I obviously think this guy has a right to publish on his blog. But the story paints him as a kook who shot himself in the foot.
Even if you are 100% right, you don't represent yourself in court, and you certainly don't insult the judge or court. This is the quickest way to lose your case. If he's lucky, his courtroom trolling may have provoked the judge into overstepping the law and it'll be tossed out.
I agree, however it's important to emphasize that neither self-representation nor insulting the judge are crimes (outside of the disturbingly gray area of contempt).
Even among Mr Shuler's defenders there is widespread recognition that he has potentially crossed the line into defamation on more than one occasion. That's not the problem. The problem is what appears to be a lack of due process so far. Quoting the article and the illustrious Ken White:
"But Mr. White and others say that before a judge can take the step of banning speech, libel must be proved at trial, or at least over a litigation process more involved than a quick succession of hearings, with the only evidence presented by the plaintiffs."
His case is not over. It still exists as an appeal and public opinion. Why make deals with a corrupt i.e. invalid government official if you are fighting corrupt invalid government officials?
The Ken White mentioned in the article is the Ken White behind Popehat, articles from which have frequently shown up on the HN front page (particularly during the Prenda Law saga).
Whoever is defending this needs to talk about the "act of journalism", and say how in the digital age everyone can commit "acts of journalism" without having a "journalist job" or belonging to a "journalism association", which in the digital age/21st century are starting to become obsolete notions.
But even without this sort of defense, he should still have the right to free speech that everyone in US gets.
Oh, this guy is an asshole, and what he writes definitely falls into a defamation and slander. The First amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech.
The problem isn't that he's being punished by the courts, it's that he's seeing indefinite jail time just for opening his mouth. There is a crime here, but the punishment doesn't fit it.
[+] [-] cromwellian|12 years ago|reply
Even if you are 100% right, you don't represent yourself in court, and you certainly don't insult the judge or court. This is the quickest way to lose your case. If he's lucky, his courtroom trolling may have provoked the judge into overstepping the law and it'll be tossed out.
[+] [-] nate_meurer|12 years ago|reply
Even among Mr Shuler's defenders there is widespread recognition that he has potentially crossed the line into defamation on more than one occasion. That's not the problem. The problem is what appears to be a lack of due process so far. Quoting the article and the illustrious Ken White:
"But Mr. White and others say that before a judge can take the step of banning speech, libel must be proved at trial, or at least over a litigation process more involved than a quick succession of hearings, with the only evidence presented by the plaintiffs."
[+] [-] etanazir|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosser|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aspensmonster|12 years ago|reply
Their list is out of date then.
http://freebarrettbrown.org/
[+] [-] higherpurpose|12 years ago|reply
But even without this sort of defense, he should still have the right to free speech that everyone in US gets.
[+] [-] anonymouscowar1|12 years ago|reply
The problem isn't that he's being punished by the courts, it's that he's seeing indefinite jail time just for opening his mouth. There is a crime here, but the punishment doesn't fit it.
[+] [-] eli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|12 years ago|reply