manslaughter first requires
> wrongdoing, and accidental death doesn't necessarily imply
> wrongdoing.
That actually depends on the state. I don't know the Missouri law, but I
do know that there are states where basically ANY time you kill someone,
the prosecutor has the option to use involuntary manslaughter against you.
As far as I know, the premise is that he will use discretion in applying
it.
Mike Hunter
> You do not have a right to an audience. You (generally) have
> the right to say what you please if you can find an audience.
> The two are not the same.
Blah blah blah. I'm talking about a willing and interested audience, like in
this example. In some situations, you're talking about keeping a willing
audience from a willing speaker.
Mike Hunter
>> I disagree, if their failure to do so could cost another man his
>> rights.
> It is interesting to me that Mike chooses to talk about "protecting rights"
> but refuses to protect the rights of anyone who actually has something at
> stake in the case that his rights are violated.
All of my squakcing would melt to bullshit if I thought the paerson couldn't
get a fair jury trial. I don't accept that premise.
> Face it;
NO! 31337!
> from showing one particular video tape for a limited time is a consequence
> of no consequence.
Write that down. You admit it is a consequence. Don't ever talk about
absoluteism again.
Mike
Mike Hunter
>> The whole premise of this whole freedom of speech thing is that no one is
>> given the job of judging what is and is not biased. That's for the sheeple
>> to decide.
> So it's the job of the people being manipulated to decide if
> they're being manipulated?
YES!
Mike
Mike Hunter
>>> And exposure of jurors to evidence without the judge's having
>>> approved said exposure is clearly a few degrees too far.
>> Not so clear to me.
> So the judge shouldn't be *able* to refuse to admit evidence?
Funny, coming after a "hey I didn't say that!" rant.
The courtroom is the time to decide if something is too sensational to be
admitted as evidence (the only thing that jurors are allowed to consider),
not by some neo-natzi hype committe.
>> I agree. Which is why the water cooler talk must be banned.
> Keep your slipperly slope to yourself; I'll not be arguing
> it further.
You can bet I'll be looking over the water cooler this morning (if I ever
drag my lazy ass to work.)
Mike
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>>> Of course that was their MOTIVE. That doesn't mean they didn't
>>> orchestrate a lynching. Remember the distinction between motive
>>> and method.
>> "tried"
> Ah, so it is OK to try to subvert justice, thereby screwing over innocent
> people permanently, as long as you happen to fail despite your best effort.
> I'll keep that one in mind.
You said "tried". I disagree.
jf...@lusars.net
> The courtroom is the time to decide if something is too sensational to be
> admitted as evidence (the only thing that jurors are allowed to consider),
So the decision as to whether something can be admitted as evidence
should be made in the courtroom, in the presence of the jurors? "Oh, that
blood-soaked shirt with Jimmy's name embroidered on it...you never saw that,
it's not really evidence." That seems almost as idiotic as when the judge
states that something should be stricken from the record that has been stated
during a trial, as if there's any chance that the jurors will ignore it.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Where do you think you're going today?
Mike Hunter
> Mike Hunter <mhu...@lusars.dot.net> wrote:
>> The courtroom is the time to decide if something is too sensational to be
>> admitted as evidence (the only thing that jurors are allowed to consider),
> So the decision as to whether something can be admitted as evidence
> should be made in the courtroom, in the presence of the jurors?
No. They can go sit in the hall.
> it's not really evidence." That seems almost as idiotic as when the judge
> states that something should be stricken from the record that has been stated
> during a trial, as if there's any chance that the jurors will ignore it.
That happens ALL the time (on TV at least.) That's my whole point.
Mike
> Where do you think you're going today?
I'm gonna be going over to your mom's house after work.
jf...@lusars.net
>> states that something should be stricken from the record that has been stated
>> during a trial, as if there's any chance that the jurors will ignore it.
> That happens ALL the time (on TV at least.) That's my whole point.
My point is that that is stupid too.
