RE: FC: NY cops arrest high schoolers over web site with sex details
At 06:32 PM 6/5/01 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
David Honig wrote:
I agree with you, but how could the amateur journalists give authoritative proof if the courts don't allow it? How is this handled in other cases?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. If your "amateur journalist" has, for instance, a videotape of some guy having sex with Tom Cruise (to take a case ripped from today's headlines), then why would he need court-ordered discovery? Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).
I think my answer is: you have to do your research before the cops show up, or do some serious dumpster-diving afterwards, because the courts won't help you find corroboration.
Your question assumes you are already in court. This means you are being sued and the clock is running on your lawyers. Witness can also disappear, be disqualified, lie or not be believed. Lots of luck.
$ure, but this is irrelevent to what the courts will/won't do, or accept, as defense for purported harassment/slander/true slander. How *would* you (not meaning just you SS) defend such a case? Or have the journalists really sinned, in a libertarian ethic? Is this an 'expectation of privacy' thing, where you can publish the nasal length or inter-ocular distances of folks but not the length of their dick, even if true? And, what are the sexual behaviors of Kirkland police? :-)
David Honig wrote:
How *would* you (not meaning just you SS) defend such a case?
I have basic philosophical problems with the concepts of slander/libel, so my answer would not be of much help. S a n d y When you don't have the law, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, argue the law. When you don't have the law or the facts, pound the table.
With some very narrow exceptions, such as obscenity and child pornography, publishing information is not and should not be a crime. It may spark civil suits, but not criminal prosecutions. Not that I'm biased, or anything. :) -Declan On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 07:40:39PM -0700, David Honig wrote:
At 06:32 PM 6/5/01 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
David Honig wrote:
I agree with you, but how could the amateur journalists give authoritative proof if the courts don't allow it? How is this handled in other cases?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. If your "amateur journalist" has, for instance, a videotape of some guy having sex with Tom Cruise (to take a case ripped from today's headlines), then why would he need court-ordered discovery? Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).
I think my answer is: you have to do your research before the cops show up, or do some serious dumpster-diving afterwards, because the courts won't help you find corroboration.
Your question assumes you are already in court. This means you are being sued and the clock is running on your lawyers. Witness can also disappear, be disqualified, lie or not be believed. Lots of luck.
$ure, but this is irrelevent to what the courts will/won't do, or accept, as defense for purported harassment/slander/true slander.
How *would* you (not meaning just you SS) defend such a case? Or have the journalists really sinned, in a libertarian ethic? Is this an 'expectation of privacy' thing, where you can publish the nasal length or inter-ocular distances of folks but not the length of their dick, even if true?
And, what are the sexual behaviors of Kirkland police? :-)
In article <20010606180712.D30820@cluebot.com>, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote:
With some very narrow exceptions, such as obscenity and child pornography, publishing information is not and should not be a crime. It may spark civil suits, but not criminal prosecutions.
*cough* DMCA *cough*
Not that I'm biased, or anything. :)
Nor I, of course. :-) The fact that I'm on a particular Usenix Security Program Committee notwithstanding... - Ian
In article <20010606180712.D30820@cluebot.com>, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote:
With some very narrow exceptions, such as obscenity and child pornography, publishing information is not and should not be a crime. It may spark civil suits, but not criminal prosecutions.
*cough* DMCA *cough*
Not that I'm biased, or anything. :)
Nor I, of course. :-) The fact that I'm on a particular Usenix Security Program Committee notwithstanding... - Ian
At 06:07 PM 6/6/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
With some very narrow exceptions, such as obscenity and child pornography, publishing information is not and should not be a crime. It may spark civil suits, but not criminal prosecutions.
Not that I'm biased, or anything. :)
-Declan
What is obscenity? [Rhetorically...]
Ian, Yep, you're right. The DMCA's criminal portions do interfere with my publishing-should-not-be-a-crime worldview. Therefore we should get rid of them. :) -Declan On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 01:59:51AM +0000, Ian Goldberg wrote:
In article <20010606180712.D30820@cluebot.com>, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote:
With some very narrow exceptions, such as obscenity and child pornography, publishing information is not and should not be a crime. It may spark civil suits, but not criminal prosecutions.
*cough* DMCA *cough*
Not that I'm biased, or anything. :)
Nor I, of course. :-) The fact that I'm on a particular Usenix Security Program Committee notwithstanding...
- Ian
participants (4)
-
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
iang＠abraham.cs.berkeley.edu -
Sandy Sandfort