Cops Arrest Public Defender For Attempting To Do Her Job

from the you-have-too-many-rights,-brother.-let-me-ease-your-burden-by-taking-a-few. dept

Due process? In this "justice" system? It is to LOL.

A San Francisco deputy public defender was handcuffed and arrested at the Hall of Justice after she objected to city police officers questioning her client outside a courtroom…

Here's the video:


The two responses gathered by SFGate show the divide between those who represent the accused and those who haul inconvenient people away so they can continue their "work" unimpeded.

...an incident that her office called outrageous and police officials defended as appropriate.

The public defender, Jami Tillotson, was charged with the one-size-fits-all-who-give-us-any-lip crime of "resisting arrest." This charge doesn't work the way people expect it would, much to their anger, dismay and surprise. One would think that the police would need to be arresting you for a different crime and, after encountering some resistance, add "resisting arrest" to the charges. But no, apparently "resisting arrest" simply means not doing what cops say to do, no matter the legality of the request.

Tillotson was representing her client in a misdemeanor theft case. The police wanted to chat with him about an unrelated case in which he was "a person of interest." Presumably the photo-taking was part of building a lineup.

Now, the Sixth Amendment only guarantees the right to an attorney during criminal prosecution. But being a "person of interest" presents its own problems, what with it usually leading to questioning centered on gathering incriminating evidence -- either against the person being questioned or someone else on the list of suspects.

As an American citizen, you can always refuse to answer questions, especially when you're not in custody. Easier said than done, though, which is why the option of referring law enforcement to a lawyer is always on the table. Of course, police officers will try to avoid this possiblity, usually by framing the questioning as an innocuous, purely voluntary chat. They get irritated, though, when people realize this and tell them to talk to their lawyer or continually ask if they're free to go.

So, while Tillotson's attempt to defend her client from questioning related to a different crime may not have fallen under guaranteed Sixth Amendment protections, her willingness to protect her client from additional police questioning certainly falls within the bounds of what she (and her client) are legally allowed to do in a situation like this (i.e., "Talk to my lawyer.")

But the police weren't interested in speaking to a lawyer. They wanted to take pictures and ask questions without the "interference" of someone who knew how the system works. So, they arrested her for resisting arrest -- which, as the video shows, she was very clearly NOT DOING BEFORE, AFTER OR DURING THE ARREST.

Tillotson objected to the arrest, but she placed her hands behind her back and allowed police to cuff her. She never struggled or otherwise impeded the officers in their duty -- which was [WARNING: circular reasoning ahead] TO ARREST HER FOR RESISTING ARREST.

It's a mindbending, oxymoronic, ugly display of force, where might = right and anyone standing in the way of an investigation needs to GTFO. With cuffs.

Here's how Gideon at A Public Defender sums up this incident:

It’s one thing for officers to get their way by removing civilians from the scene who object to their searches and seizures, but it takes quite another level of totalitarianism and disregard for the law to arrest and make absent an officer of the court.

Even the law prof [Is it impossible to get quotes from actual lawyers with "in the trenches" experience? Are there really that few of them?] quoted by SFGate -- who believes Tillotson erred by inserting herself between police and their "person of interest" -- had this to say about the PD's actions.

[Hadar Aviram] added, “Regardless of where the constitutional disposition is, the attorney was in no way being violent or resisting arrest or being disruptive in any way. It’s extreme and it’s bad press for (the police). I’m surprised.”

I'm not. Many officers -- far too many -- simply don't care what the public thinks of them or their actions. The detective captured here on video is among that number.

Filed Under: arrest, jami tillotson, police, public defender, resisting arrest, san francisco, sfpd

France Celebrates Its New Reverence For Free Speech By Arresting Comedian For His Speech

from the that's-one-way-to-do-it dept

Over the weekend in Paris there was a so-called "Unity March" in response to last week's Charlie Hebdo attack. The photographs from the march were striking -- even if the famed photo of many world leaders holding hands and marching together turned out to a photo op on a closed street, rather than with the rest of the marchers. And, of course, this was all a facade. Many of the leaders who were there oversee governments that don't believe in free speech or a free press at all. Here, for example, is Jillian York trying to figure out if any of the leaders truly support freedom of expression.

And, to just put a big underline on the whole thing, just days later, France has arrested a famous and controverisal French comedian, Dieudonné, who has quite a reputation for his outspoken anti-semitism. The arrest was over a Facebook post that Dieudonné put up that basically mocked the "Je Suis Charlie" campaign that had become the rallying cry following the Charlie Hebdo attack, and instead indicated that he identified more with Amédy Coulibaly, a gunman who killed four people at a Jewish supermarket on Friday.

