Captain Ed reports
on new developments in the Lefkow killing. The original suspect
in that killing was a man named Matthew Hale, a white-supremacist whom
the judge had ruled against in the past. New reports are
indicating that it was a man in another set of cases from that same
judge, which just goes to show that even a medical malpractice case
that goes against you might be grounds, in someone's mind, for
murder. It's tough being a judge.
But the Captain closes with the following comment:
Hale may find himself off the hook for this case, but he still needs to answer for the attempt to smuggle out coded messages to his drooling toadies followers. I doubt Hale just wanted to exchange season's greetings with his gang of racists. (via CQ reader Jim)
exactly wrong. No one should have to "answer" for their speech,
whether or not anyone else can understand it. The right to free
speech is meaningless without the right to speak in code. If
someone can be punished for speaking in a language his captors do not
understand, absent any other crime for which there is separate proof of
participation, then how are we to prevent the police from claiming any
odd or unusual statement is "coded"? Are we to believe the police
when they claim a statement can be decoded into "Kill this person"
rather than "Hi Mom, send cookies"? What about people who
habitually use encryption to send and receive email, whether they have
anything secret to say or not?
Coded speech is still speech, even for criminals. While we can
attempt to prevent those presently imprisoned from communicating with
their followers, we cannot in good conscience punish them for wishing
to do so in code.
This entry was published Sat Sep 24 10:43:35 CDT 2005 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2005-09-24 10:43:35.0.