Comments on: Brownanomics

By: lkcape

lkcape — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:38:36 +0000

Don’t take it personally, Fish.

It is Dan’s telling you that he has no other way of countering your thesis.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:14:48 +0000

Isn’t that what I wrote Dan? Videotape is legal. Audiotape is a felony.

Videotape, in its purest form, doesn’t have “sound”. Not sure why you are inserting sound into the conversation about video. Also not sure why you are calling me wrong and confusing.

What’s confusing is not me, but the state law that makes one surreptitious recording a felony and one no crime at all.

You should aim your derision at the legislature, Dan. Not at me.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:49:57 +0000

Fish: Wrong again, or at least confusing. Non-consensual video recording is allowed only if there is no sound.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:42:25 +0000

Dan, you can legally videotape them but not audiotape them. I hope you know the distinction and I hope that is what you teach your students. I hope you ask the Husky pups to ponder whether or not that audio/video distinction is quite bizzare as well. One a felony, one not a crime.

Even more bizzare is that you cherrypick only federal laws as “(T)he kinds of laws” that you feel are enforced when the violator had no criminal intent.

Funny, almost every federal lawmaker from MA had a role in local lawmaking before going to DC. Did these solons suddenly go crazy upon landing near the Potomac, or are they just continuing to pool the game they started here? You can’t have it both ways.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:29:20 +0000

CORRECTION: Second paragraph should have read:

Granted, most FEDERAL laws and prosecutions are higher profile, but the feds have no monopoly on the absurd.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:28:00 +0000

Fish: This will be my last comment on the subject. The kinds of laws you are referring to have nothing to do with what SIlverglate analyzes in his book. Your continued attempts to try to offer comments on a book you have not read are bizarre.

And by the way, my journalism students certainly know that, in Massachusetts, you can’t tape someone without his consent.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:23:21 +0000

Dan, having enforced state law and local ordinances for years –and having had a case or two picked up by the US Attorney’s Office–, I don’t think there is as much of a distinction between federal and local laws, and how they are enforced, as you and HS think. Where is the “criminal intent” if you begin driving at 11:59 PM with a valid license and become an arrestable criminal one minute later when that license expires? How about the Abington motorist who felt he was regularly harassed by the local police and decided to tape them, only to be charged with felony wiretapping when he brought the tape to the Chief?

Granted, most state laws and prosecutions are higher profile, but the feds have no monopoly on the absurd.

Your strict reliance on what is printed in a book called to mind the military recruitment advertising theme of the 70’s and 80’s.

“Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, we don’t ask for experience, we give it. You won’t read it in a book, you’ll live it.” The police service being a para-military organization, you don’t read it in Silverglate’s book. Officers live it.

By: Peter Porcupine

Peter Porcupine — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:58:22 +0000

“Obama is far more popular and respected than Congress.”

DK – So was George W. Bush.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:57:10 +0000

Fish: Silverglate draws a careful distinction between state and federal laws, arguing that state laws — and their enforcement — have largely not deviated from the common-law principle that there can be no crime without criminal intent. Federal law has moved in the opposite direction over the past 50 years. Again, because you have not read the book, you keep posting comments that obliterate that distinction. But if the promotional material on Harvey’s website is good enough for you, I guess you can say you’ve read the book. Congratulations!

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:41:30 +0000

Dan, you’re right, I haven’t read the book. Meanwhile, forgive me for relying on that highly questionable source, harveysilverglate.com.

“Harvey’s forthcoming book, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, (September 2009, Encounter Books) focuses on the way in which federal criminal statutes and regulations, since the mid-1980s, have become so vague that the Department of Justice and FBI can all too easily target, prosecute, and even convict people – ordinary professionals – who have no way of knowing that their conduct might be seen as criminal.”

Silverglate’s very own website uses the term “vague” in describing these laws, but you attack me as ignorant for doing the same? Hello?

Funny, I agree with Silverglate’s premise. No longer sure where you stand though.