I don't mean to be condescending, but we have a fairly complicated hierarchy of governments that is hard for many across the pond to grasp. I think that is what is going on here. Far be it from me to claim America is a beacon of freedom, but fortunately library censorship is not currently a big problem.
The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding.
You are right that the US is very different. I did not realize the people of Holland allowed the government to ban the books they could read. Seems unwise -- O Holland, arise!
Library funding is not monolithic, as you seem to suggest. Libraries are for the most part funded by city and county municipalities across the fifty states, which makes them extremely decentralized. There are several thousand such independent governments in the USA. They really are quite independent, too: they collect their own taxes and elect their own politicians. Excluding school libraries (which are often censored), libraries are so far outside the bailiwick of the federal government that it would be almost impossible for them to influence acquisitions on a large scale. Most importantly, the current ethos of librarians is, fortunately, extremely in favor of privacy and intellectual freedom. Book censorship in libraries is not currently a problem area, thanks in large measure to these professional bulldogs for freedom.
Non-government imposed "censorship" is a problem in other areas, such as take-down notices on YouTube for meritless copyright infringement claims, or (some say) in academia. But the feds aren't responsible for this.
And of course the current government is an appalling mess regarding
I'm sure these can't be uncharted waters -- I bet there is case law already on this stuff. What I'm thinking of are those DIY legal kits like, "Write your own will without the help of a lawyer," "Write a renter's contract," and so on. It's an extremely similar situation: those legal instruments are drawn up by people who never see their customer/almost-client. Are they being negligent, providing boilerplate without ever actually consulting with the people who will use them? I bet someone has already asked that question. Just a guess -- but I notice you can still buy those kits!
Seriously, the point is that they are not picking fights they "have to" fight for any sort of ideal (like EFF suing AT&T, or a momma bear defending her cubs). They are just opportunistically trying to find pushover victims, and to scam a few thousand dollars of lunch money off of each one. In a "just war," combat is a last resort. Not so with these weasels.
Nu, what makes you think he lives in the USSA? Slashdotters live around the globe. He writes English like a non native, and based on his name and attitude I assume he is Ukrainian.
Hey, your point of view is fine, and I'm not trying to take it away from you. Sure, it certainly could be racism. I wasn't there and I'll never know. All I'm saying is that there are always multiple ways to read the signs, and based on the story the way you told it, I can read that as possible jury nullification. I'm just reading your words and interpreting, which is all I can do anyway. And as I'm in a verbal mood, let me tell you why I think so.
Have you ever seen Rashomon? What you saw in the courtroom differs from what your fellow jurors saw. Each one's view is refracted by the lenses of our upbringing, social context, desires, and so on. This distorts our perceptions of reality; it affects our observations and opinions. So it's easy for me to imagine hypothetical fellow jurors wearing lenses such that they would literally see the trial differently, say the words you quoted, and argue for acquittal, yet without being too motivated by racism -- even if they could not spell ``nullification.''
For one, a lot of people know that the war on drugs is a hypocritical monstrosity. Why does the CIA get to deal cocaine in Los Angeles, and produce opium in Central Asia, but that right is not extended to the citizens themselves? And seriously, how does the Commerce Clause apply to homegrown, home-smoked pot? Common sense revolts. If you ask me, the war on drugs is a perverse load of vile unconstitutional bunkum. No, I do not want to live near a crackhouse, but also I won't complicitly abet this absurd ``war.'' I don't have to accept one or the other: I want constitutional justice and social justice. I don't believe I have to give up one to get the other.
I could write a screed about the three-strikes rule also, but I'm less passionate about that one (I agree with SCOTUS, it's within states' rights). I think it's unjust too. If I had friends and relatives locked up for decades under three-strikes I would probably be hot under the collar about it as well.
There are a lot of people, even among the poorly educated and underclass, who are aware of the injustices of the present system. The idea of nullification is very simple: give the verdict that you think is right, regardless. When you report that one juror said, ``This is his third strike and I don't want to put him away for a long time,'' then nullification is one way to explain that statement (and so is racism). A juror doesn't have to know the term ``nullification'' to do it.
