A few days ago an internationally known award-winning photographer was arrested for innocuous taking of photos (and allegedly resisting arrest). Gary Harki writes a great story of the incident.

As it happens, this photographer was arrested once before – for taking photos of Bill Gates wedding from a public place. The photographer sued the major employer at the island and Bill Gates himself and ended up settling for a substantial sum about false arrest (which he donated to a local school to set up a scholarship fund). He ended up receiving an apology letter written by Bill Gates himself.

Harki reports:

Rensberger said he doesn’t know if he will sue the department over the incident.

"I don’t think I have a choice," he said. "If this guy shows that kind of force to a guy who took a picture of a choir and of Santa and a uniformed police officer in the mall, then what kind of force is he going to show someone in a dark alley somewhere where no one was watching."

That’s a lawsuit I’ll be watching for. Other professional photographers weigh in.

My comment on the NYT about the imprisonment of the Uighurs. William Glaberson and Margot Williams have written a news report about the problem, and the NYT contains a  discussion about possible solutions.

Why does  the US government feel absolutely no sense of urgency in solving this problem?

It’s hard for me to understand why resettlement in the US is not a serious option.

Even if it were not considered as a long term solution,  it seems ridiculous not to give them temporary asylum in the US while the government arranges someone to take them.  We created the problem; now we need to fix it.

Having these people still in prison when there is no attempt to justify the cause flies in the face of core American values. Gitmo has ruined many people’s lives, and yet the US government feels no pressure to rectify this.

The arguments presented here are academic and legalistic, but they are missing the point. The US government is devastating the lives of each individuals, and has no incentive to take action quickly.  The rights of these individuals matter a lot to me, certainly more than a flawed judicial process that the current administration owes no allegiance to.

From a PR perspective, my solution is to pay each Uighur $100,000 for each year they have spent in Gitmo and offer the prisoners and their immediate family full citizenship as well as a written apology personally signed by Obama. If these people were released, aid organizations would step in to provide humanitarian assistance. This could turn into a modest success story. Why do we assume that these people could turn into terrorists/criminals? For all we know, they could contribute a lot to American society (perhaps offering insight into our own democratic system).

The problem is that the American government pays no price for the continued detention of these people. Because of the legal morass, the tendency of the bureaucracy is to do nothing. That is a terrifying statement about our legal system. In the case of wrongful imprisonment, the government needs to be held accountable and needs to be liable for the lives it has helped to ruin.

Last week, I made a post about the 13 year old girl named Megan Leigh Crouch who committed suicide. Here is the video that the mother made about her:

Apparently Megan Crouch’s mother has made a website about the injustice surrounding Megan’s case. Apparently, Megan was abused sexually at an early age by her stepdad. Even though the mother reported it to the police in Ascension Parish in Lousiana and even though the girl gave videotaped testimony, and even though the stepdad was arrested, and even though charges were filed, the man was set free after bail was paid by his mother. She writes:

In January 2005 we moved to Kentucky. We decided that we were going to make a fresh start. Megan wanted to put the past behind her and move forward like a normal little girl her age. I agreed but also explained to her that we still had the upcoming trial. She said she understood but until that day she wanted to move forward without having to think about everything in the past. The DA’s office would schedule the trial and we would receive the summons for court only to be told days before the date that it had been canceled. This went on about 5 times. Each time this happened, my little girl was scared to death to face him in court and would work her courage up for it only to be let down again. It was devastating her.

I was told by the courts that I had to let my ex see my youngest daughter because there were no charges against him for her, only my older daughter. I was forced to drive to Louisiana once a month for a two hour supervised visit with my youngest. Of course, I had to take both children to the visitations. I couldn’t leave Megan home alone. She had to endure taking her sister to see HIM! I was also told I had to let him call my house to speak to my youngest regularly. Megan sometimes answered the phone and had to hear his voice. I had no way to stop his calls or visitations. It was silently killing her and I didn’t realize how bad.

In January of 2007 my ex didn’t show to reschedule the next trial date and a bench warrant was put out for him. The police and the DA’s office had his home address, all phone numbers, and his work address. He was never picked up. Instead, he has been walking the streets possibly molesting who knows how many other children.

