Advocating Jury Nullification in public can get you arrested

This case seems really shocking and appalling to me.

Retired professor Julian P. Heicklen was arrested for telling passersby outside the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan about Jury Nullification.  Jury Nullification is the philosophy that says a jury can vote "Not Guilty" in a criminal case if they disagree with the law, even if the the defendant actually broke it.

Some examples might be northern juries voting to acquit fugitive slaves in the pre-civil war era because the jurors opposed slavery. In modern times, it might be acquiting someone of marijuana posession because the jurors feels the Marijuana laws on personal use are offensive. On the darker side, it also includes segregation era juries acquitting those who attack civil rights activists because the jurors favored segregation

It seems that ultimately the reason we have citizen juries is to provide a check on the combined power of our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.  If a juror doesn't feel the the defendent's actions are a crime deserving of punishment despite the facts presented by the state, it seems they have an obligation to vote "Not Guilty." There's a reason a jury is asked to vote "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." It's not asked to vote "True" or "False" on the prosecutor's case. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps my understanding of the issue is as thorough at that of legal philosophers.

But the questions of nullification isn't the one I'm really concerned about here. It's that the government arrested someone for telling people about it. He wasn't targeting jurors on a specific case or even jurors specifically.  He was talking to anyone out in public near the courthouse about nullification.

The first amendment is all about protecting speech, especially unpopular opinions. In an Op-Ed on the New York Times website, Paul Butler says:

The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.
... More

It outrageous that someone can be arrested for talking about this outside a government building.

You can read more about this case here:
Prosecution Explains Jury Tampering Charge
Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

Municipal Wi-Fi is a bad idea

Every now and then a city will announce plans to provide free Internet access points around the city, and there will often be praise from the hi-tech community.  Or a state will move to ban such initiatives and heaps of scorn will be heaved on top of them and the local cable and DSL provides.  That's a mistake.

While I realize folk love to hate their cable companies (often with good reason) and the woeful state of broadband in this country, having the cities provide the access is worse idea.

Once municipal broadband is wide spread and available at no additionl cost than the taxes people are already paying, then the rational, individual decision is to stop paying Comcast or someone else for Internet access.  With enough people doing that, residential broadband from private companies will eventually go away.

That may be fine, assuming the municipalities allow free and open Internet access, but I'm not convinced they will. There are many great things on the net, but there are many foul ones as well.  We already see debates in favor of blocking undesirable websites at libraries and schools.  Will a vocal minority really allow the city to make such content available in homes?

Obviously the first target will be block already illegal or obscene content. I can't imagine many city councils will oppose a determined group of citizens who want to prohibit the city from "supplying" child pornography.  You can already imagine the campaign ads.

So what's next? Should the city be in the business of sending regular pornography into homes? Can't children see it then? Is that how we want to use tax money?

Porn is an easy target for those who want to restrict access to content. And a city blocking such content from it's own service may not be in the business of censorship.  After all, it's not like their banning the content.  They're simply choosing not carry it on a municipal service.

So what's next?  In many places, it's probably hate speech.  Should the city be facilitating content that is racist or misogynistic?

There are extremes on both the right and left of our political landscape that would like to see certain content go away.

Many would argue that the city should block sites that enable violence -- perhaps content related to building explosives and fighting a government force.  But what about sites that promote non-violent political unrest?

At this point I think it's safe to say that no city would ban a legitimate new site's content from it's service.  But then who is determining  the legitimacy of a new site?  I think CNN and Fox would be safe from calls to ban it from the city's service, but what about Al Jazeera?

In the recent uprisings in the middle east, one of the first things dictators try to do it cut off 'net access for the people. Can we count on local governments there to not do that if pressed?

The Internet is a powerful tool because of both the good stuff and bad stuff that's on it.  And I trust the users of the Internet, and, yes, many of the private party ISPs out there, to deliver a free 'net experience much more than I trust a city council trying to stand up to a vocal group of citizens barking their vocal call to, "Think of the children!"

You can be arrested for bad thoughts

An Oak Creek High School teacher has been arrested after authorities said he posted comments online in a debate about teacher salaries, saying the Columbine High School shooters were heroes.

James Buss, 46, of Cudahy, was arrested Thursday by West Bend police and released after posting $300 bail. He has been suspended from his job. He could face criminal charges.

