3 ms·

Wow. Your circle of acquaintances must be strongly against freedom of speech, then. You cannot create the Memory Hole by court order. LA Times has a constitu

Wow. Your circle of acquaintances must be strongly against freedom of speech, then. You cannot create the Memory Hole by court order. LA Times has a constitutional right to print anything they obtain legally. They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing. If anything, they could publish another article about how slipshod security practices in the court system leak sensitive information to the public, and the court system tries to censor journalists rather than investigating and fixing their own problems. The easiest way to protect the corrupt cop's family would have been to crack down on police corruption, so that no cop could get so deeply involved with a violent criminal organization that their family would ever be at risk. If the gangs couldn't get corrupt cops to cover for them, they would find it much more difficult to murder families for retaliation and intimidation. Judging by Mexico's example, publishing may also put the journalists and their families at risk. This is definitely shooting the messenger. In a system where doing that is illegal. The judge is wrong, and should be reversed. Yesterday.

jessaustin 8y ago
The "easy" way for cops, cop families, and normal people to be protected is to end the disastrous Drug War. It wouldn't matter if all police were paragons of virtue, applying enforcement rather than treatment to a drug problem is a sure way to end up with multiplied problems.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on not understanding it. Drug trade earns money; money buys guns and shooters; guns and shooters protect drug trade.
garmaine 8y ago
> They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing. Yes, yes they are. That is the entire point.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Any argument you can devise for this relies utterly on the critical step "a murderer acts on information in the article". The murderer was always the one placing people's lives at risk. And the murderer could also subscribe to the very same services which index public documents and court filings daily, that newspapers often use--like LexisNexis, for instance. Users can even be alerted on certain names and keywords. The LA Times article publication isn't even a critical step! Even "a person is shocked/scared to death by the published information" would require some physiological condition that would enable someone to drop dead from an emotional response, such as heart disease with ventricular fibrillation, or organ failure due to chronic cortisol and adrenaline poisoning. Perhaps publication of a paradox, like "This article contains no true statements," would kill an overly-logical AI? The crime triangle of motive, method, and opportunity is closed by the criminal--the one with mens rea, the evil motive--not by anyone who produced any element of the opportunity. Your assertion is completely unsupportable, and indirectly hostile to freedom of speech, by attributing imagined harms to speech, when their ultimate causes lie elsewhere.

jessaustin 8y ago

The "easy" way for cops, cop families, and normal people to be protected is to end the disastrous Drug War. It wouldn't matter if all police were paragons of virtue, applying enforcement rather than treatment to a drug problem is a sure way to end up with multiplied problems.

logfromblammo 8y ago
It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on not understanding it. Drug trade earns money; money buys guns and shooters; guns and shooters protect drug trade.

garmaine 8y ago

> They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing. Yes, yes they are. That is the entire point.

logfromblammo 8y ago
Any argument you can devise for this relies utterly on the critical step "a murderer acts on information in the article". The murderer was always the one placing people's lives at risk. And the murderer could also subscribe to the very same services which index public documents and court filings daily, that newspapers often use--like LexisNexis, for instance. Users can even be alerted on certain names and keywords. The LA Times article publication isn't even a critical step! Even "a person is shocked/scared to death by the published information" would require some physiological condition that would enable someone to drop dead from an emotional response, such as heart disease with ventricular fibrillation, or organ failure due to chronic cortisol and adrenaline poisoning. Perhaps publication of a paradox, like "This article contains no true statements," would kill an overly-logical AI? The crime triangle of motive, method, and opportunity is closed by the criminal--the one with mens rea, the evil motive--not by anyone who produced any element of the opportunity. Your assertion is completely unsupportable, and indirectly hostile to freedom of speech, by attributing imagined harms to speech, when their ultimate causes lie elsewhere.