JF
--
Justin Ferguson - Geek of All Trades - Technical Solutions Consultant
http://www.thedotin.net/jferg <jf...@lusars.net> <JFerg at The Dot in .Net>
Mike Hunter
>> If I'm sitting on my porch and see something, I have a right to tell any and
>> all consenting adults of what I saw. I see very little justification for some
> You may think you do, but you don't.
I think we're running into a semantic difference on the word "right" (which
you have used in the sense I am using it on previous occasions.)
If you are a witness in a
> crime, and you meet a juror in that crime, you can't freely talk
> to him. (Remember that not all juries are sequestered throughout
> the trial.) The "right" to talk about what you know is not
> absolute.
> Now, the two differences between that and releasing the tape:
> 1) pre-trial vs. during trial
> If a witness talks to "some guy" pre-trial, then he's not talking
> to a juror, so that's ok, but...
> 2) talking to a person / handful of people vs. talking to the
> entire TV-watching population of the united states
I find the distinction to be very Castro-esque, and I think that's the very
reason that the framers went ahead and mentioned "press" in the first
amendment.
> Now you're surely talking to a juror again.
Disagree. I think they actually found people who hadn't seen the Rodney King
beating tape.
It's one thing
> to talk to a friend and therefore make him inelligable
> as a juror -- that should get sorted out in jury selection
> anyway. It's another thing to severely dillute the pool of
> elligable jurors. The lawyers only get to strike so many.
I agree that such a tape would dillute the jury pool to some extent. I'm not
impressed by that extent. If you want no dilution, you have to be very
fascist, and no one wants that. I find what you've been suggesting too
fascist.
> I didn't say "people will react differently because they're
> stupid and it's television". I said "people will react differently
> because they have half a brain cell or more and it's EVIDENCE, not
> an editorial, that they're looking at."
> Perhaps it's not my place to say how people will react, but I don't
> really think I'm too far out on a limb here. It's also not your
> place to say "aw, people will react the same to an editorial as
> to evidence." If it's anyone's place, it's the court system's. And
> the court system says: no tape for you.
The King tape played. And I think it's no one's place. The court gets to
make rules for people participating in the trial once it has begun.
>> But your fundamental justification is the purity of the jury pool.
> Which is a matter of degree. Some methods are justified to
> preserve that purity; others are not. Which are depends on
> many factors, among them the severity of the risk.
No argument here whatsoever.
> Just because condoms aren't 100% effective isn't a good
> reason to have unprotected sex.
It's worked for me!
:)
>> It ain't black and white. I am unconvinced of the risk of showing the tape.
> Then since you flatly reject arguments describing the risk and
> don't counter-argue them, our only option is to regard this as
> a fundamental disagreement and leave it at that.
"I think this would happen" is not an argument.
>> I don't agree. Anti-pr0n ppl would say that not only does it damage the person
>> viewing the pr0n, but it damages society through that person causing subsequent
>> damage.
> Some abstract notion of "damage to society" also is a flawed
> motivation, and it also isn't the motivation for holding back
> the tape. So it serves just as well in my argument as does
> the motivation of "protecting the person from himself". The
> point is, anti-porn censorship isn't about protecting a
> concrete right that someone posesses, and is therefore not
> comparable to restricting the flow of evidence.
Just because pr0n's victim isn't as clearly identified doesn't mean it's not
"the same" argument. Someone somewhere says that society will be harmed, in
both cases that harm is embodied in 1 or more specific victims.
> Anyhow, so now you're making more exceptions to my "right to
> have my tapes broadcast"/"right of consenting adults to see it"?
> (Even if your intent is to keep it from children, if you keep
> it off the air you're interfering with the "rights" of the
> adults and of the person who distributes the porn, if they have
> the rights you claim the public and a tape owner have...)
This gets into the fact that the air waves are a special fucked-up medium
"owned" by the government....way too complicated to talk about in public. My
arguments work better with a gnutella perspective :)
>> Probably. I was thinking about that very question earlier today. I don't
>> know what "good" laws would be on snooping....if (s)he were sunbathing in
>> public, then I say SELL THAT SHIT. If not....not sure.