Drugs (you know what I mean. Illegal Drugs) are NOT legal.
Agreed, illegal things are not legal. But who makes the laws? As a slashdot reader I'm sure you are aware that not everyone gets equal representation in legislatures. Why does minor-league crack possession get you an average sentence of 10.5 years, whereas after $400M of fraud, Dennis Kozlowski might be free after less than 9 years of prison? There's a gap between what's lawful and what's right. How big is the gap? Depends on your lenses.
Drugs are illegal. And so, their sale and use causes problems. Society has a Right, no- a Duty- to try to eliminate these problems.
I agree crack and heroin cause problems. I even think those drugs should be illegal. But everyone is gaming the system, and the people with power game the system the most. Disney extends the copyright term. The RIAA games the judicial system.* Enron and Worldcom cooked their books, till finally they went too far. The FBI abuses USAPATRIOT. Libby gets pardoned, and Rove doesn't even get charged. The President games Article II and the Attorney General denies the existen
that portion is still treated as a 1940 work, and will enter the public domain before the newer parts of the movie.
should be: . . . might someday enter the public domain (if Disney somehow fails to totally pwn Congress, SCOTUS and the US Constitution yet again), before the newer parts of the movie.
That's a good point and I hope you get modded up. There's more than one way to read GP's experience: racism is one explanation, but subverting the ``war on drugs'' and ``three-strikes-you're-out'' rule is another. Lots of people think those two policies are unjust, perhaps unconstitutional. Why should a juror refrain from deconstructing the system a bit if the system is broken? This is one way that the judiciary gets to check-and-balance the other branches of government. To play by the book or not is a choice that is in the juror's hand; the juror has power. It's up to the juror to wield that power justly. I think that it's okay to wield that power, and that nullification is not a dirty word: just like presidents and governors have the power to pardon anyone, a jury has a comparable power to convict or acquit for one case. Of course the system frowns on nullification, and says it is wrong: but their voice is not the only one to listen to.
Likewise the GP's philosophy of carefully interpreting and applying the law, and playing within the system, is also defensible. That way enhances stability, protects the status quo, helps make the legal process predictable -- those all can be very, very good things. A totally unpredictable, unstable legal system does lots of harm. Playing by the book should be the norm. But when laws are unjust and the police are shady, it is naive to close your eyes and convict or acquit, saying, ``I was just playing by the rules.'' Whatever you choose to do, your choice is a political choice. Pretending that it isn't strengthens the status quo, which isn't automatically a good thing.
Melville churned through all this in Billy Budd, the popular novella.
Quite right. And it is now happening in America, the thin end of the wedge and all that. Much depends on who is president next, whether that wedge is driven in deeper or broken off where it is now. Unfortunately not everything changes when the president leaves: America is stuck with laws like CALEA and USA PATRIOT, refuse-to-die programs descended from Carnivore/TIA, and the ridiculous "Do Not $FOO" lists (for FOO in fly, hire, sell-to).
Ironic that for a long time there was very little domestic terrorism and most figured that terrorism couldn't or wouldn't happen in the USA. Having discarded that notion, so many have forgotten how tyrrany has been, is now, and will be for ever a threat, until the world ends.
As AC said, not if you have a receding hairline like me. It only works if you've got a bald patch in back -- something Russians jokingly refer to as a your "ice rink." (Try making an object-verbs-you joke out of that one.)
Microsoft should now list exactly which patents it is referring to . ..
Vague FUD is scarier than specific claims, so Microsoft won't hurry to publish such a list.
At worst, the Linux team can then rewrite the offending code so that it no longer infringes.
