Stifling the first amendment is serious business. When are judges going to be held accountable for their wrong actions?
When the filing is made before the appelate court. That's the way the system works.
Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
21–30 of 163 posts
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#22Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think i…
Personally I am highly suspicious of the 'for the subject's family' motivation as it seems very selectively applied and often comes up only when 'their people' are at risk from their own wrongdoing.
I'm of the view that it should be for everybody or nobody and not to discretion because their discretion always leads to selfish behavior that holds the people who most need to be held accountable to be the least so.
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#23Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
Judges and elected officials routinely regulate free speech. Every court sealed record, every copyright performance enforcement, every liable/slander ruling, every pornograpy lewd speech law/FCC regulation, hate crime and bullying laws that limit what anyone can say, tons of national security arms export that restrict wide gamut of things like CPUs and maths algorithms. Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point…
> every copyright performance enforcement
Apropos of anything else, if I go somewhere and broadcast Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, or whatever, that is in no way my speech, and regulating the ability to do so without commission or royalty in no way restricts my ability to speak.
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#24Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
> Double wrong
I think you mean "double-plus wrong".
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "ask for forgiveness not permission" stuff won't fly with many judges... According to the article, the courts have steadfastly protected this behavior for 90 years.
The paragraph before that mentions that it is often appeals courts who have protected the behavior, as various trial "...Judges have issued similar orders before..." Incidentally, no one would wish to see the cop's family harmed, but it's not like this plea agreement came as a surprise to them, so they already had time to reorganize their lives for security. That makes the seal difficult to justify. Also, the risks t…
> often appeals courts who have protected the behavior, as various trial "...Judges have issued similar orders before..."
That omits every time a district judge has declined to issue such an order.
In reference to the original post:
> ask for forgiveness not permission
News organizations don't ask permission of anyone before publishing, least of all courts.
Finally, I'll add that if news organizations can publish the Pentagon Papers and Snowden's leaks, certainly they can publish an accidentally leaked plea agreement.
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#26Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
> Double wrong I think you mean "double-plus wrong".
Doubleplusungood is the official term, comrade.
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#27Here's the article before it was edited: https://web.archive.org/web/20180714180330/http://www.latime...
John Saro Balian, 45, pleaded guilty to one count each of soliciting a bribe, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators as part of a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors. The document was ordered to be filed under seal but appeared on PACER, a public online database for court documents. I'd say that last part is the part that got LAT in trouble... I rarely support the whole "un…
So, I imagine what's happening here is that this guy played both sides, and was caught and was being used as a mole by the US law enforcement. By releasing these charges publicly, the concern is that the cartel will now know he was disloyal and may attempt revenge.
This is entirely speculative, but it seems much more probably than the judicial branch going out of its way to help the executive.
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#28Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think i…
> To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect.
no serious person would suggest that this is a situation which requires limits on speech. you're using it as a platform for suggesting that it is, which I think is insane.
> This is not a slippery slope.
this is the very definition of a slippery slope.
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#29Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
I just want to point out that this type of all-or-nothing thinking may be the most effective way to alienate people from your perspective. I'd consider myself a free-speech nut, but comments like this make me want to distance myself from that label.
Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article
#30Stifling the first amendment is serious business. When are judges going to be held accountable for their wrong actions?
When the filing is made before the appelate court. That's the way the system works.
That doesn't hold them accountable. Just stops their action from causing further harm.