...More

Could face criminal charges for posting offensive comments? Do we arrest people now just because they might at some point have to face criminal charges?

And those criminal charges would be related to offensive comments?

Outrages like this are becoming more common. While Buss's comments may have been inappropriate, arresting someone for praising criminals is fundamentally wrong and is more offensive than his praise of the Columbine killers.

We have to protect offensive speech. That's why we have the first amendment. Those protections were added to our most important national document to protect the unpopular and offensive. Popular and politically correct speech doesn't need protection. The unpopular statements need to be protected.

Buss deserves a large settlement from the department that had him arrested. Elected officials who approve the arrest of people who simply post their thoughts on line need to be recalled or voted out of office.

I'm afraid it won't be long before something like this would be considered subversive and arrestable:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Copyrighting a skyline?

The Marina Towers are those two iconic round building on Chicago's riverfront. The Marina Towers Condominium Association apparently thinks copyright law means no one can sell a picture of its building without the association's consent.

This author, a photographer, explains how it is very wrong.

There are also links on the page to updates and legal responses concerning the issue.

While these initiatives are unlikely to be held up in court, they are frightening. The ability to take pictures in public, of things and people in public, is vital to the protection of our civil liberties.

While pictures of these two buildings may not matter much, the principle does.

This is just disgusting

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Three of the largest U.S. telephone companies declined to answer lawmakers' questions about Bush administration efforts to spy on Americans' phone calls and e- mails, saying the government forbade them from doing so.

...More

Flying the Flag

This article has an interesting discussion about what it means to fly the flag at half mast.

Half-Staff Flags Stir Meaningful Debate
By GRETCHEN PARKER The Tampa Tribune

Published: Jun 10, 2007

Historically, flying your nation's flag at half-staff meant one thing.

Surrender.

Even before the white flag came to signal a request for truce, lowering the national flag over a battlefield was a darker expression of hopelessness. It meant, simply, a bitter end.

Now, we lower the U.S. flag to signify a nation in mourning. In a way, it's a carryover from the old tradition. It's a symbol of death - the ultimate submission.

... More

Improper Thought is Now a Criminal Offense

Student arrested for essay's imaginary violence
POSTED: 2:19 p.m. EDT, April 27, 2007

...
Allen Lee, 18, faces two disorderly conduct charges over the creative-writing assignment, which he was given on Monday in English class at the northern Illinois school.

Students were told to "write whatever comes to your mind. Do not judge or censor what you are writing," according to a copy of the assignment.
...
Officials described the essay as disturbing and inappropriate.

...more

So we're not even pretending there's a first amendment any more?

We must arrest those whose thoughts and speech makes us uncomfortable. Afterall, it's about the safety of our children and nothing is more important than that, right?

Colo. student arrested over Va. Tech remarks

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) — A University of Colorado student was arrested after making comments that classmates deemed sympathetic toward the gunman blamed for killing 32 students and himself at Virginia Tech, authorities said.

During a class discussion of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech, the student "made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people," university police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said.

...more

Here's an idea. You know that if we don't allow people to express unpopular views and offensive views, those views will go away and we'll have a peaceful society, that is safe for everyone. That kind of repression has always worked throughout history, right?

From the same article:

At Oregon's Lewis & Clark College, another student was detained by campus police Wednesday shortly before a vigil for the Virginia Tech victims when he was spotted wearing an ammunition belt. Portland police later determined that it was "a fashion accessory" made of spent ammunition, and said the man did not have a weapon. The belt was confiscated.

Tacky? Sure. Inappropriate? Absolutely. Worth a call to the police to investigate? Of course. Reason for the government to confiscate someone's property? Absolutely not.

It's one thing when individuals and corporations take private action against someone expressing an unpopular and inappropriate view, like in the Don Imus case. That's the organizations' right. However, when the government is arresting people and taking their property because they think and say unpopular things, then we have a big problem.

The Bill of Rights was never about protecing majority and popular views. It's about protecting the rights of the minority.

So here is your potentially seditious thought for the day. I hope I don't get on a list someplace for saying something this contraversial, but here goes:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Blog Lawsuit in DC

Blog sex scandal trial could spank protagonists

By Matt Apuzzo
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – When Robert Steinbuch discovered his girlfriend had discussed intimate details about their sex life in her online diary, the Capitol Hill staffer didn’t just get mad. He got a lawyer.