I hope it is that easy. Software patents can be so overbroad that there is no way to avoid infringement. For example, patent 6,243,373, "Method and apparatus for implementing a computer network/internet telephone system," is a VOIP patent, one of a few that basically covers all VOIP. According to the EFF, "Overbroad patents cover nearly all current implementations of VoIP, an emerging technology, thus stifling innovation and use of VoIP as a tool of free speech." As I understand it, if you do VOIP, you can't rewrite your software to get around the Acceris patents because you infringe as long as you are doing VOIP at all.
I think Microsoft has similarly overbroad patents and is thinking of them when it threatens Linux.
they all have to explain how they plan to meet various proscribed fiscal goals . ..
Reminds me of a mole investigation I heard of: Interviewers questioned intelligence staff: "Tell us, if you were going to betray your country, how would you do it?" The mole was the one who was speechless, then nervous and agitated. It was his first clue that they were on to him.
</grammar nazi>
It takes courage to stand up and voice a contrary opinion, and I think it's always been that way. Yes, we might feel afraid, but that feeling does not have to control us. I think we are going to be feeling much more fear if REALID goes into effect. It was worrisome and took courage to buck the trends in Nixon's day, in J. Edgar Hoover's day, and I daresay in George III's day, and all the way back.
Sure there might be repression and trouble for us if we speak out, but there is certainly going to be repression and trouble if we don't. Better to play the man.
either god said make them your slaves or your whores. you can choose, but it is his direct command to you as a christian.
(Emphasis added.) What he commanded them and what he commanded GP might differ. If you think exterminating or enslaving Amorites is a universal command for all christians, that is one interpretation, but not one that has any consistency with the rest of the Torah much less the rest of the Bible. What you call intellectual dishonesty others call coherence.
And I'm not sure, but what did the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, etc ever do?
I'm not sure either. I guess we are not qualified to judge what happened next.
You are commanded to kill all non christians/jews that live in the holy land by your god.
Look, I totally support your exercise of free speech here, and your freedom of conscience, and if you are an atheist, great, I salute you for having the huevos (literal or metaphorical) to take a stand on a metaphysical issue. But that's just crap you are talking now. All readings are interpretations and what you've just spouted here is very much an interpretation. Here a quote, food for thought, I thought relevant:
"Art's effect is due to the tension resulting from the clash of the collocation of elements of two (or more) systems [of interpretation]. This conflict has the function of breaking down automatism of perception and occurs simultaneously on the many levels of a work of art . . . . All levels may carry meaning."
You are shortchanging yourself. When you look at these bibilical texts, you perceive in the horror of extermination of the Canaanites. You think it a grotesque outrage. Very well. But that seems to prove to you the evil behind (or of) the "god" portrayed there. Yet the clue you are ignoring is the horror that you feel, that the author (or authors) knows you feel -- that he is calling you to feel. You haven't outwitted him, you're just responding like he knew you would. The dissonance and repulsion you feel is an invitation to consider more deeply what is going on here: your disgust means the text is working. But you are just turning off, turning away saying, "That's disgusting!" These blot-them-out passages raise many questions, and even more if you consider them in the context of the entire work. Ask them and look for the answers. I can't tell you what will happen when you do, but I think then you won't emit this kind of puerile gassing:
Christians just love to ignore what they are commanded to do by the direct word of god (and never "un-commanded" by Jesus") and claim interpretation. its pretty darn straight forward.
Literature is not straightforward, because humanity is not straightforward, and if God exists he isn't either. Humanity is beautiful and murderous, full of love and frost, infinitely bewildering. Literature is no easier, it's challenging, more than a lover is, because literature is a mirror in which you can wrestle with yourself, and you will never be stronger than he or she is.
Well, yours is not the only interpretation of what "Soviet style" is. And if you can't see the comparison between Soviet practices and recent events like the REALID act, the USAPATRIOT act, and warrantless wiretapping, then I think you need to learn more about the Soyuz.
Surely the video would help clear up that it's NOT terrorism.
You are conflating the authorities -- California and federal. This protest was an event that, on its face, is not terrorism. And as you know from TFA, he was willing to show the video it to a judge. He was willing to compromise. But he wasn't willing to name names of who was present. The prosecutor even said that the tape alone was not enough. He was being compelled to list the names of who he thought was there, "because they might be terrorists." That is absurd.
