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.

It’s not much of a stretch to argue that the more information government possesses about people, the easier it is to identify the perpetrators of crime.  Heck, the more power government has to do much of anything, the easier it is for government to do whatever it wants to do.  And so the argument went with the New York Stop & Frisk database.

The problem was that anybody who was stopped became a member of this less-than-exclusive club.  No crime needed.  Innocent or not.  Stopped because some cop thought you looked at him cross-eyed, no matter.  They took your info and put you into their computer under the “you-never-know” theory of policing.  Commissioner Ray Kelly thinks it’s a great idea.  So does Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Governor David Paterson, in signing a law prohibiting the maintenance of this database of the innocents, doesn’t see it that way : 

“This law does not in any way tamper with our stop-and-frisk policies,” Paterson said. “What it does is it disallows the use of personal data of innocent people who have not done anything wrong. … That is not a policy for a democracy.”

Imagine, the cops can’t collect and maintain data of the innocent.  Wild, right?  Crazy?  Putting the safety of every New Yorker at risk?  Maybe not.

Last year alone, the New York Police Department stopped 575,304 people, mostly black and Hispanic men, and recorded their names, addresses and descriptions into an electronic database. The stops are based on a standard of reasonable suspicion, lower than the standard of probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 6 percent of those stopped are arrested.

But that’s more a condemnation of the stop & frisk policy, given that 94% of those whose right to be left alone is subject to the whim of a police officer and his ability to mouth the words “furtive gesture.”   What about the post stop use of the data collected from the innocents?  Via the New York Times :

All told, the summaries provided by Mr. Kelly — the fruit of the police policy of entering into a database the names and addresses of everyone stopped on suspicion of a crime in the city’s streets, whether or not they are arrested — covered crimes dating to 2005. City police officers have made roughly 2.5 million of what are known as stop-and-frisk street encounters since then.

The examples Mr. Kelly provided included 170 cases from all five boroughs, mostly from the last 18 months, for at least 17 murders, 8 sex crimes, 36 robberies and 67 burglaries. An arrest resulted in most, but not all of the cases, the documents show.

From the Kelly side of the equation, this proves that the database of the innocents is working, as 170 cases were solved.  But Gov. Paterson was looking at it through the eyes of the 2.5 million people stopped and frisked, whose information would reside in perpetuity in the bowels of a police server, and found this showing insufficient.

A look at these 170 cases shows instances where the stop-and-frisk data clearly did assist investigators in tracking down perpetrators. In many cases, the data provided shortcuts that speeded investigations along, such as providing hangouts of a known suspect or the names and addresses of potential witnesses known to frequent a location where a crime occurred.

But in many of the cases, it was hard to determine how helpful the data was in solving crimes, because the information provided to the governor was, in his words, “at best inconclusive.”

In many of the cases, however, the summaries provide strong evidence that the stop-and-frisk data played a less than essential role — and sometimes hardly any role at all.

The collection of data by the government on its citizens is perhaps the slipperiest of slopes we face in the digital age.  Here it’s information.  The collection of DNA from everyone arrested, even in the absence of conviction, is very much a part of this effort on the part of government to eliminate any vestige of privacy that once characterized American freedom.  Most people lack the capacity to follow this trend to its logical extreme, or anticipate technological advancements that will fundamentally alter what government knows about us.

While Gov. Paterson’s signing this law may be viewed as a small step, maybe just a baby step, in light of the rampant and flagrant use of stop & frisk of the innocent, not to mention DNA databases of all arrestees, it is a step in the right direction.   There was a serious question whether there was any chance, any hope, that anyone in government would pull back from informational hegemony once they realized the power they could wield.  It looked like a slippery slope with no conceptual ledge in sight.

It’s not enough.  Personal privacy has never been as fragile as it is today, and the significance and abuse of databases may well prove to be the most dangerous threat to freedom ever known.  No despot in the history of man had such information available to him.  That Paterson implicitly endorsed a stop & frisk policy that has subjected millions of completely innocent blacks and Hispanics to being manhandled by the police at will is a shame and a disgrace. 

But at least it’s a step in the right direction, which is better than the alternative.

H/T Ed at Blawg Review, who really wants his DNA back.

