xeni — 2013-09-05T19:37:14-04:00 — #1
ignatius — 2013-09-05T19:41:50-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-05T20:00:03-04:00 — #3
He broke the law of Thoughtcrime...
phasmafelis — 2013-09-05T20:21:26-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-05T20:34:49-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-05T21:15:32-04:00 — #6
Oh come on! They're clearly helping him.
boundegar — 2013-09-05T21:29:34-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-05T22:16:32-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-05T22:33:44-04:00 — #9
Yeah, like I need more excuses to drink.
ubermitch — 2013-09-05T22:51:27-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-06T01:42:21-04:00 — #11
He's guilty of Felony Egg Possession, with intent to distribute it all over the government's face.
headcode — 2013-09-06T02:35:01-04:00 — #12
And the rest of the citizens got yet another degradation in the justice system and another win for secret government.
ffabian — 2013-09-06T03:18:15-04:00 — #13
So that's Freedom of speech US-style then?
nell_anvoid — 2013-09-06T06:56:06-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-06T07:44:25-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-06T07:45:08-04:00 — #16
And freedom of the press, too.
acerplatanoides — 2013-09-06T07:46:08-04:00 — #17
While that's plausible, it's also very imaginative, unless you were there.
awjt — 2013-09-06T08:58:55-04:00 — #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 — 2013-09-06T08:59:48-04:00 — #19
This is why I loved the movie & book The Cloud Atlas.
creesto — 2013-09-06T11:23:29-04:00 — #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 →