Why does the gag order on his case matter to all of us? Carr explains.
Where was this in the article?
I caught the bit about how "Mr. Brown and his lawyers agreed to an order that allows him to continue to work on articles, but not say anything about his case that is not in the public record," but don't see where Carr frames that as an issue of broader import.
How about this:
By trying to criminalize linking, the federal authorities in the Northern District of Texas — Mr. Brown lives in Dallas — are suggesting that to share information online is the same as possessing it or even stealing it.
That's terrifying. I don't have anything else to add.
The action against his mother enraged Mr. Brown and in September 2012 he made a rambling series of posts to YouTube in which he said he was in withdrawal from heroin addiction. He proceeded to threaten an F.B.I. agent involved in the arrest, saying, “I don’t say I’m going to kill him, but I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids ... How do you like them apples?”
The feds did not like them apples.
The law has an incredibly thin skin, I've noticed. Ruining lives seems to be the default threat they use to get cooperation.
Chilling. I don't condone the threats. He should have been prosecuted for those and his lawyers could have presented mitigating circumstances such as his drug use. But I'm assuming the potential penalty for that crime is likely minimal.
Why doesn't Wiki or other sources of leaked information retract things like credit card numbers, or SS #s, etc? I think they would then be seen as less threatening to the public interest and maybe the government would have less legal things to hang their hat on.
But that's about the overall charges facing him, not the gag order.
Recently I wrote an article about Barrett Brown and the gag order. Check it out if you want to know a bit more detail, thanks!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.