War has broken out between some Texas criminal defense lawyers and Sparta.  Not the Greek City/State, but an SEO marketer who goes by unpretentious name , no doubt because SEO Spammer Girl wouldn’t have a distinctive brand.  The initial skirmish began with Austin criminal defense lawyer Jamie Spencer, whose comments were bombarded by Sparta Townson on behalf of lawyers who wanted to make a dent on Google via Jamie’s blawgs popularity.

Jamie, who is a far nicer fellow than most, called Sparta to suggest she not cause her clients harm by making them the target of ridicule.  Sparta hung up on him, after telling him that his open comments are her playground.  Whatcha gonna do about it, boy?  Mark Bennett answers the question at Social Media Tyro.

It’s not like Guru Girl Sparta shouldn’t be a little more circumspect in her dealings.  She’s already being sued for defaming the ex-boyfriend of her girlfriend, and subject to an injunction for behaving like a nasty, spoiled, unbalanced three year old.  This should be sufficient for Sparta to realize that the internet isn’t completely lawless, and that whatever fine idea pops into the head of Guru Girl Sparta isn’t likely to reflect the state of the law that applies to less Guru-type people. 

Do Guru Girls spend their off hours playing cyber-stalker to attack and libel ex-boyfriends for practice? Is this how they put that SEO expertise to good use?  Is this how they want to be known online, as another internet nutjob who falsely flames her enemies?  Maybe it’s just me, but this doesn’t strike me as conduct becoming a self-proclaimed Guru Girl.  And yet Sparta battles on.

It turns out that Sparta is trying to scare up business in a variety of quarters, including the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, with a proposal that will blow the socks off anybody who has a clue at what a website should cost.  Of course, one could wonder whether Sparta, at the prices she hopes to charge, might put some effort into correct spelling, given her apparent challenge as shown on her own blog.

That Bennett posted Sparta’s proposal to the HCCLA appears to have outraged Sparta.  :

I sent a proposal to a particular counties criminal lawyers association and it was sent with the following message in the email:
This electronic message contains information from Internet Guru Girl. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact reply to this email.

Then one of the particular attorneys posted it on his blog.
Another one thinks it’s unsolicited and is obviously another UNINFORMED one.
AND IT WAS “Solicited” by a board member.
This seems to be unethical and questionable legally???
AND IT WAS “Solicited” by a board member.
Sparta Townson

It never ceases to amaze me that people persist in the irrational belief that by including the words “privileged and confidential” in the footer of an email, with the ominous “prohibited” to follow, that somehow makes it so. 

I’ve come to realize that internet marketers go to sleep at night hoping that they will wake up to be “professionals” so they won’t be cast into the sea of snake oil salesgirls, but they aren’t.  They are just people pretending to have expertise that doesn’t really exist to fool people who have even less clue how this whole internet thingy works.  And if anyone is foolish enough to pay the numbers Sparta is asking, then they get what they deserve (with or without spellcheck).

But Sparta Townson suffers from the bizarre delusion that she dictates what becomes of her electronic communications.  The only confidential communication in her world is the one between her lawyer and defendant Sparta.  Sparta has no privilege other than that, and doesn’t create a privilege because she can copy and paste someone else’s prohibition. 

As a courtesy to this Internet Guru Girl, I offer some thoughts.  When you send out an email, the recipients can do whatever they please with it unless they have agreed, in advance, to keep it confidential.  You cannot dictate the confidentiality of your email.  Even if your quote was solicited by someone, that doesn’t create an agreement to maintain confidentiality unless it was a condition agreed upon in advance.  You, Guru Girl Sparta, lack the capacity to prohibit anyone from doing anything.

There are, of course, limits that the law imposes, such as libeling the doctor ex-boyfriend of your girlfriend.  But there is no law that requires others to conceal the contents of your email.  Sorry that it makes you unhappy, and doesn’t comport with your Guru Girl understanding of how the world should treat someone as important as you who commands others to do as she says, but that’s just not how it works.

On a more upbeat note, thank you, Sparta, for not spamming my blawg with your efforts at promoting those foolish enough to pay you.  I’ve wasted enough time dealing with other spammers, and certainly don’t need more marketing trash to deal with.  Plus, I’m not nearly as nice as Jamie when it comes to such matters, and might be inclined to point out the foolishness of your clients and cause them some embarrassment. 

One final piece of advice, Sparta.  Try spellcheck.  You really come off poorly, given that you call yourself Internet Guru Girl. 

