5 ms·

I think, importantly and regardless of the crime itself, I would like to ask: what can be done here and how did we get to this point? We have someone who has be

I think, importantly and regardless of the crime itself, I would like to ask: what can be done here and how did we get to this point? We have someone who has been in prison indefinitely who hasn't been charged with anything. What can be done about this situation even if we raise awareness? Also, how did we get to the point where this is legal?

heartbreak 9y ago
Has he been charged with contempt?
- lightedman 9y ago
  No, he was held on contempt on the All Writs act, and here is a very important distinction to make. He refused while in court, so he can be HELD on contempt. To be CHARGED with contempt of court, your actions typically happen outside of the courtroom after being given a legal order (e.g. you ignored a TRO or ignored a civil summons subpoena or violated probation.)
stinkytaco 9y ago
I think this is not the hill you want to die on. Everything points to this guy being guilty and the court of public perception would not be on your side. Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a precedent for future, less clear-cut cases.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  > Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a precedent for future, less clear-cut cases. Possible? Try exceedingly likely. That's why it should be fought here, with an unpopular defendant.
- toast0 9y ago
  The problem with not choosing this hill is that the hills that need defending are exactly the ones you wouldn't choose. If this guy didn't appear to be in the wrong, the government wouldn't spend their time trying to unlawfully compel him to decrypt the drive. If white supremacists had something nice to say, people wouldn't want the government to unlawfully silence them. It doesn't feel good to protect the rights of suspected child pornographers, or white supremacists; but consider that we don't want a government empowered to unlawfully persecute those who do or say things we find morally repugnant because what the majority finds morally repugnant changes over time, but fundamental rights shouldn't.

heartbreak 9y ago

Has he been charged with contempt?

lightedman 9y ago
No, he was held on contempt on the All Writs act, and here is a very important distinction to make. He refused while in court, so he can be HELD on contempt. To be CHARGED with contempt of court, your actions typically happen outside of the courtroom after being given a legal order (e.g. you ignored a TRO or ignored a civil summons subpoena or violated probation.)

stinkytaco 9y ago

I think this is not the hill you want to die on. Everything points to this guy being guilty and the court of public perception would not be on your side. Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a precedent for future, less clear-cut cases.

Simon_says 9y ago
> Though it does seem possible that they are using this case to set a precedent for future, less clear-cut cases. Possible? Try exceedingly likely. That's why it should be fought here, with an unpopular defendant.
toast0 9y ago
The problem with not choosing this hill is that the hills that need defending are exactly the ones you wouldn't choose. If this guy didn't appear to be in the wrong, the government wouldn't spend their time trying to unlawfully compel him to decrypt the drive. If white supremacists had something nice to say, people wouldn't want the government to unlawfully silence them. It doesn't feel good to protect the rights of suspected child pornographers, or white supremacists; but consider that we don't want a government empowered to unlawfully persecute those who do or say things we find morally repugnant because what the majority finds morally repugnant changes over time, but fundamental rights shouldn't.