The problem here is that the government can cry "terrorism" at any form of protest. I don't see how an individual can conscientiously go along with such a program. If the legal system is used for oppression then it is unworthy of one's faith.
WTF dude, a cop was almost killed and you refuse to hand over the tape?
Look into it a bit more. That assault is not the issue. This case was pushed by a federal prosecutor who was not out to provide justice for that police officer (a California state employee, who is protected under California law). He was out to label these protestors terrorists. Which is absurd, and chilling -- something worth resisting. Almost everyone is conflating the assault with the contempt-of-court finding, but they are different.
As I said above, "A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism."
You don't understand the power play that is going on here. This is arguably not really about the criminal justice system, because there is no Federal crime here. A California crime, yes, but not a federal crime. Journalist shield laws are pretty well established -- if you think that is jumping through hoops, then so be it, but yes we do all need to jump through these hoops to try to keep our (already enfeebled) press somewhat healthy and independent. The states already have journalist shield laws; Calfornia has one that has protected Wolf from going through this harrassment at the state level. We need a federal shield law too, apparently -- the Valerie Plame affair is more evidence.
He isn't withholding information from a police investigation because this isn't a police investigation. It's a federal terrorism investigation. The federal prosecutor is alleging that these people have engaged in terrorism. That is a repulsive accusation: the truth is, the video shows a sad case of a political protest turned violent. Protest is a first amendment liberty ("petition for redress"), and the violence here was a bad thing. But there is no way to color this picture as terrorism.
The assault on the police officer is in the bailiwick of the state of California, not the federal government. Everyone seems to be confusing those two. FWIW I hope California has caught the guy who did this assault.
Relevance to what? The Federal prosecutor is not investigating assault, he's investigating terrorism. Mr. Chaotica had a good point -- Wolf is protecting others -- and I don't even know if the jerk who hit the cop got caught or not (I hope so). But the main point I think everyone has ignored is that Wolf is protecting people from a Federal terrorism investigation, even though the idea of calling this "terrorism" is absurd, repugnant, and oppressive. Worthy of resisting.
As I said above, "A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism."
This has practically NOTHING to do with that fractured skull. This case was a federal terrorism investigation, not a case of assault. Assault is a matter of California law. As I gather, Wolf asserts that the federal government has no standing here (though they claim it).
The feds' logic is something like, "A violent crime has been committed, so tell me your password." It's a non-sequitur; the assault is just a pretext. Wolf's refusal is not really related to punishing that crime, and the feds are not going to help the wounded cop either. The feds just want to know who to watch.
A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right that the US is very different. I did not realize the people of Holland allowed the government to ban the books they could read. Seems unwise -- O Holland, arise!
Library funding is not monolithic, as you seem to suggest. Libraries are for the most part funded by city and county municipalities across the fifty states, which makes them extremely decentralized. There are several thousand such independent governments in the USA. They really are quite independent, too: they collect their own taxes and elect their own politicians. Excluding school libraries (which are often censored), libraries are so far outside the bailiwick of the federal government that it would be almost impossible for them to influence acquisitions on a large scale. Most importantly, the current ethos of librarians is, fortunately, extremely in favor of privacy and intellectual freedom. Book censorship in libraries is not currently a problem area, thanks in large measure to these professional bulldogs for freedom.
Non-government imposed "censorship" is a problem in other areas, such as take-down notices on YouTube for meritless copyright infringement claims, or (some say) in academia. But the feds aren't responsible for this.