Dieudonné's views may be offensive, ridiculous or despicable, but it's much more offensive, ridiculous and despicable to have him arrested for a comment on Facebook. And, it's even more ridiculous to do it when his comment concerns the way people were expressing support for freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

To then immediately arrest someone for using that freedom to give a counter-view, just seems ridiculous.

And while it's the most high profile, Dieudonné is hardly the only target, apparently. According to the BBC, France has really ramped up attacks on free speech in response to all this damn support of free speech:

The justice ministry said earlier that 54 cases had been opened since the murders of 17 people in Paris last week. Of those, 37 cases involved condoning terrorism and 12 were for threatening to carry out terrorist acts.

Some fast-track custodial sentences have already been handed down under anti-terror legislation passed last November

• A man of 22 was jailed on Tuesday for a year for posting a video mocking one of the three murdered policemen
• A drunk driver was given four years in prison after making threats against the police who arrested him
• Three men in their twenties were jailed in Toulouse for condoning terrorism
• A man of 20 was jailed in Orleans for shouting "long live the Kalash[(nikov]" at police in a shopping center

Hey, France, I don't quite think you're getting the message. "I support free speech... so long as it is free speech that I sort of agree with" kind of misses the point. The views of some of these people expressing support for killers or terrorists or hatred towards certain types of people is speech that I find, personally, to be despicable. But those expressing it should be allowed to express it -- broadcasting their own confusion and ignorance to the world, and allowing others to counter that speech. Arresting people based on their speech only reinforces the ridiculous idea that they've come upon some truth or that they're speaking "truth to power." They're not. They're speaking nonsense, but in a free society we allow nonsense to be spoken.

Filed Under: arrest, arrested, charlie hebdo, dieudonne, france, free speech, je suis charlie

County Prosecutor Looking To Arrest Housing Official After Agency Demands $16,000 To Fulfill FOIA Request

from the a-bandwagon-worth-jumping-on dept

This may be about 60% stunt and 40% forceful nudge, but I'm still behind it 100%. For far too long, public officials have treated Freedom of Information laws as an annoyance... at best. In many cases, information designated as eligible for freedom has to be pried out of officials' hands using lawsuits, needlessly-protracted appeals processes or crowd-sourced tenacity.

Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley said he will issue an arrest affidavit today against Rodney Forte, the executive director of the Metropolitan Housing Alliance in Little Rock, for a violation of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

First off, you can be arrested for violating this act. In Arkansas, any violation of its FOIA law can result in this penalty.

Any person who negligently violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200) or thirty (30) days in jail, or both, or a sentence of appropriate public service or education, or both.

It's nice to see someone following the letter of the law. Not following the letter of the law (and steamrolling its spirit) is what put Forte in the prosecutor's sights. Forte had decided to greet a FOIA request he didn't want to fulfill with the time-honored anti-FOIA tactic of pricing his agency out of the market.

The action comes after the Metropolitan Housing Alliance sent an invoice to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette late Tuesday,charging more than $16,000 to hire outside workers to help the agency comply with a records-release request -- a practice the Little Rock city attorney and other Arkansas Freedom of Information Act experts say is illegal.

It may be illegal, but plenty of agencies do it without suffering anything more than a loss in the court of public opinion. Sure, they may eventually face lawsuits, but that's really just public money being spent in defense of a publicly-funded agency's desire to keep the public separated from public documents. It's about as painful to the offending agency as being punched in someone else's wallet.

This particular form of enforcement is rarely (if ever) deployed, although Arkansas seems to be more aggressive than most states when it comes to punishing violators. In Jegley's 23 years as a county prosecutor, he's never seen this happen. Usually some sort of compromise between requester and requestee is reached before it gets to this point. But that hasn't happened in this dispute, which has been ongoing for several months now -- even involving Little Rock's mayor's intervention on behalf of the requesting party, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola contacted Forte on Wednesday in an attempt to intervene in the latest dispute over records. Stodola is a former Little Rock city attorney and Pulaski County prosecutor.

"I am not familiar with any request for payment for such a large nature as this and based on my interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act, the computer systems that the agency has are required to make this information readily available," Stodola said.

"These kinds of document requests are routine, and when I was prosecutor, virtually all of this kind of information [at most agencies] is kept in an electronic format that can be downloaded quite easily."

