Caught in a bizarre Catch-22, Dan Wheeler may spend the rest of his life suffering the consequences.  Via Radley Balko, KING5  reports:

It has been a nightmare for Dan Wheeler for 15 years. It started with his wallet being stolen from his truck, and his identity stolen. Usually the trouble that follows has to do with bank or credit fraud, but Wheeler says his identity was stolen by a sex offender who was arrested and used Wheeler’s name as an alias. 

“It’s been absolutely miserable,” said Wheeler.

About five years ago the Port Orchard man was stopped for making an illegal left turn.

“The officer told me to get out of the car and I was under arrest,” said Wheeler.  “I asked why and he said I was a wanted sex offender. I couldn’t believe it.” 

Since then, Wheeler has been fighting desperately to get his identity back.  He has a difficult timing getting any kind of job that involves a background check, and was recently rejected as a foster parent — all because of a case of stolen identity. 

“I’ve been to police and prosecutors and they all tell me there’s nothing that can be done,” said Wheeler. 

It’s not that there’s nothing that can be done, but nothing that either police or prosecutors, or anyone else in government apparently, is willing to do.  A critical distinction. 

With a few taps on a computer, Dan Wheeler’s identify, and the alias of the sex offender, can be removed from the sex offender registry forever.  The problem is that the people with the authority to remove this stigma, burden, impairment, nightmare, won’t do it.  They won’t because that means that the sex offender who stole his identity might get away with something.  We can’t have that.  Better to wreak havoc with the life of an innocent man, even deny him the opportunity to be a foster parent, lest some sex offender get away with something.

The underlying problem could fall under a number of rubrics, whether better that 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned, or perhaps safety versus freedom.  But the solution to the problem, easy at it may be, depends entirely on the sensibilities of those with the power.

 A spokesman for the Washington State Patrol, which handles the State Sex Offenders Database, says when someone is arrested and uses an alias, that alias is kept on file forever.  The concern is that if authorities delete the alias, the criminal could go back to using it again.

True indeed, and we certainly can’t have that.  So Dan Wheeler’s life will forever subject to this?  Hey, that’s the price we pay for safety, even if it’s only against a potential threat to safety.  Safety first.  Safety above all else.  Really, don’t you want to be safe?  Of course you do, especially when it’s only some guy named Dan Wheeler who has to pay the price for it.  After all, you don’t even know him and it’s not like the misery of this stupidity would affect your life at all.

This seems like another fine opportunity to turn to Phil Ochs.

Via Bruce Carton at Legal Blog Watch, a fascinating question arose at the Consumerist  about whether a retailer has the authority to stop a patron who has purchased and paid for goods on the way out of the store and demand that the shopper provide his receipt for inspection.

The question arose from a poster who was stopped at Ikea.

I was shopping at the [redacted] IKEA today and after going through the self check out a man not in any uniform (Ikea or otherwise) asked to see my receipt. What he said was ” I need to see your receipt.”

I complied and after about a minute I said, “you have another 10 seconds and then I am leaving.” He replied with “you will let me finish.” I demanded my receipt and he told me that “if you do not let me check you could be arrested”. Needless to say I became irate and demanded both my receipt and a manager. He refused to give me the receipt and then pointed to a phone on the cashier podium and said “you can call the manager yourself.”

That the shopper is obliged to pay for his purchases is without question, but the routine inspection post payment is another matter. 

[Caveat: Given the enormous difficulty some readers/commenters have had lately in focusing on the point of the post, I’m constrained to make a few things clear:  First, clearly the most expedient thing for the shopper to do was be compliant, do as he was told and then walk away.  That’s neither in issue nor the point.  The question is whether the store has any right to make the demand, detain the buyer and refuse to give him back his receipt and allow him to walk away unmolested.  Second, while the propriety of having a person not in uniform make the demand is a real question, raising a number of issues, the focus of the post is elsewhere.  Let it go, no matter how critically important you think it is.  If you can’t, start your own blog to discuss it.  Third, even though you might think the shopper behaved poorly, that too isn’t relevant.  People are allowed to behave poorly and are still entitled to rights, even if you don’t think they should be. Again, if you can’t let that go, go elsewhere. Focus.]

