4 ms·
My point was more that there was plenty of other valid probable cause claims in the warrant. If a judge had rejected this warrant on the basis of that paragrap
by javanix 18y ago
My point was more that there was plenty of other valid probable cause claims in the warrant.
If a judge had rejected this warrant on the basis of that paragraph, the police could have just removed it and we and the judge wouldn't have anything to complain about.
The grounds for the seizure were plenty strong - the email traces and network authentication would be enough to get any laptop involved in a crime seized.
And as for people claiming it wasn't a crime - there is no possible way that there was no malicious intent in sending a personal-attack email anonymously to a large group of people. (edit)In this case(/edit), the free-speech argument kind of loses its luster when you send something without your name attached.
- kragen 18y agoThe free-speech argument kind of loses its luster when you send something without your name attached. Maybe you're not from the US, but the US has a legal tradition of strong protections for anonymous and pseudonymous speech. The Federalist Papers, which were a key part of the political discourse leading to the existence of the US, were published anonymously. So maybe what you say is true in Ukraine or China or Myanmar or wherever you're from, but it's certainly not true in the US.
- javanix 18y agoI am from the United States - anonymous and pseudonymous protections wouldn't apply to this case of slander/libel and/or criminal harassment. Anonymously outing someone against their will does not fall under the same protections that critiquing an unfair government does. I didn't mean to imply that all anonymous talk is without protection, just that in this specific case, the defendant in question would probably have a very difficult time making a successful free speech argument.
- kragen 18y agoUsually, freedom of speech is not a defense against accusations of defamation; the anonymity angle is a red herring.