Forte claims proprietary software is involved and all documents would need to be printed and scanned before they could be released, but has failed to detail what software the agency is using or released any other technical details. He has also hasn't discussed his agency's failure to comply with another section of the state's FOIA law.

Arkansas Code Annotated 25-19-105 (g) states that any software acquired by an agency "shall be in full compliance with the requirements" of the Freedom of Information Act and "shall not impede public access to records in electronic form."

So, Jegley has answered Forte's obfuscatory power play with one of his own. At this point, Forte's arrest is in the hands of a judge. Jegley still needs to turn his affidavit into a warrant, at which point it may expand to include others involved in the Metropolitan Housing Authority's $16,000 fiasco.

Hopefully, this move will force the documents out of the agency's hands. Clearly, there's something in there it wants hidden -- something likely related to agency's addition of a $92,000/yr deputy executive director during a period when it was shedding nearly a third of its staff and reducing pay to non-salaried employees.

Even if this goes nowhere, it's still incredibly refreshing to see public servants acting to hold other public servants accountable. Other states should take a good look at Arkansas' FOIA law and think about giving their own a few teeth by making violations an arrestable offense.

Filed Under: arkansas, arrest, fees, foia, journalism, larry jegley, little rock, prosecution, rodney forte

City Of London Police Drove 200 Miles To Arrest And Jail 'Industrial' Level Pirate... Only To Have Case Fall Apart And All Charges Dropped

from the oops,-sorry-'bout-that dept

We've certainly questioned the efforts by the City of London Police to set themselves up as the legacy entertainment industry's private police force. Over the past year or so, the police operation (which, yes, represents just one square mile of London, but a square mile with lots of big important businesses), has demonstrated that it will be extremely aggressive, not in fighting criminal wrongdoing, but in protecting the private business interests of some legacy companies, often with little to no legal basis. It also appears that the City of London's famed Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) is not particularly technology savvy, and seems to just accept what big record labels, movie studios and the like tell it.

In the last few months, the City of London Police's PIPCU effort has even gone on a bit of an arresting spree, under questionable circumstances. We noted in August that they had arrested the operator of an anti-censorship proxy service, almost entirely based on the say so of the entertainment industry. In September, PIPCU took a 200+ mile drive up the road to arrest Zain Parvez to great fanfare. PIPCU insisted that Parvez was running a series of streaming sites related to sporting events, and was infringing on the rights of the Premier League (notorious copyright maximalists). PIPCU claimed it was an "industrial scale" operation, and tossed Parvez in jail.

Fast forward a few weeks and... all charges against Parvez have been dropped. Apparently, once the case reached the Manchester Crown Court and the Crown Prosecution Services looked at it, they realized how weak a case there was, and simply dropped the whole thing. Given PIPCU's previous statements and actions, this hardly seems surprising. PIPCU and the City of London Police appear to be the latest in an unfortunately long line of folks who think that copyright infringement is such a black-and-white/open-and-shut thing that you can just declare someone "guilty" based on some questionable assumptions and it's obvious for everyone to understand why.

Perhaps, the UK's Intellectual Property Office, rather than funding PIPCU to be the legacy industry's personal police force, should have spent those resources actually training them to understand technology, due process and such.

Filed Under: arrest, charges, city of london police, copyright, dropped, pipcu, zain parvez

California Cops Seize Recordings Of Questionable Arrest, Claim They Have The 'Right' To Do So

from the some-evidence-we-keep,-others-we-delete dept

Photography Is Not A Crime again reports on police acting like they have the right to confiscate people's cameras and phones in order to "secure" recordings of apparent police misconduct.

Police in Northern California beat and tased a mentally ill man before siccing a dog on him, then turning on citizens who recorded the incident, confiscating cell phones and in one case, ordering a witness to delete his footage.

But one video survived anyway, slightly longer than two minutes, where a cop from the Antioch Police Department can be heard saying he wants cameras confiscated right before the video stops.

The video is shot at a distance that makes it unclear as to how much damage is being done, although you can hear the meaty sound of someone being struck several times, as well as the nearly nonstop barking of the police dog and crackling bursts of Taser fire. Being filmed vertically doesn't help, although I'm generally of the opinion that simply collecting footage that wouldn't normally be captured is always useful and whatever makes the person filming most comfortable (seeing as it's generally a very uncomfortable situation) is the method they should use. The recording also shows the arrival of more officers, as though the nearly invisible civilian at the bottom of the cop pile (which begins with 5 officers and a police dog) was on the verge of escaping the whole time.

