6 ms·

It’s a double-edged sword. If the press is prohibited from reporting on arrests, you can end up with people just apprehended without a trace. The US certainly i

It’s a double-edged sword. If the press is prohibited from reporting on arrests, you can end up with people just apprehended without a trace. The US certainly isn't above that, especially for "national security concerns." I’m not sure what the right balance looks like, but it’s definitely not a straightforward issue to resolve.

lolinder 2y ago
I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized. Maybe Snowden (who I think was charged but not arrested)? I think you'll find that where the state has an interest in keeping something under wraps it will be kept under wraps. Most arrest reports are of the casual voyeuristic kind, not serious journalism trying to keep the government accountable.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  > I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized. The current POTUS and O.J. Simpson come to mind.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    OJ was pre Snowden, but I'll take the POTUS as an example! Not a great argument in favor of allowing the reports, though.
- BoxFour 2y ago
  > I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized Bad week to say this, given Ross Ulbricht was just pardoned. There's zero chance he would've been pardoned without all the publicity around his arrest and incarceration.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Fair enough. Is he the exception that makes all of the lives ruined worth it?
    - BoxFour 2y ago
      History offers plenty of other examples. Daniel Ellsberg is one of the most notable that comes to mind without spending more than a few seconds to think about it. Is it worth it? That likely depends on how highly you prioritize the protection of liberty. It’s ultimately a personal call, and I don't mean that as a judgement one way or the other.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Is he the exception that makes all of the lives ruined worth it? The reason we publicise arrests is to check the police against disappearances.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      going off of the n-guilty men principle https://medium.com/luminasticity/commentary-on-n-guilty-men-fc47d9dd0674 https://medium.com/luminasticity/commentary-on-n-guilty-men-... As publication seems necessary to help free people who should not be jailed, or to keep people from being disappeared the authorities find inconvenient, it seems some other solution should be found for the ruined lives due to publication, not that we just trade some number of ruined lives around by not publicizing.
Animats 2y ago
Arrests have to be a public record. Otherwise you get secret jails and disappearances. Like Chicago.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility
- ty6853 2y ago
  Yes but for instance you can be imprisoned without arrest. CBP has done it to me and I verified no record of arrest with an FBI record search.

lolinder 2y ago

I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized. Maybe Snowden (who I think was charged but not arrested)? I think you'll find that where the state has an interest in keeping something under wraps it will be kept under wraps. Most arrest reports are of the casual voyeuristic kind, not serious journalism trying to keep the government accountable.

woodruffw 2y ago
> I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized. The current POTUS and O.J. Simpson come to mind.
- lolinder 2y ago
  OJ was pre Snowden, but I'll take the POTUS as an example! Not a great argument in favor of allowing the reports, though.
BoxFour 2y ago
> I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized Bad week to say this, given Ross Ulbricht was just pardoned. There's zero chance he would've been pardoned without all the publicity around his arrest and incarceration.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Fair enough. Is he the exception that makes all of the lives ruined worth it?
  - BoxFour 2y ago
    History offers plenty of other examples. Daniel Ellsberg is one of the most notable that comes to mind without spending more than a few seconds to think about it. Is it worth it? That likely depends on how highly you prioritize the protection of liberty. It’s ultimately a personal call, and I don't mean that as a judgement one way or the other.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Is he the exception that makes all of the lives ruined worth it? The reason we publicise arrests is to check the police against disappearances.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    going off of the n-guilty men principle https://medium.com/luminasticity/commentary-on-n-guilty-men-fc47d9dd0674 https://medium.com/luminasticity/commentary-on-n-guilty-men-... As publication seems necessary to help free people who should not be jailed, or to keep people from being disappeared the authorities find inconvenient, it seems some other solution should be found for the ruined lives due to publication, not that we just trade some number of ruined lives around by not publicizing.

Animats 2y ago

Arrests have to be a public record. Otherwise you get secret jails and disappearances. Like Chicago.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homan_Square_facility

ty6853 2y ago
Yes but for instance you can be imprisoned without arrest. CBP has done it to me and I verified no record of arrest with an FBI record search.