If this weren’t bad enough, this is how the mother was treated after Megan’s suicide:

My ex called again a few nights later (Robert adds: after the suicide) and told me I was violating a court order by not letting him talk to Regan. When I told him she does not want to talk to him because of what happened to Megan his response was, “Megan didn’t shoot herself because I molested her.” He has accidentally admitted it to me on several occasions by things that he says when he’s angry. After he called, his mother called stating that I was violating a court order. My husband told her that until her sick son was put in jail NO ONE was talking to Regan. Her response was, “There isn’t going to be a trial now, charges will be dropped – Megan is dead!” After she called his sister called screaming that we were being rude to my ex and her mom! HELLO! WHAT DOES SHE EXPECT!?!

I received a letter on the 25th of July regarding an upcoming “Status Trial” for August 28th at 9am. I took off work and drove down to Louisiana only to find out they had sent me the wrong papers. It was for another man with the same name. I sat in court for two hours to find this out. I met with the prosecutor on my case while I was there and found out that the bench warrant that was supposed to have been issued in January of 07 had NEVER been signed by the judge before it was filed with the court house. Another mistake made regarding the whole situation. Maybe if things had been done right from the beginning and my ex had been forced to stand trial within a reasonable amount of time then my daughter might still be here. I truly believe she needed closure and needed to see him go to jail for what he did. Waiting so long for justice silently destroyed her.

Personal Note: I stumbled upon this youtube video quite by accident and another video by one of Megan’s friends. It is a shocking video to see because the presentation of facts is so straightforward. I have looked very skeptically at this video (as I do all Youtube videos claiming to be true). The basic facts check out about Megan’s death check out (see this obituary and this obituary). Also, I have exchanged a few emails with the mother, who seems credible and reasonable (as reasonable as you’re going to find under the circumstances). I have not talked with her nor have I met her, nor have I verified that these charges did occur nor have I made an attempt to hear the other side of the story. But it’s hard to believe a person would go to all this trouble to stage this kind of story. This story sounds very credible.

Here is the problem. Megan’s mom is predictably outraged by how the DA office refused to prosecute the child abuser. She is outraged that the DA office kept telling Megan that the trial would come, and then it never did. Based on the mother’s account of events, Ascension Parish’s DA office deserves a huge amount of blame for the hell they put the daughter (and her family through).

Once again, we are presented with these questions: a Louisiana man is charged with sexual abuse of a child. Why has it taken 4 years for this case to go to trial? Why should he have the right to see the other daughter (when there are allegations he abused her as well). Why is this man still free?

See also: my thoughts on the tragedies of dying young.

Sept 1 Update: Apparently, the latest video names the person accused of child abuse. The person’s name is: Danny Dewayne Wallice

April 18, 2009 Update. Unfortunately  I did not update with the latest news. Apparently, the mother’s video has now been removed from Youtube, and in December, 2008, the  judge refused to allow  the videotaped evidence Megan gave into the trial.   When I last heard from the mother, she did not know if the DA’s office would be able to continue with the trial.  I have had a brief email exchange with the mother, but nothing I can report here. Unfortunately, this may turn out to be one of those stories that never really ends; it’s simply a neglected case which the justice system didn’t get to.

Here’s a reason not to use a liberal license on your photos. You might be sued.

Lesson learned: merely because you have the right to use the photo doesn’t mean the model release has been signed.  Or that you have publicity rights.

Robert Jackson on the Nuremberg Trials:

“The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”

(quoted by Chris Dodd in a Charlie Rose interview tonight).

I don’t normally care about sex scandals with US Senators, but the Larry Craig incident reminded me of an incident that happened to a friend.

Larry Craig, for those of you who don’t know or care, was a Republican Senator who was trapped by an undercover policeman in a airport bathroom. His crime was tapping his neighbor’s foot in the adjacent stall, which apparently was a signal to engage in homosexual activity. Larry Craig pled guilty to avoid publicity, the charges were merely a misdemeanor, which in the U.S. is pretty much equivalent to a traffic ticket.

When it was exposed, the Republican Party pressured Craig to resign, and Craig, while initially resisting, finally agreed. A few days later, he changed his mind again. He intended to appeal the initial guilty plea even though to do so is highly unusual.

People jump to the conclusion that Craig’s motive was lewd and that Craig’s agreement to sign an admission of guilt meant just that..an admission of guilt.