Towards the end of a video, an officer pulls his squad car directly in front of the "scene" in an obvious attempt to limit the amount of onlookers with damning recordings. Shortly after that (and after the video ends), the cops started attempting to seize "evidence."

A second witness ABC7 News spoke to says officers began confiscating cellphones from anyone who shot video of the incident. An officer asked for his cellphone after he shot video and the witness said, “Then he took my phone anyway because I didn’t want no problems. He emailed the incident to his phone.

The first witness said, “They didn’t take no for an answer apparently because they pulled one lady out of her vehicle to get it, and she wouldn’t give it up and they were about to arrest her and finally they let her go because I believe she gave it up.”

However, a third witness told ABC7 News he was ordered to erase his video. So he did. He said, “They were being kind of controlling, like demanding, ‘erase your phone’ and they were trying to take people’s phones away.”

No surprises here. Excessive force deployed, followed by a roundup of "witnesses," which actually means recording equipment and not human beings. The police have no right to do this, but in far too many cases, they assume the public either doesn't know this, or can easily be intimidated into complying with the unlawful request.

Here's the absolute bullshit the police department handed over in defense of its ad hoc phone confiscation:

Antioch police told ABC7 News in a statement, “If a person is not willing to turn it over voluntarily, an officer can sometimes seize the device containing the video. The police would have to get a search warrant to retrieve the video from the device.”

As Carlos Miller points out, this is completely wrong and has been wrong for a few years now. Guidelines from the Department of Justice passed down in 2012 state the exact opposite. Police can ask for compliance, but they need to be extremely careful in how they ask.

A general order should provide officers with guidance on how to lawfully seek an individual’s consent to review photographs or recordings and the types of circumstances that do—and do not—provide exigent circumstances to seize recording devices, the permissible length of such a seizure, and the prohibition against warrantless searches once a device has been seized. Policies should include language to ensure that consent is not coerced, implicitly or explicitly…

[...]

Warrantless seizures are only permitted if an officer has probable cause to believe that the property “holds contraband or evidence of a crime” and “the exigencies of the circumstances demand it or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present.”

Cops tend to claim that footage of police misconduct is "evidence" in order to justify warrantless cellphone seizures. It may very well be, but it's the sort of evidence they want to hide, rather than the sort of evidence they'd like to retain. Note that the above officers ordered people to "delete" recordings, something they wouldn't do if the recordings held actual evidence of a crime (or at least, a crime not committed by uniformed officers). Either way, crime or no crime, the police can't just start seizing phones as "evidence." The DOJ guidelines go on to say:

The Supreme Court has afforded heightened protection to recordings containing material protected by the First Amendment. An individual’s recording may contain both footage of a crime relevant to a police investigation and evidence of police misconduct.The latter falls squarely within the protection of First Amendment. See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1034 (1991) (“There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment.”). The warrantless seizure of such material is a form of prior restraint, a long disfavored practice.

So, cops know -- or should know -- they can't do this. And I firmly believe most of them know this. The problem is that they just don't care. The quickest "fix" is swift seizures of recordings using baseless arrest threats and other forms of intimidation. It's an instinctual closing of ranks. Once the requisite dozen or so officers needed to affect an arrest had been met, one of the officers originally in the one-sided melee stands back and says he wants "that cellphone and that cellphone." Well, he can't have them. Not legally. And yet, officers apparently got what they wanted -- rather than what they could legally obtain -- in the end.

Filed Under: antioch, antioch police department, arrest, california, police, recordings, seized

Misheard Will Smith Lyrics Results In Arrest Of Student And District-Wide Lockdown

from the i'd-say-everyone's-familiar-with-this-song,-but... dept

So, it's come to this: the heightened paranoia surrounding all things kid- and school-related, post-Newtown (but also post- other school shootings as well) has managed to turn nearly everything into a potential menace. It's one thing to be cautious and alert for warning signs or veiled threats. It's quite another to turn a recorded rendition of the "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" theme into a police matter.

Here's how this bit of insanity went down, as delivered by Gideon of A Public Defender. (You may remember Gideon as the Twitterer whose curiosity about a certain unenforceable statement kicked off the Teri Buhl fiasco.):

First, from the increasingly stupid United States of America, a story of how a teen’s life got flip-turned upside down. You see, he was just on the playground where he spent most of his days, minding his own business. You know, chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool and sometimes with this friends he liked to be shooting some b-ball outside of the school.

