3 ms·

I think the standard way our justice system treats defending yourself publicly as witness intimidation is faulty. In the previous instance, his talking to journ

I think the standard way our justice system treats defending yourself publicly as witness intimidation is faulty. In the previous instance, his talking to journalists should be protected first amendment activities. And then later, with the diary, I don't think his intent was to intimidate her or to change her testimony, but rather to defend himself to the public. I don't think those two things are the same. On the other hand, I'm very open to the idea that stealing someone's diary and publishing it is itself illegal. I'd want to know more there. Also, what I personally believe to be an overly-expansive definition of witness intimidation is pretty standard and he should be held to the same rules as others. So while I think the justice system generally needs to change on this, I think the judge is correctly applying the normal practice here as they would to anybody else.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> I don't think his intent was to intimidate her It doesn't matter what the intent is. She's a witness and trying to pull this shit is a huge no-no, as the judge rightly ruled. He should have known better.
- elicash 3y ago
  Your response doesn't contradict anything I wrote. I wrote that the judge was correct in sending him to jail for witness intimidation because they should apply the same standard they do in every other case. I just don't like the standard! Edit: Quick correction. I suppose your first sentence does disagree with my view on whether intent matters. But I'm pretty sure "intent" shows up in the statute. You also seem to disagree with the prosecutor who argued that intent DOES matter and that his intent here was to intimidate the witness.
pessimizer 3y ago
You don't have the right to defend yourself in public while awaiting trial. He doesn't even have the right to leave his house; the idea that his speech can't be restrained is fantasy.
- elicash 3y ago
  I of course didn't argue that his speech can't be restrained. I think there are limits, as you do. We just disagree over where the line should be drawn. Certainly you agree he has some right to talk about the case, when it's not witness intimidation, right?

maximinus_thrax 3y ago

> I don't think his intent was to intimidate her It doesn't matter what the intent is. She's a witness and trying to pull this shit is a huge no-no, as the judge rightly ruled. He should have known better.

elicash 3y ago
Your response doesn't contradict anything I wrote. I wrote that the judge was correct in sending him to jail for witness intimidation because they should apply the same standard they do in every other case. I just don't like the standard! Edit: Quick correction. I suppose your first sentence does disagree with my view on whether intent matters. But I'm pretty sure "intent" shows up in the statute. You also seem to disagree with the prosecutor who argued that intent DOES matter and that his intent here was to intimidate the witness.

pessimizer 3y ago

You don't have the right to defend yourself in public while awaiting trial. He doesn't even have the right to leave his house; the idea that his speech can't be restrained is fantasy.

elicash 3y ago
I of course didn't argue that his speech can't be restrained. I think there are limits, as you do. We just disagree over where the line should be drawn. Certainly you agree he has some right to talk about the case, when it's not witness intimidation, right?