FC: NY cops arrest high schoolers over web site with sex details

[Declan McCullagh]

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? :-)