

Blogger’s Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions - ojbyrne
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/bloggers-incarceration-raises-first-amendment-questions.html

======
cromwellian
I obviously think this guy has a right to publish on his blog. But the story
paints him as a kook who shot himself in the foot.

Even if you are 100% right, you don't represent yourself in court, and you
certainly don't insult the judge or court. This is the quickest way to lose
your case. If he's lucky, his courtroom trolling may have provoked the judge
into overstepping the law and it'll be tossed out.

~~~
nate_meurer
I agree, however it's important to emphasize that neither self-representation
nor insulting the judge are crimes (outside of the disturbingly gray area of
contempt).

Even among Mr Shuler's defenders there is widespread recognition that he has
potentially crossed the line into defamation on more than one occasion. That's
not the problem. The problem is what appears to be a lack of due process so
far. Quoting the article and the illustrious Ken White:

"But Mr. White and others say that before a judge can take the step of banning
speech, libel must be proved at trial, or at least over a litigation process
more involved than a quick succession of hearings, with the only evidence
presented by the plaintiffs."

------
rosser
The Ken White mentioned in the article is the Ken White behind Popehat,
articles from which have frequently shown up on the HN front page
(particularly during the Prenda Law saga).

~~~
eli
Indeed here are his posts on this case: [http://www.popehat.com/tag/roger-
shuler/](http://www.popehat.com/tag/roger-shuler/)

------
aspensmonster
>There, in the company of jailed reporters in China, Iran and Egypt, is Mr.
Shuler, the only person on the list in the Western Hemisphere.

Their list is out of date then.

[http://freebarrettbrown.org/](http://freebarrettbrown.org/)

------
higherpurpose
Whoever is defending this needs to talk about the "act of journalism", and say
how in the digital age everyone can commit "acts of journalism" without having
a "journalist job" or belonging to a "journalism association", which in the
digital age/21st century are starting to become obsolete notions.

But even without this sort of defense, he should still have the right to free
speech that everyone in US gets.

~~~
anonymouscowar1
Oh, this guy is an asshole, and what he writes definitely falls into a
defamation and slander. The First amendment doesn't protect this kind of
speech.

The problem isn't that he's being punished by the courts, it's that he's
seeing indefinite jail time just for opening his mouth. There is a crime here,
but the punishment doesn't fit it.

~~~
eli
Err, I don't think defamation or slander are criminal

~~~
xarball
Agreed, I'm pretty sure those fall under civil court?

~~~
AmVess
Criminal contempt of court can take place during a civil or criminal trial.

------
coldcode
Or insanity questions.

~~~
grecy
The insane have no right to free speech?

~~~
nwhitmore
If they have 1st Amendment rights, do they also have 2nd Amendment rights?

~~~
rosser
Neither the 1st nor the 2nd Amendment confer _absolute_ rights. Hence,
convicted felons (typically) can't own firearms, and "incitement to violence"
isn't considered "speech".

~~~
Daniel_Newby
The first amendment confers no rights; it restricts congress. The second
amendment confers absolute rights; the restrictions on, say, youths and felons
are blatantly unconstitutional.

~~~
sliverstorm
Youths have basically no rights as far as the constitution is concerned.

~~~
tptacek
No.

~~~
sliverstorm
That was helpful, thank you.

