41–50 of 210 posts
This smells like clickbait. No charges have been filed, just a statement from a governor who has a history of bloviating about the press. “Likely to be charged” is a huge stretch.
The title doesn't say they were charged it says "likely".
At this point it really is unlikely that the reporter will be charged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree with your point but how a prosecutor must be selected then? If someone is not chosen by a public and popular vote, it must be chosen differently. Any mechanism of choice will have an inherent bias. For example, you could decide that a prosecutor is the best at knowing the law, so let's have a law exam where the one with the best score is named prosecutor. However, being a good prosecutor can't always…
Just because any system could or do have biases, that’s no good defence of a system we know has terrible pernicious biases that are visibly compromising it’s integrity. I’m a Brit, and I’d have good expectations of being treated fairly if I faced prosecution as an innocent person here in the UK, in France, Germany, or plenty of other countries. I have no such confidence about the USA. Especially so if the crime I was…
> If somebody picks your lock on your house It's not like picking a lock. It's more like turning over a sheet of paper to read what's on the other side. If this guy gets convicted, I'll eat my hat (I wear a fedora). "Thy just thow their fedora wherever the floor is And start doing horas and taps".
This was only a few lines below that.
Politicians can get away doing what they want with whatever reason.
And politicians are being used to make the internet more opaque. Since 'view source' is being made a scapegoat, expect it to disappear soon.
> If somebody picks your lock on your house It's not like picking a lock. It's more like turning over a sheet of paper to read what's on the other side. If this guy gets convicted, I'll eat my hat (I wear a fedora). "Thy just thow their fedora wherever the floor is And start doing horas and taps".
"A better analogy would be you're walking in the street past a neighbor's house and notice their front door wide open with no one around. You can see a purse and car keys near the door. You phone that neighbor, and tell them their door is open and their purse and keys are easily visible from the street. Would Parson consider this breaking and entering?" This was only a few lines below that.
You don't get to publish a "rendered webpage"; what you publish is raw HTML. If you didn't want people to read it, you didn't ought to have published it.
[Edit] Also, taking a copy of the HTML isn't like taking keys and a purse. If you take keys and a purse, the owner has been deprived of them. That's not the case with taking a copy of a webpage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree with your point but how a prosecutor must be selected then? If someone is not chosen by a public and popular vote, it must be chosen differently. Any mechanism of choice will have an inherent bias. For example, you could decide that a prosecutor is the best at knowing the law, so let's have a law exam where the one with the best score is named prosecutor. However, being a good prosecutor can't always…
Just because any system could or do have biases, that’s no good defence of a system we know has terrible pernicious biases that are visibly compromising it’s integrity. I’m a Brit, and I’d have good expectations of being treated fairly if I faced prosecution as an innocent person here in the UK, in France, Germany, or plenty of other countries. I have no such confidence about the USA. Especially so if the crime I was…
The state attorneys and police are part of the executive branch and subject to directives of the politician in charge. Theoretically, electing the state attorneys directly would motivate them to not just do whatever the administration wants, be that legally reasonable or not. In practice it probably does not matter.
I think the trial would come under enormous scrutiny.
If the reporter lost the case in local banana republic courts, I do believe it would go up to Federal or Supreme and it would win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because any system could or do have biases, that’s no good defence of a system we know has terrible pernicious biases that are visibly compromising it’s integrity. I’m a Brit, and I’d have good expectations of being treated fairly if I faced prosecution as an innocent person here in the UK, in France, Germany, or plenty of other countries. I have no such confidence about the USA. Especially so if the crime I was…
Specially when the public side is underfunded and defending yourself is insanely expensive. Not that law is cheap anywhere, but from recent cases like Kyle Rittenhouse and officer Potter it seems just stupid and broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A better analogy would be you're walking in the street past a neighbor's house and notice their front door wide open with no one around. You can see a purse and car keys near the door. You phone that neighbor, and tell them their door is open and their purse and keys are easily visible from the street. Would Parson consider this breaking and entering?" This was only a few lines below that.
That's not a better analogy. The implication is that somehow the raw HTML is more valuable than the rendered webpage. You don't get to publish a "rendered webpage"; what you publish is raw HTML. If you didn't want people to read it, you didn't ought to have published it. [Edit] Also, taking a copy of the HTML isn't like taking keys and a purse. If you take keys and a purse, the owner has been deprived of them. That's…
The journalist literally only saw what you legitimately see from the street, just as “view source” only shows you what you’re supposed to see anyway.
As far as the technical analogy goes, I’d probably agree.