dh003i ([info]dh003i) wrote,
@ 2005-03-06 19:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Our Fascist State and Martha Stewart
Now that the State has finished the fascist imprisonment of Martha Stewart for engaging in non-crimes, they've committed her to house-arrest, as if she's some kind of dangerous criminal. This is clearly a ludicrous attempt by the State to embarrass, humble, and humiliate Ms. Stewart. However, she is apparently of such high dignity that she apparently let this atrocious miscarriage of justice depress her spirits. Much has been made about the treatment Stewart has received upon being released from prison: having a chartered plane ready for her, having more latitude than most criminals under house-arrest, etc. Of course, regarding her jet, she's earned that by providing value to millions of people; as for her relative freedom on house-arrest -- having a "longer leash" than most on house-arrest -- such ignores the fact that Ms. Stewart hasn't harmed anyone, and is not a dangerous person who needs to be monitored.

(Post a new comment)


[info]agentsteel53
2005-03-10 01:35 am UTC (link)
hey, add me... you're one of the non-st00pidz in [info]libertarianism

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dh003i
2005-03-10 02:36 am UTC (link)
Sure. No problem.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]agentsteel53
2005-03-10 02:39 am UTC (link)
wh00.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]pope_guilty
2005-03-19 06:39 am UTC (link)
She lied to the government during a criminal investigation.

That's a crime, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dh003i
2005-03-19 05:27 pm UTC (link)
She lied about something that wasn't a crime to begin with in the first place. And she lied about it in an informal interview. As I pointed out above, what she did was not a crime. But there was no chance of her getting a fair trial: the jury was a bunch of disgusting schmucks who wanted to bring her down, no matter what the reason.

And what is so difficult to understand about the fact that legislation does not make right and wrong? That it does not make the naturally criminal act (e.g., rape, murder, wrongful imprisonment) somehow ok.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]pope_guilty
2005-03-19 06:05 pm UTC (link)
What transgresses morality is wrong.
What transgresses law is crime.

(We may disagree on the following; it's not important. I'm defining the terms as I'm using them in order to avoid conflict arising from confusion over terms.)

Regardless of your opinion of the morality of the law, she comitted a crime. Lying to the feds is against the law and is hence a crime. The fact that she was being interviewed about a noncrime is irrelevant to the law.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dh003i
2005-03-19 06:33 pm UTC (link)
What transgresses what law? Laws, as you use them, are just arbitrary declarations. The Nazi's had plenty of laws; ya know, those laws prohibiting anyone from protecting Jews from murder.

What is important is natural law. Her actions were not criminal by natural law.

However, it is not even clear that Ms. Stewart transgressed fiat-legislation. By no means can we reasonable claim she had a fair trial. It was nothing more than a witch-hunt. In fact, the very laws that the gov't claims Stewart broke constitute unconstitutional violations of due-process. See Mercer, Illana. Convicted for Fearing Conviction:

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dh003i
2005-03-19 06:38 pm UTC (link)
Also see Wesley, Christopher. Martha Stewart's Surreal Ordeal:
The reason why ImClone shares were set to fall in the first place was due to an incompetent Food and Drug Administration's decision to reject the firm’s request to market a highly anticipated cancer drug—a decision it would hypocritically reverse. Absent the immoral gate-keeping function of the FDA, Stewart would today be facing challenges associated with satisfying consumer wants on a voluntary basis instead of facing the horrifying prospect of a multi-year jail term courtesy of career-minded lawyers who were fishing for a high profile victim to advance their careers.
The FDA's preventing life-saving drugs from entering the market constitutes nothing more than murder.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]pope_guilty
2005-03-19 07:46 pm UTC (link)
Or she could have, you know, not lied and none of this would have happened.

Stop trying to make her a martyred saint and admit she bears partial responsibility.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dh003i
2005-03-19 08:12 pm UTC (link)
She did nothing wrong. The trial was nothing more than a witch-hunt, as was the entire media-circus around it. Shame on anyone who condones it. The laws under which she was prosecuted are unconstitutional violations of due-process. There is no way anyone could make a logical argument that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she even did what she was accused of. She didn't engage in insider-trading (which doesn't constitute the initiation of aggression anyways, thus shouldn't be prohibited), but outsider-trading (which isn't prohibited). And finally, the FDA's responsible for the suffering of millions by preventing a useful drug from hitting the market.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]pope_guilty
2005-03-19 08:25 pm UTC (link)
It's irrelevant whether or not she committed insider trading. She wasn't convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to the feds, which is prohibited. She knew it was a criminal act when she did it, she got caught, and she went to jail. If you engage in activities that you know are against the law, and you get caught, you need to either accept your punishment or actively campaign to have the laws you broke repealed. She has failed to make such a case.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dh003i
2005-03-19 08:49 pm UTC (link)
Can you read? The supposed laws which the gov't accuses her of breaking are unconstitutional.

You, and eveyone else, have completely failed to even make the case that she lied in that informal interview. There is not one shred of credible evidence pointing in that direction: certainly not enough to go beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial was nothing but a witch-hunt, and the jurrors were nothing more than members of a mob, who completely failed in their duties.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…