And of course the current government is an appalling mess regarding
- habeas corpus
- torture
- Fourth amendment
- free speech in peaceable assemblies
- freedom of the press
- widespread corruption
. . . and I am at least as disgusted as you are.(For the benefit of the uninitiated: "IIAL" means "I is a lawyer.") ;-)
I'm sure these can't be uncharted waters -- I bet there is case law already on this stuff. What I'm thinking of are those DIY legal kits like, "Write your own will without the help of a lawyer," "Write a renter's contract," and so on. It's an extremely similar situation: those legal instruments are drawn up by people who never see their customer/almost-client. Are they being negligent, providing boilerplate without ever actually consulting with the people who will use them? I bet someone has already asked that question. Just a guess -- but I notice you can still buy those kits!
Did you see Fight Club?
Seriously, the point is that they are not picking fights they "have to" fight for any sort of ideal (like EFF suing AT&T, or a momma bear defending her cubs). They are just opportunistically trying to find pushover victims, and to scam a few thousand dollars of lunch money off of each one. In a "just war," combat is a last resort. Not so with these weasels.
Nu, what makes you think he lives in the USSA? Slashdotters live around the globe. He writes English like a non native, and based on his name and attitude I assume he is Ukrainian.
Hey, your point of view is fine, and I'm not trying to take it away from you. Sure, it certainly could be racism. I wasn't there and I'll never know. All I'm saying is that there are always multiple ways to read the signs, and based on the story the way you told it, I can read that as possible jury nullification. I'm just reading your words and interpreting, which is all I can do anyway. And as I'm in a verbal mood, let me tell you why I think so.
Have you ever seen Rashomon ? What you saw in the courtroom differs from what your fellow jurors saw. Each one's view is refracted by the lenses of our upbringing, social context, desires, and so on. This distorts our perceptions of reality; it affects our observations and opinions. So it's easy for me to imagine hypothetical fellow jurors wearing lenses such that they would literally see the trial differently, say the words you quoted, and argue for acquittal, yet without being too motivated by racism -- even if they could not spell ``nullification.''
For one, a lot of people know that the war on drugs is a hypocritical monstrosity. Why does the CIA get to deal cocaine in Los Angeles, and produce opium in Central Asia, but that right is not extended to the citizens themselves? And seriously, how does the Commerce Clause apply to homegrown, home-smoked pot? Common sense revolts. If you ask me, the war on drugs is a perverse load of vile unconstitutional bunkum. No, I do not want to live near a crackhouse, but also I won't complicitly abet this absurd ``war.'' I don't have to accept one or the other: I want constitutional justice and social justice. I don't believe I have to give up one to get the other.
I could write a screed about the three-strikes rule also, but I'm less passionate about that one (I agree with SCOTUS, it's within states' rights). I think it's unjust too. If I had friends and relatives locked up for decades under three-strikes I would probably be hot under the collar about it as well.
There are a lot of people, even among the poorly educated and underclass, who are aware of the injustices of the present system. The idea of nullification is very simple: give the verdict that you think is right, regardless. When you report that one juror said, ``This is his third strike and I don't want to put him away for a long time,'' then nullification is one way to explain that statement (and so is racism). A juror doesn't have to know the term ``nullification'' to do it.
Agreed, illegal things are not legal. But who makes the laws? As a slashdot reader I'm sure you are aware that not everyone gets equal representation in legislatures. Why does minor-league crack possession get you an average sentence of 10.5 years, whereas after $400M of fraud, Dennis Kozlowski might be free after less than 9 years of prison? There's a gap between what's lawful and what's right. How big is the gap? Depends on your lenses.
I agree crack and heroin cause problems. I even think those drugs should be illegal. But everyone is gaming the system, and the people with power game the system the most. Disney extends the copyright term. The RIAA games the judicial system.* Enron and Worldcom cooked their books, till finally they went too far. The FBI abuses USAPATRIOT. Libby gets pardoned, and Rove doesn't even get charged. The President games Article II and the Attorney General denies the existen
should be:
. . . might someday enter the public domain (if Disney somehow fails to totally pwn Congress, SCOTUS and the US Constitution yet again), before the newer parts of the movie.