Some see this video as controversial.  As a survivor of Auschwitz, he can celebrate his survival any damn way he pleases.

I hope this will be seen by every person alive today.  Too many aren’t.  Let him dance.

From Boing Boing, this is offered as “the most accurate analogy” on the subject of comments “ever”:

Weingarten, preach it : “I basically like ‘comments,’ though they can seem a little jarring: spit-flecked rants that are appended to a product that at least tries for a measure of objectivity and dignity. It’s as though when you order a sirloin steak, it comes with a side of maggots.”

That is one god-awful ugly image, but is it really that accurate?  While I’m certainly not in league with the big boys on the subject of comments, I can’t agree that the situation is that bad. 

Comments can be a nightmare, between the spam, the stupid, the angry and the nutjobs.  It is, without a doubt, a burden that few readers appreciate to keep the comments on topic and reasonably worth reading.  But it’s part of the gig.  One quickly learns that the internet is a very big place, with people of all points of view, often firmly held and with need to burst out at every opportunity.  Touch on a hot button subject and a swarm of interested folks will descend like locusts and make certain that everyone knows their position.

The vast majority of these comments reflect relatively well-conceived thoughts.  A significant minority reflect no thought at all, but see comments as a soap box from which to scream to anyone who will listen.  Some of these are just people suffering from Dunning-Kruger, while others suffer from more pathological problems.  As I said, it’s a big internet.

To call them maggots, however, is over the top.  There is certainly a dearth of well-reasoned rants, and a surplus of conspiracy-theorists and generalized haters, but to a large extent, these positions are all derived honestly and held dearly.  People may lack the degree of thought, nuance, focus and comprehension that one might want to have in a discussion about the issues raised, but interesting ideas still come out.

Even the spammers, the bane of a blawger’s existence, are understandable.  While the rationalization that our offering the opportunity for them to spam away by dint of our merely being here may be utter nonsense, if one views the blawgosphere as merely a marketing opportunity (as many lawyers do), then the spammers’ view of snatching their piece of someone else’s pie isn’t entirely insane.  It’s a nightmare, but one that makes some sense from their warped perspective.

Of course, there are the trolls, those who post comments for no better purpose than wreaking havoc with others, insulting and attacking to compensate for their incredibly small genitalia and lack of a real life.  I try to keep a hand on the delete button so that they don’t have their way here.  On the other hand, a commenter isn’t a troll merely because she disagrees with a position or, as happens from time to time, thinks I’m a blithering idiot.  There’s room for disagreement, though I expect commenters to remember that this is my soap box, not theirs.

I’ve struggled with comments since the beginning, often growing disillusioned with the nature of the comments and the lack of understanding of my purposes in posting.  It grows incredibly tiresome having to read my thoughts as filtered through the eyes of others, particularly when they project their own lack of experience and understanding onto me.  I’m irked when someone characterized what I’ve said in a way that significantly misapprehends my point.  But then, someone posts a comment that’s incisive, illuminating, maybe even brilliant, and I remember why we’re having the discussion in the first place.

So maggots?  No, it’s not the best analogy, or even a good analogy.  Readers come at will, with the full spectrum of experiences and intelligence, motives, fears and needs.  I can neither make someone read nor stop them.  I can remind them not to post links, especially to themselves, and to keep on topic even though they believe their story is the most fascinating one ever.  But it’s the price one pays for the flashes of brilliance that appear in the comments, the ones that make it worth my time to deal with comments in the first place.

If the great comments are an aged Sirloin, then the bad ones are a steak poorly cooked.  When I send it back to the kitchen and tell the cook that his comment doesn’t meet my expectations, some will get angry with me and tell me that I’m the meanest, worst, stupidest, most awful person in the world.  After all, it’s all about them.  Others will understand that this is my blawg and, should they care to read and comment, cook the steak a little better.

That doesn’t mean that I’m right, either about the substance of my posts or my taste in steaks.  It just means that this is my blawg and that entitles me to decide how I want my comments cooked.

New York City juries may be the place of intellectuals, sophisticates and metrosexuals, but that doesn’t mean they don’t like their cops.  Or at least, accept the premise that working the thin blue line is simply too hard and challenging to expect much by way of discretion and restraint.