The shopkeeper’s privilege permits a store to challenge someone. for whom there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that he has stolen something, from leaving the premises.  But the scenario above is a routine, without any individualized suspicion of theft and applicable to all. 

As noted at the Consumerist, membership stores, such as Costco and BJ’s, have shoppers sign an agreement, and the agreement may include consent to be stopped and required to show a receipt for goods purchased.

But Ikea is not a membership store.  Nor are the other Big Box stores, such as Home Depot and Best Buys.  What authority do they have to demand that any shopper for whom there is no individualized suspicion stop and prove that they paid?  What authority do they have to detain a person for a second, a minute or otherwise? 

Some comments at the Consumerist suggested that the original poster should have called the police.  Experience suggests that the police will, invariably, side with the store, both as a matter of bias and due to a lack of viable understanding that stores don’t have the authority to do as they please.  To suggest that the recalcitrant shopper call the police is to beg for an arrest.  Not the choice most people would prefer.

Retailers become increasingly emboldened to craft “rules” that consumers are “required” to follow, without either constitutional limitation or any meaningful recourse, and consumers have become increasingly sheep-like in their willingness to comply with the demands of “authority”, notwithstanding the absence of any actual authority to make the demand.  While most of the posts here address the indignities imposed by the government, what about those we endure at the hand of private entities?

The stream is nearly never-ending, with at least a story a day to remind those of us who desperately want to believe that we have not dedicated our professional careers to a world run by the ignorant and the insane.  Every once in a while, however, stories arise that are just too absurd to ignore.  Today is such a day.

Reason 194, Only Criminals Will Buy Pontiacs

Via the Inquisitor, a fellow was stopped in his factory standard Pontiac G8 and ticketed for having illegal tail lights.

The judge actually told me she didn’t care what the manufacturer said, what the federal govt said, what the DOT # stamped onto my taillights said if the officer says my lights aren’t legal then they’re not legal. I took the G8 sales brochure in along with pics of my car and other G8 GT’s and the VIN trace by 3 different dealers saying my lights were factory none of it mattered she found me guilty of failing to display or reflect red light on the rear of the car. Didn’t matter the reflectors were in the bumper, didn’t matter where the light is has that little red circle, the whole lens isn’t red so they’re not legal. Also where the back-up and turn signals are should be the reflectors according to the cop so the V6 cars lights aren’t legal either.

Judge stupid went on to tell me that maybe I should consider trading in or selling the car since its not legal in MD and that I’m going to continue to get the $60 tickets till I get rid of the car.

While there are many variables in law, often requiring judges to think really, really hard about things before issuing a decision, this isn’t one of them.  I know, the cop said so and you’re a judge and have to validate whatever a cop says.  Really, it’s a dilemma.  Yet there are limits, say like the Interstate Commerce Clause, which prevents a state from criminalizing a car design feature that’s been approved by the DOT.  Even Maryland has to go along with it.  Didn’t it strike you as kinda weird that Pontiac was part of this tail light criminal conspiracy?  Even a little bit?

Reason 195, There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Via Fox6 in Shorewood, Wisconsin, another child predator taken off the streets.

Ava Hernandez got a disturbing voicemail message from the Assistant Principal of Shorewood High School in March. Her 15-year-old brother Adam has been taken into police custody.

Adam was accused of stealing chicken nuggets from a $2.60 meal. Those are the nuggets his friend, Gakaree Garner, gave to him. Garner says, “Although that month I was fasting so I couldn’t eat meat, and we had chicken nuggets that day.”

Garner gave the nuggets to Adam, who got in the lunch line to get some sauce for them. According to Garner and the police report the cafeteria cashier told the Assistant Principal Adam stole the chicken nuggets. The Assistant Principal then told the police officer in the school, who called a squad car. Garner says, “They actually put him in handcuffs, and actually tried to force him into the car.”

But he didn’t steal the nuggets, you say?  Hah!

Ava Hernandez says, “They were like, ‘Well do you know that friend receives federally free lunch?’, and I said, ‘I do now.’, and they said, ‘Well, it’s illegal to share a free lunch so either way Adam was breaking the law’.”

The article neglects to mention whether the lunch lady tackled Adam to the ground and beat him to a pulp, lest he abscond with the nuggets and destroy the evidence.  But before anyone jumps into the fray to offer their pro bono services, the power of the media has already had its influence.

After garnering media attention the Shorewood Police Chief and High School Principal decided to withdraw the theft charges against Adam Hernandez, thus canceling scheduled court proceedings.

That leaves only federal authorities to right this wrong. 

So here’s the point, lest anyone read this far and not see any problem.  Judges, cops, even a high school principal, are nice, reasonably educated folks who are given power over others and entrusted to use it with a modicum of intelligence, thought and discretion.  They aren’t expected to be perfect.  Not even pretty swift. Just not fall below the level one would require of a brick.  And we can’t seem to manage this.

[Rhetorical question warning]  This is a nation of about 300 million people.  Can’t we find smarter people than this in whom to repose great power?

Update:  Via Radley Balko, the fathers of the Chicago suburb of Elmhurt will not tolerate their daughters’ eye rolling at a public meeting.

Elmhurst officials are considering creating a “disturbance and disorderly conduct” violation after a resident accused of rolling her eyes and sighing was ejected from a public meeting.

Ald. Stephen Hipskind said Darlene Heslop rolled her eyes and sighed while attending a June 14 committee meeting.

City Attorney Don Storino has been directed by the city’s finance and council affairs committee to look at various sources including “Robert’s Rules of Order,” Illinois state statutes and policies adopted by other municipalities for a legal definition of disorderly conduct and disruptive behavior.

Heslop also sighed at the meeting.  First eye rolling, then sighing.  What’s next?  Asking questions?  This plague of criminal behavior must be stopped before all the children are shooting heroin.  But the big question is whether the City Attorney will be able to complete his research in time.

H/T Pontiac G8 and reasonableness aficionado, Colin Samuel

There’s nothing really new about social media, but for newcomers, it’s a wonderful world of miraculous opportunity and adventure.  New friends to be made, if not to get business then at least to provide comfort and support where it doesn’t exist amongst people who know you in real life.  It’s like being a child in a candy store, and everything is free.

For those who are old to social media, a concept that has a very different meaning than old in any other endeavor since three or four years under the belt in SM years is the equivalent of a lifetime in real life, things are a bit less exhilarating.  They’ve already gone through the stage of pretending to love all their new friends, learning that some are dumb as dirt, others are lying scum, and there there are the certifiable nutjobs.  Maybe there’s a few people who you would actually want to dine with in person.

No, for the old-timers, the thrill goes quickly.  It used to be a few months.  Now it’s a miracle if the newest, shiniest thing can hold your interest for a week.  After that, a new fix is needed.  From this need is born the surest sign that excess indulgence in Social Media causes the death of sensibility, the  Bold & Digital Men of Social Media.

Anyone can be bold. Anyone can be digital. Being bold AND digital is a dedicated lifestyle. I (Libby) started talking about Bold and Digital matters about two years ago at my place of employment, Edelman Digital. The concept quickly evolved into the “bold and digital humanitarian” awards which were bestowed upon colleagues that exhibited amazing bold and digital qualities.

This space is dedicated to the latest venture of the Bold and Digitals – The first ever Men of Social Media Calendar for 2011.

Yes, get ’em while they’re hot.  Who doesn’t want to stare at Chris Brogan for a month?  Isn’t he staring at you?

Think this is twisted?  Well, the Bold and Digital thought they came up with this stroke of genius, only to be informed that they are not only not the first, but actually third on this brainstorm.

When I was in college, Playboy decided to do a feature called Girls Women of the Ivy League.  It was scandalous, replete with protests and outrage.  These weren’t women who took being objectified lightly, except for that surprisingly large group that showed up to be selected for the feature wearing dark sunglasses so their friends wouldn’t learn of their betrayal to the cause.  As it turned out, the scandal was far more fun than the feature, which was another shoot of women without clothes.  To those of us on campus, it came as no surprise that there were some very attractive women who were extremely intelligent. 

One of the most important attributes of the blogosphere and twitter is that it’s the great equalizer.  You can be someone you are, someone you’re not, or nobody.  Many of the “isms” that plague society’s perceptions can be swept away with a keystroke.  Letters on a screen won’t disclose your skin color or weight, gender or shoe size.  Provided you avoid making your normative views the message, you can be anybody you want to be and let your ideas rise or fall on their own.

Perhaps there are some studly fellows in social media.  To the extent it’s not merely a reflection of men (and women) who have embraced a computer for lack of a warm body willing to embrace them, there’s a decent chance that there are some geeks who have abs worth a second take, just as there were beautiful women in the Ivy League happy to betray current feminist sensibilities.

Is there a reason to take social media down this path?  Maybe a handful of people will respond, “hey, it;s just some fun. Chill out.”  But I don’t think it’s being done as a goof, which would be fine with me.   No, this is some bizarre variant on Revenge of the Nerds, a fantasy of the outcasts come true.  The sexiness of google pagerank on glossy paper, weight issues and pocket protectors thrown to the wind.

Given that social media has given rise to its own class of glitterati, proclaiming themselves “social media rock stars” because amorphous wannabes flock around anyone they think can enhance their Technorati rating, and they’ve run out of posts entitled “The 10 Most Important Though Obvious Things I’ve Posted About 72 Times Before,” something as incredibly ridiculous as this was bound to happen.  That doesn’t mean it’s not absurd and potentially the end of sexual desire as we know it.

Social media has hit a new low.  Robert Scoble will not be the next George Clooney. 

H/T Brian Tannebaum, who keeps a finger on the pulse of Social Media

Fortunately, the cruiser was unharmed.

Inquiring minds want to know, what type of tissue is issued to New York City police officers? 

Via Grits for Breakfast, at the hand of Rick Casey at the Houston Chron  :

During the closed-door session in which the 13-member commission debated what sanction it should give Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, one non-lawyer member of the commission opined that Keller should be commended for saving the state money by blocking the appeal. 

I mean, seriously, isn’t it bad enough we have to try ’em before we fry ’em?

A few days ago, the notion was raised that courthouses, the place where citizen jurors come to decide the fates citizen defendants, create an atmosphere that places officers in charge and on a pedestal.  We pass through magnetometers operated by marshals or court officers.  We watch as police officers roam freely, shown deference by everyone in the house because they are, after all, the embodiment of the government. 

Eric Johnson at PrawfsBlawg takes it further.

In many places around the country, the United States Attorney’s office is in the same building as the federal courts. I’ve never liked this arrangement. Sure, it’s convenient. And it probably saves the taxpayers money in many cases. But in a field where much is said about “avoiding even the appearance of impropriety,” it is unseemly, I think, to have the government’s advocates down the hall from the judges.

That we don’t give this much, if any, thought demonstrates how ingrained our acceptance of the status quo, that they are the government and we are not, is.  We talk about the courthouse as a palace of justice.  The judges are the Kings, and the others are courtesans.  The defense is the perpetual outsider, seeking the largesse of the noblesse.

Why aren’t courthouses built with some available office space for criminal defense lawyers?  How do we expect jurors to be herded through the doors and around the courthouses by court officers, who appear (if not in fact are) the first cousins of the police officers we tell them are liars? 

And as the lawyers who are in the employ of the government get to assume the name of The People, a group that includes The Jurors, does the fact that they share an elevator with the judge have any impact on their credibility and purpose?

Upon reflection the entirety of the construct suggests that to people that there is an inside and an outside within the judicial system, and we, the defense, are clearly on the outside.  Notably, we are the only group not in the direct employ of the government, though we are increasingly in its indirect employ, yet still don’t get the benefit of an inside office.

A few years back, a decision was made that New York City criminal defense lawyers, who were as unworthy of trust as their clients, would be required to pass through the magnetometers like everyone else.  Everyone except cops, prosecutors and judges, that is.  It was for safety reasons.  They could be trusted.  We could not.

The president of the NYSACDL at the time, Dick Barbuto, was furious that we would be overtly signaled out as the only regular participants in the legal system who would be treated in this manner, and shot off a letter demanding the criminal defense lawyers be treated no differently than prosecutors.  The letter was not only brilliant in its incisive analysis of the situation, but incredibly forceful in its demand of the court administration that criminal defense lawyers not be treated like second (or third) class citizens.  within a few days, the administration relented, the policy ended and criminal defense lawyers were allowed to enter with their secure pass, as before.

While I’ve long used the word “prosecution” to refer to my adversary, rather than “People” or “Government”, to avoid the taint that comes from the inherent sense that they represent the good while I represent the person accused of doing terrible harm, there are so many aspects of the courthouse construct that serve to reinforce the message that they are the trusted insiders and we, well, are not.

While there are, as Eric Johnson suggests, some sound economic and safety reasons for the status quo, there are also some subtle, and not so subtle, messages that are sent along with it.  These might be considered unintended consequences of the natural development of the criminal justice system, but it’s not entirely clear that they are unintended.  It’s also not quite clear that once recognized and challenged, anyone in power will lose any sleep over it.

At a time when so many Gen Y are hiding from unemployment beneath their law school desks, it raises the question: What’s wrong with working for a living?  From the Pittsburgh Review-Tribune :

One 29-year-old fellow in Washington, D.C. — he has a degree from Notre Dame — considered going to law school, like many others in the lawyer-saturated town.

After watching his friends work long hours as paralegals — and watching his lawyer pals sign their lives over to their firms — he did something sensible.

He became an electrician’s apprentice.

What’s wrong with that?  It will break your mother’s heart?  She’s not going to live your life.  

There’s a tacit classism that permeates the American dream, that we start out working with our hands and end up working with our minds.  We climb the ladder of success by becoming educated, putting on a suit and tie and, eventually, spending our days uttering words while others listen with rapt attention.  At the end of this day, however, no house is built, no food is grown, not even a light turns on.

This isn’t to say there’s anything wrong with education or learned professions, but that there isn’t anything from plumbing or carpentry either.  Why one became a career of a higher order than another isn’t exactly clear, but it’s become so ingrained in our society that few thinks twice about it. We even distinguish criminal defense lawyers by collar color.

The shift happened over many years, of course. Industrialization moved Americans to the cities and, gradually, to paper-pushing jobs in the service industry.

Now we’re a country of white-collar snobs with an underdeveloped understanding of how things work.

The snobbery starts in high school. Parents and guidance counselors both point kids toward college and white-collar careers — they save the blue-collar careers for the kids whose grades aren’t so hot.

It makes no sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that people who would find success, and satisfaction, working with their hands as well as their minds are indoctrinated into believing that they are failures if they don’t get the degree and put it to its “highest and best use.”  Creating something of beauty, something that works, something that helps people to satisfy their needs, apparently, is viewed as a waste.  This is a shame.

A skilled laborer earns more than many lawyers do — and likely enjoys his work more. Show me a dozen lawyers and I’ll show you 11 people who have considered driving a cab for a living.

Skilled laborers are good for our country — white-collar folks are not always so good.

We have lawyers.  Lots and lots of lawyers.  And middle managers. And management trainees.  And kids sitting on the couch in their parents’ basement with very expensive degrees and a bag of Cheetos.  We don’t need more.  We need people who can create things with actual skills. 

It may not be for you. Or it may be exactly what brings you fulfillment, not to mention a good living and that balanced lifestyle you’ve been craving.  It’s not too late.  Your mother will get over it, but if you allow yourself to be pushed into a career that neither suits you nor has room for you, just because it’s what society deems a “success”, you may not.

There’s nothing wrong with good, honest work.  Nothing.

H/T Kathleen Casey

It was about 25 years ago when I first met William.  Our relationship began by my questioning him, asking if he was going to be good enough for me.  I know, but I was much older then.  Williams response was to tell me that I was free to go elsewhere.  I stayed.

William was the proprietor of the Chinese Shirt Laundry.  Not dry cleaners.  Shirt laundry, where they only washed shirts.  You have two sets of choices.  Starch or no starch.  Folded or hanger.  My choice was heavy starch and hanger.  A shirt without a well-pressed collar looked wrong.  Without the starch, the collar would bend and curl.  Wrong.  Sure, the starch was a little hard on the neck, but that was the price one paid for dressing properly.  I never thought twice about it.

When William decided that he would wash my shirts, my insolence forgiven, he gave me a letter.  K.  It was written in indelible ink on the collar of my shirts.  No name.  No monogram.  No multiple letters and numbers combination.  Just one letter, K.  It was always K since then.

In the beginning, I would bring in shirts once a week and pick up my clean shirts.  Over time, wearing a suit to the office fell out of fashion.  When it wasn’t necessary, I wore a sports shirt, open collar and neck unstarched.  It eventually became about once a month.  Sometimes less.

I both liked and respected William.  He was a good guy, and he did a heck of a job on my collars.  Over the years, he was always at the counter.  Whether it was me or my wife, William knew to pull out my shirts when he saw us about to come through the door.  He knew which shirts they were.  They were K.  Always K.

It’s been more than a month since I took my shirts to William.  Between the heat and circumstance, I just didn’t have enough shirts to bother.  They can wait until it’s worth the trip.  When I arrived, William wasn’t there.  There was a young woman where William stood.  I asked about him, concerned that he might not be well.

“No, he’s fine.  He just retired.” 

There’s no justification for this, but I was annoyed.  He hadn’t told me.  It’s not like he should have told me, but after 25 years, I would have liked to hear it from his mouth.  Too late, however.  He was gone.  The young woman was his niece, and she had taken over the business.  I handed her my shirts.

“Oh, you’re K,” she said.  “You have some shirts here,” and she proceeded to pull a bunch of shirts off the rack.  They had a size 19 neck.  Mine is a 16.  But on the size 19 neck, I saw it.  The letter K.  My letter K.  On someone else’s collar.

For a while in the 90s, I was afraid that William was going to pack it in.  People stopped wearing suits and ties, and nobody without a suit and tie needs a laundered shirt with a starched collar.  Then there were the kids, who couldn’t care less if their collars were properly pressed or curled.  It didn’t seem likely that there were enough people who cared about their shirts to sustain William.  Yet he survived.  After the dotcom crash, William was still there.  As was I.  His K.

William’s niece asked me what I wanted to do about the K.  I asked her what she meant.  She asked whether I wanted to use my initials, or name, or something else.  I told her that I’m K.  I’ve been K for 25 years and, as far as I’m concerned, I’ll be K until I join William.  She took my shirts. 

There’s another K in town now.  A new K.  With a much bigger neck.  Now that William is gone, my K will be gone as well.

He was a good man, that William.  And I will miss my K.  I hope he taught his niece how to do collars.

To outsiders, the issue may appear trivial, even silly, but to Dead Sea Scrolls scholars, it is all-consuming.  And rather than chuckle at the vehemence with which these academics thrusted and parried, and took their stabs where they could find them, the New York County District Attorney has chosen instead to pick sides in this arcane debate by prosecuting Raphael Golb. 

What makes this significant to the rest of us is that his crime is sending out emails and writing blog posts under false names, sockpuppets, to bolster one side and attack the others.  If this is criminal, half the internet has committed a capital offence.

The story is convoluted and nuanced, as almost anything involving academics tends to be, but boiled down to its basics, Norman Golb, Raphael’s father, a University of Chicago professor, was the leading proponent of the “Jerusalem Libraries” theory of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contends that the scrolls were hidden by various libraries in Jerusalem as the Romans laid seige to the city in the year 70. 

The prevailing theory, that the scrolls were created by a sect called the Essenes, thought to have lived near the Qumran caves where the scrolls were found, is favored by Christian scholars and supported by the “monopoly” in possession of the scrolls.  Lawrence Schiffman, head of Judaic Studies at NYU, was a leader of the “Qumran-sectarianists” and Golb’s academic nemesis.  If you want to know more about the details of the respective theories, look it up, but this makes naked mud-wrestling look tame.  Seriously.

As Jim Dwyer described it in the New York Times,

Mr. Golb is, or was, a guerrilla fighter in a cyberbrawl over the Dead Sea Scrolls, a war about the origins of 2,000-year-old documents that has consumed the energy of academics around the globe.

He was being arrested for fighting dirty.

Mr. Golb is 49 years old and had 50 e-mail aliases. He used pseudonyms to post on blogs. Under the name of a professor he was trying to undermine, prosecutors charged, Mr. Golb wrote a quasi confession to plagiarism and circulated it among students and officials at New York University.

The point of all this nonsense was to influence the academic debate, for Golb to have his father’s theory taken seriously and allowed to be heard amidst the “monopoly” clatter.  Mind you, Schiffman was busy ridiculing and attacking Golb as well.

So Raphael Golb wrote.  And wrote and wrote.  Using plenty of names to suggest that there was a strong following in support of his father.  The other side played the same game.  The difference was that Golb created gmail accounts and sent out emails, and one of the names he used was Lawrence Schiffman, and the emails were sent to Schiffman’s grad students and dean, suggesting that he had committed plagiarism in an article.  A First Amendment and substantive grounds, arguing against this effort to criminalize the speech in the emails, and contort this nasty academic fight into a fraud as if monetary gain was involved, to no avail.   But the implications of this prosecution on internet free speech are enormous, possibly as significant as those raised in the Lori Drew prosecution. 

While juvenile and generally frowned upon, the use of sockpuppets and dubious parody emails purporting to come from one’s nemesis is common in online battles.  The arguments over pseudonymous posting is a perpetual battle over responsibility and accountability, but there’s no doubt that many people feel that they can’t speak freely under their own name and feel compelled to create personas to further their agendas.  Is this criminal?  Should this be criminal?

The argument that it’s the ideas that matter rather than the names used by the proponents has long been the foundation for free speech, both on the internet and in the real world.  That Raphael Golb felt that the only way to further his father’s ideas was to present them under pseudonyms, and that he created some fake gmail accounts to send out spoof emails that no one would seriously believe came from the purported sender, may well be viewed as, well, just plain stupid and childish.  But it’s no different than the stupid and childish approaches taken by many others on the internet, who stay awake at night because “someone on the internet is wrong.”

That the prosecutors in Manhattan think this conduct is the sort that requires prosecution, however, is beyond belief.  If Schiffman thinks Golb defamed him by accusing him of plagiarism, then let him sue for libel.  But to contend this is identity theft and impersonation is ludicrous.  There’s nothing about this ugly battle online, which isn’t a whole lot different than a million other ugly battles online except the parties wear tweed, that changes this from a hot and nasty debate into a crime.

It’s long been clear that courts, from the Supremes in Washington to the Supremes on Centre Street, aren’t the most internet and tech savvy folks around.  What seems so obvious, and relatively trivial, to us can appear strange and maybe even malevolent to those who have never been party to a flame war.  But are the prosecutors in Manhattan that out of touch, that unaware, that they seriously believe this to be an appropriate prosecution and Golb a criminal threat?

“So what are you in for?”
“Sockpuppeting.”
“Oh.”

And this is all about the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Can you imagine what would happen if it was over something that happened in the last, say, 500 years?  In the meantime, all you pseudonymous posters better watch your step.  Sheesh.