Judge in Manning Wikileaks trial rules crowdfunded stenographers should get permanent court access

Discuss

9 Responses to “Judge in Manning Wikileaks trial rules crowdfunded stenographers should get permanent court access”

  1. Humbabella says:

    Judge rules that if people are willing to pay out of their own pockets to ensure an accurate record of a trial then the government must grudgingly allow it!

    Looking forward to a judge allowing us to pay for our right to free speech.

    • Luther Blissett says:

      I, for one, pay for that. It’s called taxes, embedded in a larger framework called rule of law, and even: social contract. I am willing to continue that payment, and make other amends. But then, this is a different country…

      • Humbabella says:

        I’m not sure I agree that taxes pay for free speech.  Free speech is a protection of the people from the government, so all the government has to do to protect it is not oppress people.  I know that can be really hard, but I don’t think it costs a lot of money – it may even save money!  Taxes do, however, pay for court stenographers, except when they don’t.  It’s just sickening to me that it’s a “victory” that private citizens are *allowed* to pay to record someone’s trial.

        To be honest I also live in a different country, but I see the same way of thinking increasing every day.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          I’m not sure I agree that taxes pay for free speech. Free speech is a protection of the people from the government, so all the government has to do to protect it is not oppress people.

          That would be true if the government were one guy. The federal government, such as the Supreme Court, may defend free speech against a state or local government or against another branch of the federal government.

        • Luther Blissett says:

          They actually don’t pay for free speech, but they (as Antinous points out) pay for some institutions which might guarantee the protection of free speech.

          However, the anglo-saxon understanding, and in particular the US-american understanding of the rule of law, while including the The (federal) Gouvernment as a quite dangerous force which has to be kept in checks (rather than balances, actually) is quite different from other countries. Be aware that other countries have strong institutions which keep The Gouvernment in check and balcances with the constitution. In some countries, the courts even have a history of very important ruling to strengthen the rights and the freedom of people, because passed law was considered unconstitutional.

          This it costs some money, I can assure you. Here, the parliament will have to revise several laws at the current, and matters are far from settled.

          As I see it, it boils down to common law vs. civil law. While the civil law most unambiguously failed in the end of the 19th until just after the first half 20th century, the common law seems to be quite out of control since at least 2001.
          However, the civil law system of checks and balances still can fail magnificently. Just have a news search on Hungary, if you will.

          It will be also quite interesting to observe the developments in Turkey. Detaining >50 lawyers, that ought to be quite some interesting case in court in a civil law system.  In that particular case, it will also be thrilling to see the development because the public view of the law is still influenced by Ottomanic law, but the law system itself should be based on codified Central European civil law, AFAIK. And unlike in other countries, the Government has a history to lean on the courts.

          • Humbabella says:

            I’ll admit to being a bit facetious. Obviously it costs one branch of government money to protect people from another branch of government. It sure feels like it would be more cost effective for the government to avoid violating the constitution in the first place. I know that the reality is more complicated than that, but there is still some truth in it.

        • Luther Blissett says:

           

          It’s just sickening to me that it’s a “victory” that private citizens are *allowed* to pay to record someone’s trial. 

          Agreed. :)

Leave a Reply