Walter Harvin was an Iraqi war vet on his way to see his mother in the Hostas Houses on West 93rd Street when Police Officer David London decided to play doorman.  It’s nothing unusual for a person who seeks entry into a project without a key to be questioned by police as to his business. and required to show identification.  Harvin doesn’t appear to be the most cooperative person.  From there, things got ugly.  Via David Feige at Indefensible :

Naturally, Officer London wrote it up as him defending himself from Harvin:

The confrontation started, Officer London testified, when he was closing the front door to the housing project as Mr. Harvin tried to squeeze in. Officer London said he asked Mr. Harvin for identification or proof that he lived in the building, and Mr. Harvin immediately became irate, swearing at him and refusing to stop.

Officer London said he struck the first blow after Mr. Harvin lunged toward him. Officer London said he thought Mr. Harvin was about to punch him, and he continued to strike Mr. Harvin while he was on the ground because he continued to thrash around and yell threats.

Long story short, the charges against Harvin were dropped after the video appeared and Officer London was prosecuted.  This video was played for the jury.

Officer London, who has been on desk duty since the episode in July 2008, showed no emotion as the forewoman read the words “not guilty” on each of the counts against him: second-degree assault, filing false records, falsifying business records and making a false written statement.

But moments later, Officer London — flanked by his lawyers, Stephen C. Worth and Cary London, who is not related to the officer — bowed in his seat and sobbed, clutching crumpled tissue and a small red Bible in his fist.

“I’d like to thank God and my family,” Officer London said in a soft voice outside the courtroom after exchanging tearful embraces with his supporters.

The bible was a nice touch, no?  Not guilty on all counts, including the false allegations used to initiate the prosecution against Harvin, alleging that London was attacked. 

And note the success of police union lawyer Steve Worth.  While his co-counsel, Cary London, isn’t related to the defendant, the 2010 admission is related to Stuart London, who was busy at the time defending Patrick Pogan from the Big Shove.  Defending cops on behalf of the Union is a great family business, even if daddy Stuart wasn’t as successful in getting Pogan off for the false allegations against his victim, Christopher Long.  Still, given the sentence of conditional discharge, it’s not like New Yorkers don’t appreciate their cops.

And what’s the lesson here?  From the mouth of Steve Worth:

Mr. Worth said, “We’re happy people are realizing police work doesn’t always look pretty, but that is the nature of the job.”

It’s just the nature of the beast.  Freedom isn’t free, you know.

H/T Lee Stonum

The title of Eugene’s post, “We Affirm, But Only Because We Are Unable to Write a Principled Opinion Reversing,” sucked me in.  You’ve got to admit, it’s a great line.  The post is about a Wisconsin decision concerning whether the a defendant must be informed that his plea will result in the loss of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

A full understanding of charges against Neis would include that by pleading guilty, Neis would lose the right to possess a firearm, and would be prosecuted for a federal crime if he did so. This is a significant enough right for United States and Wisconsin citizens that we have included it in both constitutions. It is difficult to conclude that this right is nonetheless so insignificant that it is only a “collateral” consequence of pleading guilty to a disorderly conduct charge. But that is all it is.

This got me thinking.  The case is long over and the former defendant is sitting in his living room with his wife and kids (forget whether Neis has a wife or kids, as this is just my pondering the “what if”), and a couple of armed men bust through the door.  The fellow, who would otherwise have a gun available to him, sits there defenseless.  Given his own choice, he wouldn’t be as he’s inclined to possess a gun for self-defense.  One of the armed me, the big, burly one with the scar on his left cheek and a tattoo that reads “Mother” on his forearm, doesn’t care for the way Neis is looking at him.  He points.  He shoots. Neis dies.

While this could happen to someone disinclined to possess a weapon, or someone who possesses a weapon but doesn’t have it readily available at the moment of need, or any number of other variations which could produce the same outcome, my scenario involves a person who, but for the deprivation of his weapon, would have and could have defended his life.

The sentence of the court is that Neis cannot defend himself from a fatal attack.

Natural law is that a person is entitled to act to defend himself from death at the hand of another.  No one need suffer his own death to be a good, law-abiding citizen.  It’s a bottom-line thing.  Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.  While this cute phrase is misused far too often, there are certainly situations where imminent death justifies action.

But Neis, well, can’t take action.  He’s a law-abiding guy now, having learned his lesson well and complying not only with the sentence of the court, but the collateral demands that the law places on a sentenced defendant.  The law says no guns, so no guns it is.  The law says that a person once convicted must stand naked against a threat to his life, so Neis is unarmed.

