🚀 go-pugleaf

In <CnDtq2.JBu@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:

>but i think that that fight should be tempered by respect for what
>information needs to be spread widely, and what should be kept private.

I do not disagree with you here. Where I do disagree with you is
whether public scrutiny of the behavior of the executive and judicial
branches in a court of law is desirable, and whether the courts should
be given such a broad mandate to squelch information which would allow
such scrutiny, prurient details or no.

>what purpose does it serve to have people spreading the nasty details of
>the holmonka trial?

Its good practice. There are so few test cases for violating the idea
of soverign control of information.

>spreading this information around serves no purpose but to titilate(sp?)
>the public.

So?

Homolka and Teal were arrested by the state, and the citizens should
have the right to scrutinize the state's behavior, and shouldn't have
to give a reason for wanting to do so.

>freedom of information zealots are pushing this issue for no good reason
>than the fact that the court tried to keep the details secret.

When one is a freedom of information zealot, that is reason enough.

>i wish these same zealots would push for full, unencumbered access to
>the information related to JFK and Iran/Contra.

We're trying. Instead of complaining that we haven't succeeded yet,
give us a hand. We've helped you break the Homolka-Teal ban, why don't
you send info across the border that our Government doesn't want us to
have?

-- 
Clay Shirky