WAIT. DID HE JUST SAY SHOOT AND SCHOOL IN THE SAME SENTENCE? ARREST HIM! Once you’re done laughing, know that that’s exactly what happened to 19-year old Travis Clawson because a doctor’s office called his voicemail to confirm an appointment, heard the above line, thought he was shooting people outside the school and called cops. Who arrested him first, then spent the 20 seconds it takes to realize it’s the theme song from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. No word on whether Carlton showed up to dance and everyone laughed at him.

A few things to note:

1. This was the teen's voicemail greeting. It wasn't as if he was calling the school and making threats. It's highly doubtful that criminals (or aspiring criminals) are leaving records of their future exploits as voicemail greetings. Gideon doesn't seem convinced this is a thing.

Also: is this a thing now? People leave notes of their criminal intent as voicemail messages? "Hi, you've reached my cellphone. I'm unavailable right now because I'm robbing that Stop-n-Go on Orchard and Willard. Leave me a message and I'll get back to you when I get out in 5-20 years because I'm stupid enough to leave --- BEEP."

2. The police arrested the student for something that took likely less than a minute to explain. Couldn't this have been handled with a little in-person questioning, rather than escalating the situation immediately by arresting first, questioning second? I understand that the word "b-ball" could possibly be misheard as "people" and the receptionist probably did the right thing by notifying law enforcement, but it still seems as though this could all have been sorted out in a five minute discussion.

3. This isn't noted in Gideon's commentary, but the police had the teen's school (along with the rest of the district) go into lockdown mode while they searched for the Will Smith-quoting "gunman." From there, it gets even more ridiculous:

The call to 911 forced the entire district into lockdown for about 30 minutes and police said they detained the 19-year-old student for three hours while searching his locker, before determining that it was all one big misunderstanding.

Never mind what I said about point 2. I know it's often said that we should "err on the side of caution," but, seriously, three hours to "search a locker?" Obviously, no one bothered asking the teen anything about the message until they ran about 2:50 off the clock.

Officer Mike Natale says, "[The teen] was afraid and embarrassed." No kidding. I would imagine more of the first than the second. Three hours being detained by police while under lockdown and not being given any hint as to what started the whole debacle would make anyone, possibly even an actual criminal, "afraid."

In wxpi.com's story, the police officer states that the teen "had learned from his mistake" (towards the end of the video). Really? What mistake? There are plenty of mistakes in this story, but a teen recording one of the most well-known TV theme songs as an outgoing voicemail message isn't one of them.

Filed Under: arrest, bomb threat, fresh prince, lockdown, lyrics, shooting threat, will smith

Couple Arrested For Dancing On NYC Subway Platform

from the waltz-the-problem-with-dancing? dept

Perhaps some day, if I manage to live long enough, somebody somewhere will be able to explain to me why the seemingly benign combination of dancing, cameras, and police tends to result in threats, beatdowns, and arrests. Recall a year ago when I had the privilege to write about protestors getting bodyslammed at the Jefferson Memorial for the horrific crime of silently dancing on the premises?

Well, Yakko Warner writes in with the story of two nefarious characters, code named George Hess and Caroline Stern, who had the gall to dance on a New York City subway platform and were taken to the ground and arrested for their trouble. As that New York Post piece explains, the couple found themselves near a musician playing on steel drums:

“We were doing the Charleston,” Stern said. That’s when two police officers approached and pulled a “Footloose.”
“They said, ‘What are you doing?’ and we said, ‘We’re dancing,’ ” she recalled. “And they said, ‘You can’t do that on the platform.’ ”

And so, as their training manuals surely instructed them to do, the officers demanded to see their IDs. Because they were dancing. Where someone was playing the drums. In the most cosmopolitan and culturally-rich city in America. In any case, when Hess could only produce a credit card (which had his name and photo on it), this happened:

"The officers ordered the couple to go with them — even though the credit card had the dentist’s picture and signature. When Hess began trying to film the encounter, things got ugly, Stern said.“We brought out the camera, and that’s when they called backup,” she said. “That’s when eight ninja cops came from out of nowhere.”

The ninja cops then alledgedly tackled Hess to the floor, cuffed both of them, and detained the pair for twenty-three hours. The initial charge was apparently impeding the flow of traffic of what is reported to have been three other people on the platform. The police then added other charges, such as resisting arrest.

All charges were subsequently dropped when the paperwork was finally reviewed by the NYPD's Not Crazy Department. The couple are now suing in Manhattan courts, but maybe it's time a national memo went out to law enforcement agencies reminding them that dancing people with cameras don't necessarily need to be tackled?

