4 ms·
While "crowdsourced" reporting is kind of cool, this report strikes me as an example of that idea gone awry. It took some googling to find a reasonable account,
by kevinalexbrown 14y ago
While "crowdsourced" reporting is kind of cool, this report strikes me as an example of that idea gone awry. It took some googling to find a reasonable account, from the Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press[0]. This would, if anything, be biased toward Mr. Mueller, but it put the above article in an entirely different light.
1) As others have pointed out, he's on trial for allegedly recording three telephone calls to the police, a school principal, and a school secretary, without the consent of all parties, then made them publicly available. This is a felony under NH law. The iReport article implies, via quotations from multiple sources, that Mr. Mueller is on trial for filming police brutality. In fact, it appears that he called these parties for comment, so this doesn't even seem to be an issue of the right to record your arrest, or interested interactions with the state.
2) CopBlock.org and other "citizen watch" type sites might be a great idea, but performances like Mr. Mueller's, who apparently insists on the court calling him "Ademo Freeman", says things like "Bring on the Circus", and represents himself in a criminal case just paint these movements in a bad light. Police brutality, over-reaching state authority, etc. might be big problems; this kind of misguided moral crusade does not help.
3) I can understand the frustration supporters might find with inconsistent applications of wiretapping laws: I am not sure the state would care if a random citizen made three phone calls public, if no one pressed charges or there weren't some other reason. This article in no way communicates any of these issues and instead implements a tirade of misdirection and indignation.
Finally, I'd like to say something in defense of professional journalists. I know they often get a bad rap as being either extensions of the state vying for "influence" or sensationalists chasing controversy in every corner, but reports like this make me appreciate journalists who:
- call for comment
- search for credible sources, preferably ones with opposing viewpoints
- read or link to actual court documents
EDIT: You can find the video where he publishes the recordings here: http://youtu.be/sEhFwI6IyMU http://youtu.be/sEhFwI6IyMU . Both the principal and the police officer made it reasonably clear they did not wish to discuss the matter. While the principal did respond to Mueller's questions, it seems unlikely she implied any consent to record.
[0]http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/nh-blogger-charged-felony-wiretapping-could-receive-21-year-prison-s http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/nh-blogg...
- revelation 14y agoI'm with you on the disgust for these Assange-personas, but what he did should not be illegal. He was talking to public servants over a line owned by the state. He was specifically contacting them because of their respective roles in public departments. He was contacting them to talk about things that fall squarely into their responsibilities as public servants. Public servants have no expectation of privacy in fulfilling their duties, why should it be different when you talk to them over the phone about said duties? So yes, these wiretapping laws need to go.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoThink about the unintended consequences of turning all communication with public officials to the public domain. Set aside issues that have security or market impact implications. Consider the ramifications on efficacy of public officials have to screen every word they say because it may become a sound bite. If it doesn't hit you immediately consider how long a large company with that public a culture would last.
- mcantelon 14y agoYou're correct that the facts in this story have been distorted and the guy sounds like he's antagonizing authorities to some degree, but that being said there really should be outrage about this case. Facing a possible 21 years for recording conversations with public officials is not something one would normally associate with a free country. It's highly unlikely he'd be facing these charges if he wasn't an activist that embarrassed the police.
- DigitalJack 14y agoAre you suggesting the wiretap laws shouldn't be applicable if the uninformed end of the conversation is a public official?
- 14y ago