Monday, November 29, 2004
Vice Squad, continuing its coverage of extreme ashcroft, points to a pdf of paper by randy barnett at www.cato.org about lawrence v texas.
Extreme argues for dismissal based on Lawrence. Why bother? Well for one, it slows things down a bit, so that ashcroft will be out of the picture. For two, it plays well with those contributing to the legal defense fund. It reframes the issues as
oppressive government versus the little guy. It is a recent case with unclear boundaries. There's no possibility of sanctions; it's an argument that can be made in good faith. It sets up an appeal.
Most importantly, it promotes a meme that the defense wants to infect the jury pool with: these are americans, involved in free speech, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Ashcroft has been engaged in a war on our traditional liberties, but has been stopped by the courts because he consistently exceeds what the copnstitution allows.
Extreme needs to make sure at least one of 12 jurors gets that. I get it, at least in theory. I haven't actually seen an Extreme video all the way though. And I'm not a typical juror; my kind would be excluded from any jury pool.
Update: Ok, now I've read the Barnett. It's brilliant, by which I mean it agrees with me. It sets forth a theory that relates to what he tried to do today in oral agument in Ashcroft v Raich. Extreme is dead on to rely on Lawrence. Traditional jurisprudence asks, is this smut within the freedom of speech? No, if it's obscenity.
But Lawrence asks, is this liberty? If so, the government has to justify its regulation. And maybe if Extreme gets to the Supreme, a justification will be found, creating a bookend with Lawrence (sodomy) on one end, Extreme (smut) on the other.
Meanwhile, Lizzie Borden and Bob Black can hope for a well hung jury, or stay out of prison as the case slowly goes through the appeal process. An outright aquittal might be too much to hope for at this point.
Extreme argues for dismissal based on Lawrence. Why bother? Well for one, it slows things down a bit, so that ashcroft will be out of the picture. For two, it plays well with those contributing to the legal defense fund. It reframes the issues as
oppressive government versus the little guy. It is a recent case with unclear boundaries. There's no possibility of sanctions; it's an argument that can be made in good faith. It sets up an appeal.
Most importantly, it promotes a meme that the defense wants to infect the jury pool with: these are americans, involved in free speech, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Ashcroft has been engaged in a war on our traditional liberties, but has been stopped by the courts because he consistently exceeds what the copnstitution allows.
Extreme needs to make sure at least one of 12 jurors gets that. I get it, at least in theory. I haven't actually seen an Extreme video all the way though. And I'm not a typical juror; my kind would be excluded from any jury pool.
Update: Ok, now I've read the Barnett. It's brilliant, by which I mean it agrees with me. It sets forth a theory that relates to what he tried to do today in oral agument in Ashcroft v Raich. Extreme is dead on to rely on Lawrence. Traditional jurisprudence asks, is this smut within the freedom of speech? No, if it's obscenity.
But Lawrence asks, is this liberty? If so, the government has to justify its regulation. And maybe if Extreme gets to the Supreme, a justification will be found, creating a bookend with Lawrence (sodomy) on one end, Extreme (smut) on the other.
Meanwhile, Lizzie Borden and Bob Black can hope for a well hung jury, or stay out of prison as the case slowly goes through the appeal process. An outright aquittal might be too much to hope for at this point.
Comments:
Post a Comment