Obviously, my imagined scenario isn’t an everyday occurrence, and may even be a bit on the fantastical side, but it’s not so far-fetched that it can’t happen.  If you happen to be Neis at that moment, nothing could be more meaningful than the ability to stop the big, burly guy before he puts a bullet in your head.  Nothing could be less collateral.

The reasons why a government would not want a criminal to have a gun are clear and obvious.  Some, perhaps most, would use it unlawfully against another, and yet there would be no way to stop the criminal from exercising his right to keep and bear arms.  And yet, there doesn’t seem to be a rational argument to suggest that a former criminal should be incapable of defending himself from violent attack. 

While it might be argued that his former life of crime shifts the balance against him, that doesn’t make much sense for crimes that didn’t involve violence, or don’t suggest that the defendant will be violent in the future.  The “forfeiture of the right” argument makes no sense due to disproportionality.  The “undue” burden of differentiating between those who should, and shouldn’t, lose their rights may be a problem for government, but the Constitution isn’t about making people’s rights subject to government ease.  Besides, if you compare the burden of being murdered with the burden of due process, the former wins.

To the guy with a green card who’s been here for 34 years, has two kids in college and can’t speak the tongue of his mother country, deportation after a minor felony with a sentence of probation is hardly collateral.  To the unarmed guy sitting in his living room with his wife and kids staring at the big, burly guy with the scar, tattoo and gun, the loss of his right to defend himself is even less collateral. 

Sure, this won’t happen all that often, but to the one in a thousand, or a million, who finds himself in that situation, does he deserve a collateral sentence of death?

A bit overwrought, since it’s not as if Sharon “Killer” Keller actually did the killing.  She just didn’t do enough to give the defendant a chance to stop the killing, as would be demanded of the Chief Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  That’s right, the report of the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct is in, and Killer Keller’s conduct brings discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice.

Via Jeff Gamso, the decision :

Lots of tough language like “wilful or persistent,” and discredit.  Scathing.  None of the confused purpose of the special master’s report.   And a sternly worded public warning to never, and I mean never, do it again.

Some folks question whether this system, the one that puts ordinary people in prison for long stretches at a time, and even takes the life of a person deemed unworthy of living it, is really just a sick joke that’s played on a naive and unsuspecting citizenry for the benefit of the people in charge.  We run with some really catchy platitudes, like we’re a nation of laws, not men.  We have impressive wood-paneled courtrooms with robed figures on high benches giving forceful lectures on morality and justice. 

And then we go and do something like this, which reminds us that some pigs are more equal than others.

One of the most difficult sells in the criminal justice system is why some attenuated malum prohibitum proscription is worth a life lost to a prison cell.  Examples are pervasive, from drugs to insider trading.  Sure there are arguments of harm, but they’re attenuated and largely rhetorical.  As is so often said, “It’s not like I killed someone.”  No, it’s not, the lawyer responds, but these are our laws and you have broken them and must be punished.

But if you’re willing to play the beloved attenuated argument game, then Sharon Keller is as much a killer as the getaway driver in a felony-murder gone bad.  Yet she not only gets to go home at night, but continues to wear her robe to work every day.  It’s hard to explain exactly why this should be.  It’s hard to put on that very serious face and tell someone why their conduct, no victim included, is so horribly wrong that they must be a guest of the state while Sharon Keller gets a stern public warning before returning to chambers.

The Commission was clearly correct when it proclaims that Keller’s conduct discredits the judiciary “or” the administration of justice.  One might say that “discredits” doesn’t do it justice. Her conduct did more than that.  She rendered the legal system a farce, a joke, a system that is callous to the taking of a life of a defendant.  And so what?

Having concluded that Sharon Keller brought discredit to the system, the Commission compounds that discredit by allowing Sharon Keller to put her robe back on, step up to the bench and affirm the next execution.  When the powerful and connected are given a pass, it’s impossible to explain to the groundlings why they should behave better.

Whether Sharon Keller learned her lesson is unclear.  Whether all the other nice folks who get to stand before a judge will take comfort in the outcome of this matter is a bit easier to guess.  And the lawyers who appear before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to make their last ditch argument for their clients will still be required to call Sharon “Killer” Keller “your Honor,” knowing that she’s free to kill again.

May it please the court?

All the good people think the Sex Offender Registry is fabulous.  The good people are defined as those who aren’t on the sex offender registry.  We know that they think it’s fabulous because legislators across the country keep expanding it to include people who are neither sex offenders nor threats to anyone anywhere ever.  Why?  Because every expansion brings them more adoring good people.  That means votes, campaign contributions and smiles. 

But just like laws named after children, it becomes increasingly difficult to find virgin territory for politicians to exploit in their zeal to protect us from the next threat that will destroy life as we know it.  One direction is the attack on “digital drugs,” given that cartoons of pornography worked out so well.  Hey, if people are stupid enough to buy into it, why not?

There’s another direction to consider, however, and it follows along the line of SORA.  Consider the National Sexual Harassment Registry.  From the Proactive Employer :

There’s been a lot of discussion this week about the launch of the eBossWatch ”National Sexual Harassment Registry”. This registry, modeled after the FBI’s National Sex Offender Registry, allegedly provides information to help people avoid sexual harassers. According to Asher Adelman, founder of eBossWatch:

“The eBossWatch National Sexual Harassment Registry will send a strong message to those intending to sexually harass their employees or coworkers that they will be publicly held accountable and will suffer serious consequences for their abusive actions. Now anyone will be able to search our national database and will instantly know if their potential boss or job candidate has been the subject of a sexual harassment complaint.”

There are a variety of problems with this. So many, in fact, it’s difficult to know where to start. First, the people listed in the registry are deemed “harassers” by eBossWatch, even though the site’s disclaimer states that this might not be the case.

As one might anticipate, it’s another website California, where any allegation of harassment is enough to taint a person as a sexual harasser and get one on the list, but there’s no assurance of getting off if it turns out to be utterly frivolous, a lie, whatever.  The disclaimer, naturally, makes all the requisite excuses to avoid libel while doing as much harm to people who are merely accused, malevolent, erroneous, improper motives aside. 

But you’re no sex offender.  You’re no sexual harasser.  What do you care.  Of course, some Slackoisie employee may get miffed if you refuse to let them leave when they need work/life balance, and put you on the list anyway, but what are the chances of that happening?

Given experience recently with the workplace bullying crowd, some of whom may be a wee bit overly emotional and sensitive about their grievances, it’s a natural for a new registry.  Every wrong, whether real or imagined, can land a new name on the list.

How long before legislators come to appreciate how ripe this Registry idea is for their re-election campaigns?  Already, drug offender registries are gaining popularity. creating yet another underclass of unemployable, hated individuals.  For every crime, there can be a registry.  For every perceived wrong, there can be a registry.  The potential is endless.

And until one’s name pops up on one, the good people cheer.  Hooray, we’re safe from the evil people!  Our children are safe. Society is safe. 

Whether one frames this concern as a slippery slope, initiated with the most despised in society, sex offenders, and then spreading throughout as a means to attack any putative group against whom somebody has a beef, or as the freedom of the internet to smear at will, the potential for abuse is patent,   That there’s mileage to be had is without question.  It seems like everybody hates somebody, so why not create a Registry to make them a public enemy, inform their neighbors.  If you’re really lucky, get them murdered for their wrongs.

Whether these smear websites are run privately or become part of the institutional retribution of government in a legislative effort to pander for votes, the harm they do is enormous.   Just as the sex offender registries have already grossly exceeded their initial purpose, rounding up people whose offense isn’t even sex-related and pose no threat and destroying any chance of leading a law-abiding life, each of these offers the opportunity for absurdly wrong accusations, incredible and permanent destruction of lives and the creation of classes of people who will live in perpetual internet taint.

But hey, as long as you’re one of the good people, why should you care?  It’s not like anybody would put you on a registry, right?

Update:  Rick Horowitz raises yet another ripe opportunity, the Gang Registry.  I wonder if the Boy Scouts count?  After all, they’ve got their colors.

My bad.  When I first read the story, I never went beyond the first paragraph.  It was the ABA Journal, and the headline at the time was that Lindsay Lohan wanted a pro bono lawyer.  It was too funny for me, and apparently too funny for the ABA Journal as well, as the headline is gone.  It was more about a funny story than something to be taken seriously, so I never read the rest of the story. 

Fortunately, Eric Turkewitz did, leading him to find at the end some curious statements by Chicago criminal defense lawyer Stuart Goldberg, who appears to have been in the running for LiLo’s new mouthpiece, met with her and some family members, but ultimately didn’t get the gig.

Meanwhile, another counsel candidate who says he refused the representation has already dished to People magazine.

His would-be client is “a fragile lost child” who “just doesn’t get it” concerning the seriousness of the case she is involved in, says Stuart Goldberg, a criminal defense attorney based in Chicago. When he met with the actress and two relatives, “they didn’t seem to understand the urgency and gravity of the situation.”

As the Turk properly asks,

Why the hell is this Stuart Goldberg, apparently a Chicago criminal defense lawyer, talking about what he heard or saw in the confidence of his practice?

Taking a quick look at Goldberg’s website , one thing is immediately clear.  He’s not shy.  This is a guy who craves attention.  From his self-published novel (with video intro!) to his opening website video.  No, this is not a shy. self-deprecating lawyer.  This is a lawyer who wants recognition.

Lawyers don’t tend to become household names.  At least not for good things.  So when a lawyer is touched by celebrity, there’s a strong compulsion to seize the opportunity to enjoy the 15 minutes of fame.  Stuart Goldberg appears to succumb.  As the Turk points out, Goldberg’s meeting with LiLo about assuming her representation is confidential.  What he learns, what his impressions may be, what he thinks of her and her case, are not his to discuss.  They belong to the potential client, even when that client is LiLo.

Is it possible that Lohan told Goldberg that he’s free to discuss her confidences with the media?  It is, though it’s hardly likely.  Is it possible that Goldberg is a set-up, offering impressions to the media as part of a campaign to humanize LiLo and explain her inappropriate reaction to the court.  It is, and that’s more likely, but still not very likely.

We live in an age of celebrity, where people want desperately to become someone that others know exist. Some will do anything, from mind-numbingly stupid tricks on Youtube that risk their life, to crimes for the notoriety, to feigning a child in a blow-up flying saucer.  Anything to get in the media.  Anything.

Was that why Stuart Goldberg talked?  He got his name in in People Magazine and TMZ .  He’s all over the internet.  His beauty shot on his website now appears to have legs.  Is he now the best known, most prominent criminal defense lawyer in Chicago, for having been LiLo’s transitory choice for counsel?  After all, he must be something special if LiLo gave him a look.

For a lawyer to disclose confidences to promote himself, for sheer self-aggrandizement, is a disgrace.  Will Stuart Goldberg be remembered as a disgrace for this episode?  The ABA Journal doesn’t seem to notice any problem when reporting on his facial breach of confidence, but then it never seems to concern itself much with such trivial issues. 

Given the efforts that so many lawyers, criminal defense included, make to promote themselves and join the ranks of solvency, if not celebrity, on the internet, I wonder how many others would have given their overly-coiffed hair to have a promotional opportunity like this, and would have seized upon it without hesitation to toss their ethics in a ditch for their moment in the limelight?  What have we become? What are we willing to do, to ourselves, our clients, our dignity, to be prominent?

Stuart Goldberg is old enough to remember that loose lips sink ships.  Does he care at all about sinking ships?  Does he care at all that his moment in the sun doesn’t merely put his name on the lips of Lohan lovers and haters everywhere, but also reveals that he will sell his clients’ privilege for his name, spelled correctly, in a gossip magazine?

It’s possible that Stuart Goldberg hasn’t breached confidence in his quest for celebrity.  It’s possible that he’s the greatest lawyer in the world, as well as quite the showman.  It’s possible that Stuart Goldberg is who many readers secretly wish they could be, a criminal defense lawyer called by Lindsay Lohan who has a very shiny website that makes him out to be a star, and their name on the lips of every teenybopper who cares deeply about LiLo’s future.

The need for recognition has become pervasive on the internet.  Formerly sound thinkers have shamed themselves by flagrantly pandering online, concealing their warts and pretending to be whatever they think will sell them, kissing babies they secretly despise to make themselves popular.  It’s disgusting and embarrassing.

But as bad as the self-promotion has become, breaching confidence goes a step beyond the pale.  Dignity and professionalism may be an old man’s folly, but there is never an excuse to violate the attorney/client privilege.  And anyone who does so in the name of celebrity no longer deserves to be entrusted with the lives and welfare of others. 

How many of you will laugh at my old school views?  How many of you would do the same thing as Stuart Goldberg if you had the opportunity?