Filed Under: arrest, dancing, expression, nyc, overreaction, subway

Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter

from the terrorism? dept

A woman, who did not feel comfortable going through the TSA naked scanners, was arrested for disorderly conduct when she also refused to let the TSA molest and grope her daughter. I'm trying to figure out how this makes us any safer on airplanes.

"I still don't want someone to see our bodies naked," the mom is reported to have replied.

As for the pat-down option, the police report states that the mom didn't want her daughter to be "touched inappropriately or have her "crotch grabbed."

TSA agents say she became belligerent and verbally abusive. The woman was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

So, either your privacy gets violated, you get molested, or you get arrested. Where do we live again?

Filed Under: arrest, children, groping, scanners, tsa

Movie Studios Got Canadian Police To Arrest Movie Cammers As A Personal Favor

from the disgusting-abuse-of-power dept

You may recall a few years ago when the movie industry went ballistic on Canada, because it didn't have a criminal law against recording movies in theaters. With the way the industry and its supporters were talking about it, you would think that this meant people could record a movie and upload it with no legal problems, but that simply wasn't true. There were still civil laws against such recording, and the industry could enforce those. On top of that, there were still plenty of existing laws against distribution. Yet, there was a big campaign claiming that camcording in Canada was where 40 to 70% of all the leaked movies came from. This number was made up out of thin air, and seemed obviously false when another campaign for similar laws in New York City then claimed that 50% of camcorded movies online came from NYC. Either way, the lies about the numbers were effective. The industry got its law criminalizing recording a movie.

We've already discussed the Wikileaks releases on US influence on Canadian copyright law, but TorrentFreak points us to a particularly interesting cable on the subject of camcording in Canada. It kicks off with the embassy admitting that the movie industry was now claiming that perhaps only 18% of camcorded movies came from Montreal, despite an earlier claim that it was 40%. Not surprisingly, the MPAA only made a big stink when it claimed the numbers were in that 40% to 70% range... and was pretty quiet about the revised number.

The cable goes on to note that Canadian law enforcement thought the whole thing was pretty silly, and didn't believe camcording was a big deal. Instead, they (quite reasonably!) felt that their efforts would be better focused on stopping things like counterfeit pharmaceuticals from circulating. Later in the report is the really scary part, where Canadian law enforcement (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) admitted that a particular individual was arrested twice as a "personal favor" to the movie industry, despite his actions not actually breaking the law:

With regard to the arrest of the individual who had been pursued by the CMPDA, RCMP officers stated that they arrested the individual "as a personal favor" to a [movie industry] official, and that they did not view theater camcording as "a major issue."

The TorrentFreak article goes on to note the tragic details of the individual who was arrested -- again, despite not having broken any law, and apparently as a "personal favor" to someone in the movie industry:

The arrest triggered a chain of events which would lead to Adam, who had a history of depression, enduring a 14 month wait for any charges to be brought. He went on the run, was detained and eventually sentenced to jail. Adam began using drugs in jail to cope with his imprisonment and shortly after his release he tragically died of an overdose.

Nice "personal favor," huh?

Filed Under: arrest, camcording, canada, favors, movie industry, rcmp

On The Arrest Of Julian Assange

from the this-is-what-we-cover? dept

To date, I had avoided all of the stories both about the allegations against Julian Assange in Sweden, as well as his arrest this morning. But people keep asking us to cover it. Frankly, I'm not sure what to say about it. Assange's former lawyer's writeup for Crikey, in which he presents a compelling, if extremely one-sided view of how Sweden appears to be "making it up as it goes along," is an interesting read but, again, it is extremely one-sided. Slate's more level-headed analysis of questions concerning consensual sex laws is also worth reading.

The reason I have not covered this is, while this whole thing has obviously become political, these charges do not, officially, have anything to do with Wikileaks. Perhaps the two cannot be separated but there's a lot of FUD flying from all sides on this right now and it seems rather early to comment on all of this.

However, I think the larger point is that too many are looking to connect this issue more closely to Wikileaks than it deserves to be connected. We're interested in Wikileaks from a public policy perspective and what it means for free speech, whistleblowing and journalism in a distributed world. I have no idea what happened between Assange and those two women in Sweden and it's difficult to see how adding any commentary on the matter at this stage really adds anything to the discussion.

Filed Under: arrest, julian assange, sweden, uk, wikileaks