I've been reading about this story for a few days now and I still don't get it. Somehow, we are told it is a first amendment issue, but then other details get thrown into the mix.
When the excrement flies, you want to keep some distance from it. All the same, the controversy becomes a story in itself, but what the heck is the story? How close can you get to it and not have the excrement land on you?
At the bottom of it, a judge doesn't know how the internet works, and a guy gets arrested. The guy who got arrested seems to have lost because the judge doesn't understand the key facts of the matter, or so it seems. Or did he get arrested for something else? It isn't clear to me. And I don't have enough time to sort this out.
The judge might have gotten something right when he said something to the effect that the two guys ought to just go slug it out somewhere. But that may be missing the point. It isn't against the law to just write about something that is a matter of public record. Like I said, this is confusing.
I remember what Robert Ringer wrote in his book Winning Through Intimidation. He said something to the effect that if you lose your case in the jungle, you lose your case period. The legal system is something to be avoided if at all possible. The worrisome thing here is that the most innocent of things- like blogging- could land you in the brig. Then the legal system has you and what have you done to warrant this? That's not supposed to happen in America.
Update:
A related post here. Which reminds me of a couple things: 1) Hitler liked to brag about how he prevented others from speaking 2) the post about the left's tactic of shut up.
Plenty of facts and evidence to back it all up. But that may not matter anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment