More on the Siobhan Reynolds Case

Monday, November 8th, 2010

Jacob Sullum has the latest.

This case ought to outrage anyone who claims to give a damn about the First Amendment. It’s hard to think of a more dire example of government censorship than for it to (a) use the criminal justice system to harass someone who speaks out against what she believes to be government abuses, and then (b) use the same system to silence her and her advocates from publicly discussing the harassment.

Seems like there’s a parallel here with the state secrets cases. The Obama administration has gone beyond arguing that the initial acts are well within the government’s power. It’s also arguing that the government should have the power to prevent anyone from talking about or knowing about them.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

18 Responses to “More on the Siobhan Reynolds Case”

  1. #1 |  Joe | 

    This is as outrageous as Amanda Cox getting charged with defamation and perjury for raising a defense.

  2. #2 |  Joe | 

    Knox. My bad. More coffee.

  3. #3 |  Joe | 

    Slander charges

  4. #4 |  Judas Peckerwood | 

    Words fail me. Why does anyone even pretend that we have a government based on the Constitution anymore?

  5. #5 |  Joseph Stalin | 

    What’s the big deal? I don’t see anything wrong with this.

  6. #6 |  Dante | 

    To: The wag calling himself Joseph Stalin.

    You owe me a new keyboard, as I just spewed coffee all over mine after reading your post, then seeing your screen name, then laughing.

  7. #7 |  JS | 

    hahaha…that was me, sorry about that.

  8. #8 |  qwints | 

    I, too, did a double take. Well done.

  9. #9 |  Cynical in CA | 

    I was going to post that I read the amicus brief via a link in the comments at the Reason article, but since I don’t want to risk being held in contempt of court, I conveniently forgot I ever saw it there. I now only have the vaguest memory of the experience at all, kind of like a tingling sensation in my toes, and I know I didn’t read the brief.

    OT, but related to the Blue Wall of Silenceā„¢:

    http://www.modestoanarcho.org/2010/11/sacramento-police-kill-as-more.html

    Looks like there might be a segment of law enforcement that actually has 100% human DNA, though I do reserve judgment on that.

  10. #10 |  SJE | 

    Perhaps its time to break out the 1960s civil disobedience model. Siobhan Reynolds and everyone involved in the case simulataneously releases everything that they know, go to jail, until the embarrasment forces the judge to reverse himself. That, or release all the evidence via wikileaks

  11. #11 |  awp | 

    I thought “double secret probation” was just a joke on animal house.

  12. #12 |  Joe | 

    Nice JS. He was of course one of the bad joes.

  13. #13 |  JS | 

    Joe “Nice JS. He was of course one of the bad joes.”

    There are no bad joes my friend! Well, not since him anyway. Ok maybe Lieberman…

  14. #14 |  sigh | 

    They can’t toss you in jail unless you let them. They can kill you, but arrest requires some measure of cooperation.

    It should be obvious at this point that complying with their demands and complaining isn’t doing any good.

  15. #15 |  Geoffb | 

    One thing I’ve seen nowhere is an explicit rationale for why secrecy is justified in this case in the first place. This hasn’t been in the reporting, follow-ups, blogs, etc.

    Radley, can you fill in some of the details here? Why would this be targeted for secrecy to begin with?

  16. #16 |  markm | 

    Isn’t it obvious? Secrecy is needed to prevent the prosecutor and judge from being exposed to the public as asses.

  17. #17 |  Toastrider | 

    I suspect markm has it right. I can imagine the judge furiously trying to get someone, ANYONE to back down before this goes public.

  18. #18 |  November 23 roundup | 

    […] Updates on prosecutorial silencing of pain treatment activist Siobhan Reynolds [Sullum, more, yet more, Balko] […]

Leave a Reply