> Is her back yard public just because I can see over the fence?
Do we REALLY want to go here?
What about heat sensing stuff? Is that different from just looking inside
a window?
Mike
Mike Hunter
By the way, where do you get off dumping all this fuel and then disapearing
as it bursts into flame? :)
Mike
Mike Hunter
> John J. Adelsberger III <j...@wallace.lusars.net> wrote:
>>> I disagree, if their failure to do so could cost another man his
>>> rights.
>> It is interesting to me that Mike chooses to talk about "protecting rights"
>> but refuses to protect the rights of anyone who actually has something at
>> stake in the case that his rights are violated.
> All of my squakcing would melt to bullshit if I thought the paerson couldn't
> get a fair jury trial. I don't accept that premise.
>> Face it;
> NO! 31337!
>> from showing one particular video tape for a limited time is a consequence
>> of no consequence.
> Write that down. You admit it is a consequence. Don't ever talk about
> absoluteism again.
And by the way, I am genuinely interested in seeing how you wezzle your way
out of the "drunk off your ass on your poarch" scenario I posted. Show me
your property rights!
Chase Watkins
>
> What about heat sensing stuff? Is that different from just looking inside
> a window?
I don't think that it is... We wear clothing for various reasons. One of
them being to keep others from seeing us naked. We have walls on a house for
various reasons and one of them is keeping others from seeing us naked when
we're changing clothes.
Mike Hunter
But it's just a different part of the same spectrum. You're telling me that
I am allowed to cogitate on [x,y] nM, but not (y,z]?
On the other hand, there's this whole "Expectation of privacy" thing...
an interesting topic.
Mark Adelsberger
> I think we're running into a semantic difference on the word "right" (which
> you have used in the sense I am using it on previous occasions.)
I doubt it. I do not recognize as a "right", in any sense of
the word I know, the freedom to confer any information you have
to anyone you please. There is a right associated with freedom
of speech, but not absolute freedom of speech.
>> 2) talking to a person / handful of people vs. talking to the
>> entire TV-watching population of the united states
> I find the distinction to be very Castro-esque, and I think that's the very
> reason that the framers went ahead and mentioned "press" in the first
> amendment.
If the point were to ensure that only a few people ever knew what
was going on, maybe. That is not the case.
You can't separate the conclusion from the cause and then attack
the conclusion. If you're so attached to your point of view that
you'd rather play that way instead of just addrssing the issues
as they come, then please just admit it so we can quit wasting
time.
> fascist, and no one wants that. I find what you've been suggesting too
> fascist.
If you can't express your point without loaded, insulting terms,
then you're my brother.
> The King tape played. And I think it's no one's place. The court gets to
> make rules for people participating in the trial once it has begun.
So paying off witnesses, prior to the trial, is just free
enterprise then?
>> Which is a matter of degree. Some methods are justified to
>> preserve that purity; others are not. Which are depends on
>> many factors, among them the severity of the risk.
> No argument here whatsoever.
Good. Then I expect I'll see no more slippery-slope garbage.
> It's worked for me!
Well yeah, but your sister's been spayed hasn't she?
};->
> "I think this would happen" is not an argument.
Nor is it all we said. But suit yourself.
> Just because pr0n's victim isn't as clearly identified doesn't mean it's not
> "the same" argument. Someone somewhere says that society will be harmed, in
That we're talking about abstract harm rather than concrete
degradation of rights _does_ mean it's not the same argument.
Part of what makes the former abstract is that they talk
about "harm to society"; that has no meaning. You assert
that they mean "harm to some people in society". Very will.
Now make that concrete by describing who will be harmed and,
more specifically, how someone's *rights* will be harmed,
since laws model and protect rights.
(If you reject my last clause about what laws do, then again
the argument is more fundamental and we should just leave it
alone.)
