At 11:56 AM -0700 6/13/00, Michael Motyka wrote:
>Fine, the intersection and union of our moral universes are equivalent.
>How do you make it part of the legal system?
It's probably hopeless. I was just taking issue with your "only
morally acceptable" point.
One scenario might be to make a citizen's arrest of a cop who is
doing something illegal as part of an entrapment. Then make a stink
that he is not being prosecuted.
(I vaguely recall a case in recent years where an underaged cop
wannabee was part of a sting of a liquor store. When the merchant
discovered he was underaged, he held the kid and made a stink when
the official cops arrived and released the kid.)
Of course, dealing with cops this way could be a ticket to getting a
nightstick shoved someplace. Which is why some folks advocate simply
dealing with such scofflaws more directly, and from afar.
(I'm not advocating anyone do this, but someone who has been "set up"
in an entrapment is probably favorably disposed toward dealing with
the cop with a hunting rifle from afar. Is it morally acceptable? You
betcha.)
>
>We're all a bunch of rats looking for rat chow. If there is no reward we
>just don't bother. Forcing courts to throw out entrapments and bear the
>legal costs of defendants may be an adequate solution.
Go for it, dude. Me, I don't have time to waste on such quixotic crusades.
>
>On another note, I heard a rumor that there might be some new,
>pro-privacy, 1st Ammendment-based law or rulings on the seizure and
>admissibility of personal writings. Any truth to that?
Don't know, but most such rulings tend to be wrong-headed. The First
is not about some sacrosanct right to have writings kept private, it
is about whether the government can ban certain writings or speech or
can impose prior restraint.
The proper Amendment for issues of personal writings is of course the
Fourth, not the First. The Fifth _may_ be implicated, but journals
and letters are usually considered to be fair game, if discovered.
All the usual stuff about illegal searches, fruit of the poisoned
tree, etc.
On a related note, reporters should have no rights that others don't
have. So-called "shield laws" and laws about "protection of sources"
are bogus. Reporters and writers are not in some special class. We
are all covered by the First and Fourth Amendments, and the others
constitutional provisions about trials, producing evidence,
testifying, self-incrimination, etc.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
