The Loss of Liberty
As a huge fan of the liberties and freedom granted to me by the U.S. constitution, there were a couple of stories in the news today which I found rather disturbing. Sometimes I can't pinpoint what my beef actually is, still I know it's real and I know it's dangerous.
In California there was a court ruling that allowed a warrantless search of a defendant's cell phone by police incident to arrest. You can read the details here People vs. Gregory Diaz. Before I get into this, I would like to say that I am not considering what the crime entailed, where or how it took place, the guilt or innocence of the defendant or the intentions of the police to do anything other than affect an arrest and build a legitimate, solid case.
It is common knowledge that cell phone conversations are not considered "private". Still, I question it because someone has to commit an intentional, overt act in order to intercept and listen to a cell phone transmission. I would say it is no different from intercepting a television transmission via satellite signal, unscrambling or enhancing it with privately owned equipment. That is against federal law. The television broadcasters have a reasonable expectation to securely dispense their product and sell it to anyone interested in receiving it. Satellite companies and the NFL make a bazillion dollars selling their private broadcasts thanks to the Satellite Viewers Act passed a few years ago by Congress. I also think text messages should fall under the same protection. If you are "tweeting", that's a whole different ball game.
The police didn't look at the phone and it's contents until well after the arrest was made and the apparent reason it was considered acceptable to do so was that the phone was "immediately associated with [defendant's] person". But the information that was in the text message they read (which apparently led to a confession by the defendant) was cryptic and interpreted by a trained and experienced officer. His special talent (albeit not that special) to understand the message enabled him to confront the defendant with incriminating information. What if his talent had been safe cracking or lock picking? Would he been able to go into a locked briefcase without a warrant? No, he wouldn't. What if the cell phone was password protected but the defendant used an obvious password? While that isn't what transpired, I have to wonder how it would have affected the outcome.
A lot of people will say "Don't break the law and you don't have anything to worry about." To that I say you are either, a) incredibly naive or, b) considering yourself above the law. Things happen. Sometimes innocent people suffer the consequences of misjudgment or entrapment. You could probably ask this guy about it.
Then there was this story about editing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I work in a huge corporation with every persuasion of person known to our planet and possible other planets. I completely understand the idea behind political correctness. It's simply the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This made perfect sense a thousand years ago, it makes perfect sense today and it will continue to make perfect sense in the millenniums to come. Nobody likes to be mistreated, looked down upon or passed over. Intentional or not, it happens. You show me someone that doesn't discriminate or offend others and I'll show you someone that's taking a dirt nap.
That being said, Mark Twain wrote The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn the way he wanted it written. It's common knowledge that he went through Hell while he was alive because of the way it was written, but it remained the same. Changing it and selling under the same banner is a violation of his freedom of speech. The very idea that literature can or should be sanitized is beyond anything I have ever imagined. If you do not like something, then simply don't read it. Should you get into a book and find it offensive, PUT IT DOWN. You can write a bad review and tell everyone what your gripe is, but you do not have the freedom to change someone's words. If you are writing a book, novel, play, whatever, write it the way you want it interpreted. If an editor wants to change it before they'll publish it, then you can work it out while you are alive. Once you're dead (like Mark Twain) nobody has the right to change your words. This has nothing to do with "translating" work into another language and there are no words in that book that aren't recognized in the english language. You can interpret it and write a report or your own brand of Cliff's Notes. Tell everybody what a hateful, insensitive bastard Mark Twain was, but you'll only be proving that you didn't understand the story.
Posthumously editing literature is like some contorted form of McCarthyism. It's an attack on the author's character and their intent. Read it and then decide if you don't like the author. I want you to have your opinion and I want you to be free to share your opinion, but you can't change a dead man's character(s) so others can't see them as intended. It is not okay to sanitize the world because you don't like something. If it actually does you harm, like second-hand smoke or flying bullets, then, yeah, you MIGHT have a legitimate gripe. But if it's just words you find hurtful...rise above it.
In California there was a court ruling that allowed a warrantless search of a defendant's cell phone by police incident to arrest. You can read the details here People vs. Gregory Diaz. Before I get into this, I would like to say that I am not considering what the crime entailed, where or how it took place, the guilt or innocence of the defendant or the intentions of the police to do anything other than affect an arrest and build a legitimate, solid case.
It is common knowledge that cell phone conversations are not considered "private". Still, I question it because someone has to commit an intentional, overt act in order to intercept and listen to a cell phone transmission. I would say it is no different from intercepting a television transmission via satellite signal, unscrambling or enhancing it with privately owned equipment. That is against federal law. The television broadcasters have a reasonable expectation to securely dispense their product and sell it to anyone interested in receiving it. Satellite companies and the NFL make a bazillion dollars selling their private broadcasts thanks to the Satellite Viewers Act passed a few years ago by Congress. I also think text messages should fall under the same protection. If you are "tweeting", that's a whole different ball game.
The police didn't look at the phone and it's contents until well after the arrest was made and the apparent reason it was considered acceptable to do so was that the phone was "immediately associated with [defendant's] person". But the information that was in the text message they read (which apparently led to a confession by the defendant) was cryptic and interpreted by a trained and experienced officer. His special talent (albeit not that special) to understand the message enabled him to confront the defendant with incriminating information. What if his talent had been safe cracking or lock picking? Would he been able to go into a locked briefcase without a warrant? No, he wouldn't. What if the cell phone was password protected but the defendant used an obvious password? While that isn't what transpired, I have to wonder how it would have affected the outcome.
A lot of people will say "Don't break the law and you don't have anything to worry about." To that I say you are either, a) incredibly naive or, b) considering yourself above the law. Things happen. Sometimes innocent people suffer the consequences of misjudgment or entrapment. You could probably ask this guy about it.
Then there was this story about editing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I work in a huge corporation with every persuasion of person known to our planet and possible other planets. I completely understand the idea behind political correctness. It's simply the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This made perfect sense a thousand years ago, it makes perfect sense today and it will continue to make perfect sense in the millenniums to come. Nobody likes to be mistreated, looked down upon or passed over. Intentional or not, it happens. You show me someone that doesn't discriminate or offend others and I'll show you someone that's taking a dirt nap.
That being said, Mark Twain wrote The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn the way he wanted it written. It's common knowledge that he went through Hell while he was alive because of the way it was written, but it remained the same. Changing it and selling under the same banner is a violation of his freedom of speech. The very idea that literature can or should be sanitized is beyond anything I have ever imagined. If you do not like something, then simply don't read it. Should you get into a book and find it offensive, PUT IT DOWN. You can write a bad review and tell everyone what your gripe is, but you do not have the freedom to change someone's words. If you are writing a book, novel, play, whatever, write it the way you want it interpreted. If an editor wants to change it before they'll publish it, then you can work it out while you are alive. Once you're dead (like Mark Twain) nobody has the right to change your words. This has nothing to do with "translating" work into another language and there are no words in that book that aren't recognized in the english language. You can interpret it and write a report or your own brand of Cliff's Notes. Tell everybody what a hateful, insensitive bastard Mark Twain was, but you'll only be proving that you didn't understand the story.
Posthumously editing literature is like some contorted form of McCarthyism. It's an attack on the author's character and their intent. Read it and then decide if you don't like the author. I want you to have your opinion and I want you to be free to share your opinion, but you can't change a dead man's character(s) so others can't see them as intended. It is not okay to sanitize the world because you don't like something. If it actually does you harm, like second-hand smoke or flying bullets, then, yeah, you MIGHT have a legitimate gripe. But if it's just words you find hurtful...rise above it.
Comments