...more

I'd just like to say that everyone I have ever met is a wonderful human being who has never done anything wrong or negative.

Step 1: Heckle a famous comic. Step 2: Be on the receiving end of a racist rant. Step 3: Profit?

Any residual sympathy I may have felt for the hecklers is now gone.

They should go bankrupt paying Richards' legal fees if this gets to court.

Men seek apology from ex-'Seinfeld' star

By ROBERT JABLON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


LOS ANGELES -- Two men who say they were insulted by actor-comedian Michael Richards during his racist rant at a comedy club want a personal apology and maybe some money, one of the men and their lawyer said Friday.
...

Why our actual security issues get ignored...

...It's easier to go after the people who point out just how much of a charade TSA is.

Boarding Pass Hacker Under Fire
By Ryan Singel Also by this reporter

Security researcher Christopher Soghoian created the Northwest Airline Boarding Pass Generator in the hope of spurring Congress to look closely at the nation's aviation security policies, which he calls "security theater."

The site lets anyone create a facsimile of a Northwest Airlines boarding pass, with whatever name they choose.

On Friday, Congress heard Soghoian's message loud and clear. But instead of promising to reform broken airport security procedures, Rep. Edward Markey (D- Massachusetts), a member of the House Homeland Security committee known for his defenses of privacy, wants the site shut down and Soghoian arrested.

"The Bush administration must immediately act to investigate, apprehend those responsible, shut down the website, and warn airlines and aviation security officials to be on the look-out for fraudsters or terrorists trying to use fake boarding passes in an attempt to cheat their way through security and onto a plane," Markey said in a statement Friday.

"There are enough loopholes at the back door of our passenger airplanes from not scanning cargo for bombs; we should not tolerate any new loopholes making it easier for terrorists to get into the front door of a plane."

...

(Full article)

This angers me for several reasons.

First, Markey acknowledges that we are not checking ANY air cargo. I can't take my 6 ounce tube of tooth paste on the plane, because someone might break the laws of physics and chemistry turn it bomb, but anyone could ship 100 pounds of explosives in the cargo hold of a loaded passenger plane. Of course the reason is that it would cost the shippers money, and more importantly, the voters don't SEE the scanning. The advantage of TSA, is that the voters see Congress spending money on "security" and think their reps are doing something.

Second, anyone with rudimentary knowledge of HTML can edit or create a boarding pass that will get anyone past the ID checker. This is not a revolutionary or complicated hack at all.

Third, so what if someone can fake a boarding pass for the ID checker. And it doesn't matter because they still aren't getting on a plane with it. At the door, gate agent will just scan the barcode and catch the fake. Or they'll catch it when the scanned "boarding pass" doesn't match what's in the system. And if the gate agent doesn't catch the fake, the passenger who has that ACTUAL seat assignment will catch it.

Fourth, again, so what? If TSA is competent, they are screening the passengers anyway. Even if someone has a fake boarding pass, their luggage is being X-Ray'ed, they are being screened through the metal detector, and their mouth wash is being taken away.

Fifth, historically, why would a terrorist fake a boarding pass? Expedia is not that hard to use -- they'll just buy the damn ticket. There's not point in faking it.

Sixth, it's outrageous that Markey is calling for the arrest of this guy. The idea that we should prosecute him for pointing out there is a problem, rather than trying to fix the problem is one more demonstration that TSA is more of a fancy PR move than an actual enhancement to security.

And, now, for saying this, Rep. Markey will probably call for my arrest.

At least I have a guarantee that my right to Habeas Corpus will be protected.

Wait, what?

Making a Phone Call in a Foreign Langauge is "suspiscious"

Sadly, these stories are fairly common any more.

Man questioned and misses flight for speaking Tamil

By BRAD WONG
P-I REPORTER

A 32-year-old man speaking Tamil and some English about a sporting rivalry was questioned at Sea-Tac Airport and missed his flight Saturday because at least one person thought he was suspicious.
...
Parker said the man was cooperative and boarded a later flight to Texas. He told officials that he would not speak in a foreign language on his cell phone at an airport in the future.