> This gets into the fact that the air waves are a special fucked-up medium
> "owned" by the government....way too complicated to talk about in public. My
> arguments work better with a gnutella perspective :)
So if we're talking pron the gov't owns the airwaves, but if
we're talking evidence in a court case the gov't can't restrict
my/Channel 5's use of the airwaves? Make up your mind.
Besides, fewer and fewer Americans get their network TV over the
airwaves. Cable and satelite are gaining ground. So is it ok
to have unrestricted porn on those media?
Besides, arguments about protecting children include not just
TV but also the internet and porn magazines. The only one
bringing up the "gov't-owned" airwaves is you.
Besides, the practical fact that the gov't controls the airwaves
aside, how is it any more right that airwaves are the govt's
than that land, water, raw materials, and all other resources
(and thus everything used as a communication medium) are also
the govt's. I reject your claim that "the airwaves" are
special and owned by the government.
>> Is her back yard public just because I can see over the fence?
> Do we REALLY want to go here?
The issues are one and the same if "freedom of speech" is as
all-overriding as you'd like it to be.
--
mea
Mark Adelsberger
> Blah blah blah. I'm talking about a willing and interested audience, like in
> this example. In some situations, you're talking about keeping a willing
> audience from a willing speaker.
I don't have to prove every claim I make with each sentence I
utter. What I said was specifically targeted at separating the
ideas of right to speak from right to an audience, no more and
no less.
Mark Adelsberger
>> So the judge shouldn't be *able* to refuse to admit evidence?
> Funny, coming after a "hey I didn't say that!" rant.
What rant would that be? I'll be very interested to see where I
tried to distance myself from the claim that the judge should
control the courtroom.
At this point, I think it would take you at least a week to put
all the stuff you took out of context back. Until you do, I
do not believe you can possibly understand how it fits together.
Really I'd come to expect you had more sense than to attack
statements out of context.
> The courtroom is the time to decide if something is too sensational to be
> admitted as evidence (the only thing that jurors are allowed to consider),
That jurors aren't supposed to consider things they heard
outside the courtroom isn't enough. Which is why jurors can
be sequestered. Once the tape's been on the news, you can't
put the genie back in the bottle "after the trial starts".
And my whole *point* is that the decision belongs in the
courtroom, not in a media room. Which is exactly why pre-trial
the media cannot be allowed to make that decision by showing
the video.
--
mea
Mike Hunter
>> I find the distinction to be very Castro-esque, and I think that's the very
>> reason that the framers went ahead and mentioned "press" in the first
>> amendment.
> If the point were to ensure that only a few people ever knew what
> was going on, maybe. That is not the case.
It's only not the case if you see a fundamental difference between regulating
the timing and the content of speech. There are plenty of fascists out there
who tell the media they can't print this and that "right now" because there
is some national state of unrest.
> So paying off witnesses, prior to the trial, is just free
> enterprise then?
Goes to intent, your honor.
>> Just because pr0n's victim isn't as clearly identified doesn't mean it's not
>> "the same" argument. Someone somewhere says that society will be harmed, in
> That we're talking about abstract harm rather than concrete
> degradation of rights _does_ mean it's not the same argument.
> Part of what makes the former abstract is that they talk
> about "harm to society"; that has no meaning. You assert
> that they mean "harm to some people in society". Very will.
> Now make that concrete by describing who will be harmed and,
> more specifically, how someone's *rights* will be harmed,
> since laws model and protect rights.
Woman gets raped.
> So if we're talking pron the gov't owns the airwaves, but if
> we're talking evidence in a court case the gov't can't restrict
> my/Channel 5's use of the airwaves? Make up your mind.
I don't think the tape would damage children (or anyone.)
> Besides, fewer and fewer Americans get their network TV over the
> airwaves. Cable and satelite are gaining ground. So is it ok
> to have unrestricted porn on those media?
In the example of the internet, the ultimate in "private broadcasting" I
don't believe in restriction.
