xeni at September 5th, 2013 19:37 — #1
ignatius at September 5th, 2013 19:41 — #2
I guess they'll make due on that threat by giving him those life-extending drugs I keep hearing people mention in Ars Technica comments before someone smacks them down for failure to cite their sources.
jeremiahc at September 5th, 2013 20:00 — #3
He broke the law of Thoughtcrime...
phasmafelis at September 5th, 2013 20:21 — #4
I'm looking forward to the people who said Snowden's leaks were "discredited" by his failure to turn himself in, and Manning's by her pre-sentencing plea for leniency, going after Brown for not defying the court order.
kangorufoo at September 5th, 2013 20:34 — #5
He angered the powerful and well connected. This corrupted court system is doing it's worst. Again the world watches a judicial crime in plain sight and with it trust in the judicial system plunges to new lows. If this is allowed to continue no one will respect or observe the decisions of the courts. This is already the case for government and corporate organizations. I suppose the courts have been reduced to weapon to be used against anyone who is not rich or connected.
pjcamp at September 5th, 2013 21:15 — #6
Oh come on! They're clearly helping him.
boundegar at September 5th, 2013 21:29 — #7
This would have been shocking in the 20th Century. Maybe it's time to have a constitutional convention and just get all the cards on the table. Habeas Corpus? Out. First Amendment? Only within certain guidelines, which are secret.
Remember in Dune, right at the beginning, each noble was basically the head of a large corporation? That.
ubermitch at September 5th, 2013 22:16 — #8
This piece may be badly misleading without additional context. Note how the court document is titled an "agreed order" and the defendants's attorney signed off on it? Maybe Brown's attorney, for legit tactical reasons, perceives that it is better for both sides to stay away from the press. Or maybe the govt did leverage him into it somehow. Or maybe something else entirely. The thing is its totally unclear from the naked order. But the thing that is certain is that Brown has consented to this order (to what degree consent was coerced, etc, but this is my point above).
endotoxin at September 5th, 2013 22:33 — #9
Yeah, like I need more excuses to drink.
ubermitch at September 5th, 2013 22:51 — #10
Per the linked guardian piece, you see that Brown's lawyer clearly negotiated the terms of the order to preserve Brown's ability to conduct journalism apart from the subject of his own case. So what really happened is that his lawyer made a risk assessment—fight to the teeth and maybe win, and end up with no gag order at all. But at the same time maybe lose, and end up with a broad gag order that prohibits the client from all journalism. So instead the attorney negotiated a comprise order to advance his client's interests. Also, I should add, with the knowledge that media/blogs/etc. are not covered by the order and are still free to report as they please on the trial. So the atty essentially got something for his client out of the deal at little if any cost.
xzzy at September 6th, 2013 01:42 — #11
He's guilty of Felony Egg Possession, with intent to distribute it all over the government's face.
headcode at September 6th, 2013 02:35 — #12
And the rest of the citizens got yet another degradation in the justice system and another win for secret government.
ffabian at September 6th, 2013 03:18 — #13
So that's Freedom of speech US-style then?
nell_anvoid at September 6th, 2013 06:56 — #14
Hmmmmm...maybe we ARE living in a big computer simulation. Of dystopian plutocratic courts and government.
How much worse is all this going to get before we in the unwashed masses realize the trouble we are in?
acerplatanoides at September 6th, 2013 07:44 — #15
Consent is a pretty slippery concept. Freedom is another one.
I don't have enough information to agree that the signature is a mark of freely given consent. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence of duress and coercion.
Edit: typo fixed
acerplatanoides at September 6th, 2013 07:45 — #16
And freedom of the press, too.
acerplatanoides at September 6th, 2013 07:46 — #17
While that's plausible, it's also very imaginative, unless you were there.
awjt at September 6th, 2013 08:58 — #18
I have an honest question, since I do not know and haven't googled or researched it. Is there an org like ACLU or EFF, but specifically for journalists? The idea is that if you are a freelance journalist, leaker, writer about sensitive stuff, you just join this organization, send them a hundred bucks, and it is your own New York Times. You get press credentials (whatever that means) and their lawyerly backing should you run into the law? Just wondering...
awjt at September 6th, 2013 08:59 — #19
This is why I loved the movie & book The Cloud Atlas.
creesto at September 6th, 2013 11:23 — #20
Oh, there's Freedom of the Press! What could be more "free" than license to lie and distort facts and news in order to whip your viewers/listeners into fear-filled paranoic frenzies?
next page →