From: David Lubkin (extropy@unreasonable.com)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 14:33:05 MDT
At 12:05 PM 4/10/2002 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>A reasonable approach to reining in both government and press run amuck
>>is to hold everyone to the same standard that we hold private
>>citizens. Do not shield bureaucrats, politicians, or press from the
>>consequences of their actions. If *my* interference delayed an accident
>>victim from getting medical attention or compromised a rescue operation,
>>I would be held criminally liable. Why should people with a badge, press
>>pass, or title be granted ex officio immunity?
>
>I know of no such immunity for press. If there is such an immunity, it
>should be abolished.
There is, in effect, because the standards for proving a case of libel are
so high. And most officials are afraid to go after reporters who interfere
with police or rescue workers; there's an old saying -- don't mess with
someone who buys ink by the barrel.
>Another faulty feedback mechanism that I advocate abolishing is the idea
>that evidence gathered illegally has to be thrown out of court. I say, go
>ahead and use the evidence to prosecute the criminal, and then also
>prosecute the person who illegally gathered the evidence. One crime
>shouldn't absolve another crime.
Absolutely! I've promoted the same exact position myself for years and
almost everyone I've mentioned it to has been horrified. And, by the way,
one of the most common objections I hear is the one I raised in my last
email -- they don't believe that the police or prosecutors would in fact be
punished. They think that ranks would close, and they would protect their own.
-- David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:23 MST