>>> Is her back yard public just because I can see over the fence?
>> Do we REALLY want to go here?
> The issues are one and the same if "freedom of speech" is as
> all-overriding as you'd like it to be.
A big part of my squock is assuming that the beating happened on public
property.
Mike
Mark Adelsberger
> But it's just a different part of the same spectrum. You're telling me that
Nobody worries if their heat signature looks ugly :)
John J. Adelsberger III
> Disagree. I think they actually found people who hadn't seen the Rodney King
> beating tape.
Assuming they found 12 people who would not admit to having seen it, what
does that mean? It means they've got 12 people from a tiny self-selecting
subset of the population that doesn't watch TV. That doesn't sound like
a way to choose a jury to me. Those people probably have a lot of other
characteristics in common. Not only that, but there is no reasonable way
of knowing that some of them aren't lying just to get onto the jury. It
doesn't take a great legal mind to figure out that your odds are better
if you haven't already seen the evidence. (And don't remind me that the
cops were acquitted again; that is NOT the point, and you know it.)
> It's worked for me!
That's what your mom said about punishing you by dropping you on your head.
> "I think this would happen" is not an argument.
"I think this reasonably COULD happen" is an argument when "this" is that
someone's rights could be violated - and all the moreso when the right
in question is all that protects him from being ruined by the government.
>> Is her back yard public just because I can see over the fence?
> Do we REALLY want to go here?
Apparently you do. You already said you want to sell video of her nekkid
relaxation, after all:)
Personally, I think people are way too hung up on this whole nudity thing,
but then, a huge percentage of our population is Baptists. Oh well.
John J. Adelsberger III
> If you can't express your point without loaded, insulting terms,
> then you're my brother.
There is a multiply self-referential irony at work here.
> Besides, fewer and fewer Americans get their network TV over the
> airwaves. Cable and satelite are gaining ground.
I don't mean to be an ass, but satellite does in fact use high frequency
radio broadcast. The government "owns" that spectrum too, as inane as
it is.
> the govt's. I reject your claim that "the airwaves" are
> special and owned by the government.
If only the government rejected it too... (and yes, I'm serious.)
Mark Adelsberger
> It's only not the case if you see a fundamental difference between regulating
> the timing and the content of speech. There are plenty of fascists out there
> who tell the media they can't print this and that "right now" because there
> is some national state of unrest.
Goes to intent, your honor.
>> Part of what makes the former abstract is that they talk
>> about "harm to society"; that has no meaning. You assert
>> that they mean "harm to some people in society". Very will.
>> Now make that concrete by describing who will be harmed and,
>> more specifically, how someone's *rights* will be harmed,
>> since laws model and protect rights.
> Woman gets raped.
Woman's rights were violated. The rape is a crime, end of
story.
Man gets stabbed with a kitchen knife.
Man's rights were violated. The murder is a crime. The same
and/or manufacture of the knife is not.
>> So if we're talking pron the gov't owns the airwaves, but if
>> we're talking evidence in a court case the gov't can't restrict
>> my/Channel 5's use of the airwaves? Make up your mind.
> I don't think the tape would damage children (or anyone.)
Doesn't matter. If the gov't "owns" the airwaves, then they don't
need your approval for deciding what can be sent over them.
If the don't, then we're back to "why is it ok to restrict porn
but not evidence"?
>> Besides, fewer and fewer Americans get their network TV over the
>> airwaves. Cable and satelite are gaining ground. So is it ok
>> to have unrestricted porn on those media?
> In the example of the internet, the ultimate in "private broadcasting" I
> don't believe in restriction.
That's nice. What about the media I ASKED about?
> A big part of my squock is assuming that the beating happened on public
> property.
So if I tape someone killing someone else in the victim's home,
then that's not public property and somehow my ownership over
"my" tape changes?
--
mea
John J. Adelsberger III
> Write that down. You admit it is a consequence. Don't ever talk about
> absoluteism again.
