Monday, October 18, 2004
I have been told that the taking of the indymedia drives was not based upon the Republican National Convention and the posting of private information about the delegates (such as what hotel they were staying at during the convention or home numbers). The reason the drives were taken and returned "originated in concerns about revealing the identity of Swiss undercover police".
I do not know why the drives were taken (then returned).
The Houston indymedia center has a recording from Rackspace which states that Rackspace acted under a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) which outlines the process and grants powers between the treaty members to obtain evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country.
It further goes on that the subpoena was issued under United States Code Title 28 section 1782 "Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals" in an investigation that did not arise from the United States.
My point is that there is a balance between free speech and the effects of having free speech. The key is justice. There are various areas where this comes into play: Copyright laws -- if speech is free, why can't we plagiarize another's work?; What about someone harming another by their speech (defamation, slander, and libel)?
Another area is privacy. There are arguments for indymedia, the Swiss police, and the delegates that can be made. In the end, isn't it about protecting the individual (whether that individual is a police officer, a delegate, or a voter?).
Something to think about...
I do not know why the drives were taken (then returned).
The Houston indymedia center has a recording from Rackspace which states that Rackspace acted under a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) which outlines the process and grants powers between the treaty members to obtain evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country.
It further goes on that the subpoena was issued under United States Code Title 28 section 1782 "Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals" in an investigation that did not arise from the United States.
My point is that there is a balance between free speech and the effects of having free speech. The key is justice. There are various areas where this comes into play: Copyright laws -- if speech is free, why can't we plagiarize another's work?; What about someone harming another by their speech (defamation, slander, and libel)?
Another area is privacy. There are arguments for indymedia, the Swiss police, and the delegates that can be made. In the end, isn't it about protecting the individual (whether that individual is a police officer, a delegate, or a voter?).
Something to think about...
Comments:
Post a Comment
