
Barrett Brown Taken Back into Custody Before PBS Interview - kushti
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/27/formerly-imprisoned-journalist-barrett-brown-taken-back-into-custody-before-pbs-interview/
======
1001101
In other news... US ranked #43 for press freedom by Reporters Without Borders.
[https://rsf.org/en/ranking](https://rsf.org/en/ranking)

~~~
tptacek
Unsurprisingly, the US is in the "Fairly Good" bracket on RSF's index. This is
despite the fact that it has a lower "abuse" score, which is based on
documented incidents and not survey results, than Germany, the largest
European country with "Good" status.

If you read the 87-question RSF survey, you'll see that it's pretty unlikely
that the US will ever break into the top "Good" bracket, despite the fact that
we don't have state control of the media (some "Good" countries, including
Belgium, actually _license_ journalists), the fact that we lead the world in
the education of journalists (I'm not making a big deal about that --- the
questionnaire does), and the fact that virtually everyone who wants to
function as an online journalist has adequate internet access; the
questionnaire is also full of subjective questions that have more to do with
assessments by journalists of the culture. So regardless of the status of our
laws, the fact that journalists fear cultural reputational damage for
challenging power, for instance, is going to weight the US down.

Expect the score to drop precipitously next year, by the way: the
questionnaire directly asks, in multiple questions, whether the government
attempts to discredit the media.

I think the Trump administration is a travesty and that their treatment of the
press is actually a significant indicator of how much of a travesty it is. But
it's frustrating that the hallmark of a truly free press is its ability to
continue functioning _despite_ brickbats thrown from the administration. Our
free press will be challenged in the next few years as it hasn't been
challenged for many decades prior, and I expect our system will persevere.
Despite that fact, our RSF score will drop as a result of us weathering those
challenges.

So, I'm not a fan of the RSF methodology or really of any of these indices.
But if you look at the underlying data I think you'll see that "ranked #43"
isn't as interesting as it sounds.

------
tptacek
There is no plausible set of circumstances in which Brown would have faced
"100 years in prison". The press (and the DOJ) arrive at these false
prospective sentencing claims by taking every individual count and adding them
up. But that's not how federal sentencing works: under the sentencing
guidelines, like charges group, and the sentence applying to the most severe
charge defines the sentence. The severity of a sentence will have to do with a
defined set of factors, including previous criminal history, actual harm done,
remunerative intent, &c.

For more on this topic, Google "Popehat whale sushi".

~~~
deepnet
Popehat's math is lengthy - suggesting the sushi chef would get 2 years
instead of 67.

By a similar ratio Brown would have got less than the 5 years he got with a
plea deal.

If so, why did he take a plea deal and lose his day in court ? Was it just bad
advice ?

[edit]Was Brown prosecuted : because of the severity of his crime; because he
was easier to catch; or because he was embarrassing the powerful ?[/edit]

[edited]Whatever one's opinion of Brown, he certainly is a journalist and the
Intercept is right to draw attention to his censoring and investigate if it is
politically motivated or simply the result of a miscommunication about the
forms he was given.[/edit]

~~~
tptacek
We can read the indictment, stipulate that every claim in the indictment held
up at trial, research his criminal history, and then match that up to the
guidelines, which are easily Google-able. I don't know, and haven't done this
analysis, but I doubt it's 10 years.

What I do know is that it's _not_ 100 years, and that The Intercept isn't
actually informing you of anything when they claim it is. You're no closer to
understanding the severity of the charges he was facing after reading this
article.

 _The parent comment was completely rewritten after I responded to it. I have
no idea what the answer to whatever the current version of the question they
're trying to ask is._

~~~
deepnet
Apologies for the editing, very bad form on my part and thank you for taking
the time to answer - I added edit tags to the additions.

It certainly puts a different light on things that he took a plea for 5 years
instead of fighting it and risking 10, [edit] rather than 100.[/edit]

I will contact the journalist with Popehat's work.

------
droopyEyelids
Man. I remember growing up reading books about Nazi Germany and Russia where
they had two classes of prisoner in their jails, political prisoners and
'common' prisoners (thieves, etc)

It sure feels fucking _crazy_ to think the US has political prisoners in its
own jails now.

~~~
tptacek
For as long as the US has had prisons, it has had prisoners who claimed to be
held for political reasons, and supporters who acknowledged and amplified
those claims. Sometimes those claims are almost certainly true, as anyone
who's spent any time volunteering with Amnesty surely knows. Other times, they
are not. Barrett Brown would certainly prefer you to look at his conviction as
politically motivated. But there's a lot of things Brown would like you to
believe that are probably false.

~~~
moomin
Indeed, read up on Assata Shakur (I'm not even remotely qualified to discuss
whether or not AS _was_ a political prisoner, but certainly such a controversy
existed, and she's still living in Cuba)

Equally, from the bugging of Martin Luther King to the Committee on Unamerican
Activities, it is inarguable that the government does sometimes take direct
action against those whose views it regards as dangerous.