To be honest, I think a far superior way of avoiding tainting juries
is to modify our current court procedures a bit to fit with the present
day reality of mass media.
Basically, until your discovery phase is finished, the media gets nothing
from anyone unless the cops fail to seize it. Once discovery is done, your
jury is safely sequestered, and you haven't done anything stupid to cause
a mistrial, evidence can be released at the prosecutor's discretion, but
keep in mind that if he needs to try someone else for this later, that is
likely to prove more difficult or impossible if he gives out the evidence,
so he's only going to give it to the extent that he thinks he has a good
case. That should serve to limit the harms of sensationalism.
John J. Adelsberger III
> The courtroom is the time to decide if something is too sensational to be
> admitted as evidence (the only thing that jurors are allowed to consider),
The idea that jurors as a general class are likely to disregard something
with high emotional impact just because a judge said so is disproven quite
nicely by your own existence. You are the most emotionally driven person
I know of. Now, if juries consisted entirely of people like me, that might
be _borderline_ workable, but as long as the majority of the population
makes claims like "my feelings trump your logic" even PART of the time,
what you are proposing is the END of rights for the accused.
John J. Adelsberger III
> By the way, where do you get off
This is not information we want, Mike.
John J. Adelsberger III
> A big part of my squock is assuming that the beating happened on public
> property.
In the case that started all this, it happened in a private parking lot,
but that wasn't a beating. Frankly, even if the prosecutor wants to
release the tape, I'm pretty sure he needs the cooperation of the owner,
and I'm thinking the owner is probably going to be reluctant to hand over
a tape that could possibly have implications in a liability lawsuit against
them at some point for public broadcast.
John J. Adelsberger III
> Doesn't matter. If the gov't "owns" the airwaves, then they don't
> need your approval for deciding what can be sent over them.
For all our disagreements, this is my favorite thing about Mark's
political position. He understands that if you say "this is the
government's domain" then YOU do not get to decide what is done
with it - the GOVERNMENT does. Too many people seem to think that
first they're going to get the government to claim authority and
then they personally are going to define how that authority will
be used.
Government doesn't work that way. Assuming it does is one of the
more dangerous fallacies of statism in any form.
Mark Adelsberger
>> airwaves. Cable and satelite are gaining ground.
> I don't mean to be an ass, but satellite does in fact use high frequency
> radio broadcast. The government "owns" that spectrum too, as inane as
> it is.
Interesting point. I'd be interested to see the terms under which
ranges of both TV broadcast band and satelite uplink/downlink band
are licensed/sold/leased/whatever to stations and satelite
operators.
Fine. Cable then.
--
mea
Andrew LeCren
I don't know about the TV broadcast band, but satelite frequencies are
licensed/sold by the FCC. Iridium had to apply to the FCC to get their
spectrum.
Starfox "Of course, now we ain't exactly using it."
--
Starfox - starfox (at) lusars dot net
"You can't be too careful, you can't agonize
over it. You can't be too careful, make
your mind up and go for it." - Moxy Fruvous
Chase Watkins
>
> Personally, I think people are way too hung up on this whole nudity thing,
> but then, a huge percentage of our population is Baptists. Oh well.
Only Baptists have a thing about nudity? The Catholic Church doesn't? The
Muslims don't? Atheists don't?
Chase Watkins
>
> is to modify our current court procedures a bit to fit with the present
> day reality of mass media.
>
> Basically, until your discovery phase is finished, the media gets nothing
> from anyone unless the cops fail to seize it. Once discovery is done, your
> jury is safely sequestered, and you haven't done anything stupid to cause
> a mistrial, evidence can be released at the prosecutor's discretion, but
> keep in mind that if he needs to try someone else for this later, that is
> likely to prove more difficult or impossible if he gives out the evidence,
> so he's only going to give it to the extent that he thinks he has a good
> case. That should serve to limit the harms of sensationalism.
I believe that this is what Canada does when it comes to evidence and the
media.