Fixed that for ya, Cap'n. :)
That's a good point and I hope you get modded up. There's more than one way to read GP's experience: racism is one explanation, but subverting the ``war on drugs'' and ``three-strikes-you're-out'' rule is another. Lots of people think those two policies are unjust, perhaps unconstitutional. Why should a juror refrain from deconstructing the system a bit if the system is broken? This is one way that the judiciary gets to check-and-balance the other branches of government. To play by the book or not is a choice that is in the juror's hand; the juror has power. It's up to the juror to wield that power justly. I think that it's okay to wield that power, and that nullification is not a dirty word: just like presidents and governors have the power to pardon anyone, a jury has a comparable power to convict or acquit for one case. Of course the system frowns on nullification, and says it is wrong: but their voice is not the only one to listen to.
Likewise the GP's philosophy of carefully interpreting and applying the law, and playing within the system, is also defensible. That way enhances stability, protects the status quo, helps make the legal process predictable -- those all can be very, very good things. A totally unpredictable, unstable legal system does lots of harm. Playing by the book should be the norm. But when laws are unjust and the police are shady, it is naive to close your eyes and convict or acquit, saying, ``I was just playing by the rules.'' Whatever you choose to do, your choice is a political choice. Pretending that it isn't strengthens the status quo, which isn't automatically a good thing.
Melville churned through all this in Billy Budd, the popular novella.
That word is tchochkes.
(Meant as informative, not as a grammar nazi.)
Quite right. And it is now happening in America, the thin end of the wedge and all that. Much depends on who is president next, whether that wedge is driven in deeper or broken off where it is now. Unfortunately not everything changes when the president leaves: America is stuck with laws like CALEA and USA PATRIOT, refuse-to-die programs descended from Carnivore/TIA, and the ridiculous "Do Not $FOO" lists (for FOO in fly, hire, sell-to).
Ironic that for a long time there was very little domestic terrorism and most figured that terrorism couldn't or wouldn't happen in the USA. Having discarded that notion, so many have forgotten how tyrrany has been, is now, and will be for ever a threat, until the world ends.
They're hot when they're young, but time wounds all heels -- they don't look so great when they weigh 200#.
As AC said, not if you have a receding hairline like me. It only works if you've got a bald patch in back -- something Russians jokingly refer to as a your "ice rink." (Try making an object-verbs-you joke out of that one.)
I dunno, all I know is your grandma is TOTALLY HOT.
I think Microsoft has similarly overbroad patents and is thinking of them when it threatens Linux.
It takes courage to stand up and voice a contrary opinion, and I think it's always been that way. Yes, we might feel afraid, but that feeling does not have to control us. I think we are going to be feeling much more fear if REALID goes into effect. It was worrisome and took courage to buck the trends in Nixon's day, in J. Edgar Hoover's day, and I daresay in George III's day, and all the way back.
Sure there might be repression and trouble for us if we speak out, but there is certainly going to be repression and trouble if we don't. Better to play the man.
To those who are confused: it might help to read this.
(Emphasis added.) What he commanded them and what he commanded GP might differ. If you think exterminating or enslaving Amorites is a universal command for all christians, that is one interpretation, but not one that has any consistency with the rest of the Torah much less the rest of the Bible. What you call intellectual dishonesty others call coherence.
I'm not sure either. I guess we are not qualified to judge what happened next.
Look, I totally support your exercise of free speech here, and your freedom of conscience, and if you are an atheist, great, I salute you for having the huevos (literal or metaphorical) to take a stand on a metaphysical issue. But that's just crap you are talking now. All readings are interpretations and what you've just spouted here is very much an interpretation. Here a quote, food for thought, I thought relevant: (from "Analysis of the Poetic Text", Yury Lotman, Ardis, 1976, p.xv)
You are shortchanging yourself. When you look at these bibilical texts, you perceive in the horror of extermination of the Canaanites. You think it a grotesque outrage. Very well. But that seems to prove to you the evil behind (or of) the "god" portrayed there. Yet the clue you are ignoring is the horror that you feel, that the author (or authors) knows you feel -- that he is calling you to feel. You haven't outwitted him, you're just responding like he knew you would. The dissonance and repulsion you feel is an invitation to consider more deeply what is going on here: your disgust means the text is working. But you are just turning off, turning away saying, "That's disgusting!" These blot-them-out passages raise many questions, and even more if you consider them in the context of the entire work. Ask them and look for the answers. I can't tell you what will happen when you do, but I think then you won't emit this kind of puerile gassing:
Literature is not straightforward, because humanity is not straightforward, and if God exists he isn't either. Humanity is beautiful and murderous, full of love and frost, infinitely bewildering. Literature is no easier, it's challenging, more than a lover is, because literature is a mirror in which you can wrestle with yourself, and you will never be stronger than he or she is.
Well, yours is not the only interpretation of what "Soviet style" is. And if you can't see the comparison between Soviet practices and recent events like the REALID act, the USAPATRIOT act, and warrantless wiretapping, then I think you need to learn more about the Soyuz.
Soviet oppression: so much more than just gulag!
You are conflating the authorities -- California and federal. This protest was an event that, on its face, is not terrorism. And as you know from TFA, he was willing to show the video it to a judge. He was willing to compromise. But he wasn't willing to name names of who was present. The prosecutor even said that the tape alone was not enough. He was being compelled to list the names of who he thought was there, "because they might be terrorists." That is absurd.
The problem here is that the government can cry "terrorism" at any form of protest. I don't see how an individual can conscientiously go along with such a program. If the legal system is used for oppression then it is unworthy of one's faith.
Look into it a bit more. That assault is not the issue. This case was pushed by a federal prosecutor who was not out to provide justice for that police officer (a California state employee, who is protected under California law). He was out to label these protestors terrorists. Which is absurd, and chilling -- something worth resisting. Almost everyone is conflating the assault with the contempt-of-court finding, but they are different.
As I said above, "A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism."
It's like reading Cicero.
You don't understand the power play that is going on here. This is arguably not really about the criminal justice system, because there is no Federal crime here. A California crime, yes, but not a federal crime. Journalist shield laws are pretty well established -- if you think that is jumping through hoops, then so be it, but yes we do all need to jump through these hoops to try to keep our (already enfeebled) press somewhat healthy and independent. The states already have journalist shield laws; Calfornia has one that has protected Wolf from going through this harrassment at the state level. We need a federal shield law too, apparently -- the Valerie Plame affair is more evidence.
He isn't withholding information from a police investigation because this isn't a police investigation. It's a federal terrorism investigation. The federal prosecutor is alleging that these people have engaged in terrorism. That is a repulsive accusation: the truth is, the video shows a sad case of a political protest turned violent. Protest is a first amendment liberty ("petition for redress"), and the violence here was a bad thing. But there is no way to color this picture as terrorism.
The assault on the police officer is in the bailiwick of the state of California, not the federal government. Everyone seems to be confusing those two. FWIW I hope California has caught the guy who did this assault.
Relevance to what? The Federal prosecutor is not investigating assault, he's investigating terrorism. Mr. Chaotica had a good point -- Wolf is protecting others -- and I don't even know if the jerk who hit the cop got caught or not (I hope so). But the main point I think everyone has ignored is that Wolf is protecting people from a Federal terrorism investigation, even though the idea of calling this "terrorism" is absurd, repugnant, and oppressive. Worthy of resisting.
As I said above, "A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism."
This has practically NOTHING to do with that fractured skull. This case was a federal terrorism investigation, not a case of assault. Assault is a matter of California law. As I gather, Wolf asserts that the federal government has no standing here (though they claim it).
The feds' logic is something like, "A violent crime has been committed, so tell me your password." It's a non-sequitur; the assault is just a pretext. Wolf's refusal is not really related to punishing that crime, and the feds are not going to help the wounded cop either. The feds just want to know who to watch.
A political protest that turns savage is an example of a good thing gone bad. But it is not terrorism.