I don’t know if Craig was gay or if Craig intended to have sex with this stranger. But a few years ago a friend from the East Coast related a story that is strikingly similar.

This friend (Let’s call him E.) worked with a small publishing company in the East Coast and was gay by his own admission. E. never advertised the fact, and in fact he never discussed it except among old friends. E. was not in a relationship at the time, but he visited a park known to be a place where gay men picked each other up. E. visited the park for precisely that reason (he later told me at the time). I considered E. a decorous and basically law-abiding person. Yes, this sort of hanky panky initially surprised me, but I knew that E. would have done it with maximum of discretion.

E. stumbled upon a man whom he found attractive, and they struck up a conversation. They were both seated and talked for a while, and then in a somewhat forward gesture, my friend put his arm on the other friend. I can’t remember the specifics; maybe they were in some indoor part of the park, or maybe they were in a park bench; maybe they were standing; these details are not crucial to the story. I vaguely remember the policeman claiming E. touched him on the leg while E. claimed he touched his arm.

At that point, the man showed his police badge and brought E. to the squad car to write up the citation. I can’t remember if he was actually under arrest. But my friend was absolutely furious; though he was certainly polite and soft-spoken and articulate, the policeman basically cut him short and told him to take it up with the judge. For E., the situation was a nightmare. He didn’t mind admitting he was gay to close friends, but rarely if ever publicized it or talked about it to acquaintances.

I wasn’t there at the event, and I can’t read E.’s mind, so I really can’t say exactly what happened or may have happened. But even though E. was looking for some sexual dalliance, he would have never dreamed of having sex in a public place…and certainly with no one around. And yet the entrapment situation accused him of doing precisely that. E. felt convinced he was in the right…and I agreed. But the process of having to hire an attorney and debate it in a public courtroom was highly embarrassing to him. Later, E. learned the citation was only a misdemeanor and could be handled entirely through the mail. It would never appear on his permanent record. In other words, he could pay the fine and never have to worry about it again.

So he paid the fine. Yes, he had to plead guilty. And yes, he wouldn’t have a chance to fight this injustice. But he recognized that the low cost of this offense decreased the incentive for people to fight the charge. He discussed the matter over the phone with me for about an hour, and my friend twirled around all sorts of arguments about the illegitimacy of the charges. He was furious and resigned…but still would not fight it. I urged him to write an anonymous letter to the paper or the City Council. But no, my friend thought it would be futile to do so. That area of the country was conservative, and besides, nobody has sympathy for people looking for quick gay pickups (even if their rights were violated).

But imagine if the genders were reversed. Imagine the undercover cop were a beautiful woman hanging out at a bar or at an informal public setting like the beach. Imagine that this woman were especially friendly and responded to your attentions. If a man were to put his hand on hers or to touch her shoulders, isn’t that also public lewdness? I consider myself a sheltered person when it comes to sexual adventures. I honestly don’t know if pickups happen as often as people might suppose. But it certainly seemed reasonable to think that two ordinary strangers would touch one another on a first meeting in a public place; that didn’t mean they were intending to have sex on the spot! More than likely the real action would take place off in a car or an apartment bedroom. Maybe some people get off on doing it in public…and I guess that needs to be stopped, but in most cases, the culprits are not strangers but boyfriends and girlfriends having a crazy time.

This raises an interesting question. Is there something lewd about groping in a car? Cars can be in public spots (on streets, for example) and yet be relatively isolated. Inside a car you have a degree of privacy while occupying a public space. And what about on a train or bus? It is confusing.

The problem with the charges to Craig or to E. is that no public lewdness actually took place. All that took place is ambiguous touching. I believe police officers should concern themselves only with those people who are actually having sex (and where the evidence is incontrovertible). By stopping these entrapment exercises, one can avoid pointless arguments about what might have taken place and concentrate on what what did.

Fun and embarrassing personal anecdote. After writing this, I just remembered a very embarrassing incident from my high school days. My girlfriend and I were — how shall I say? – affectionate sometimes in my car. We parked in remote parking spots and were paranoid about being caught. That never did happen except one time at the Rice University parking lot. A Rice U. police scared us to death by banging on my car window. Yes, he caught us in flagrante delecto. We were in the middle of — I kid you not — playing Dungeons and Dragons! We had our rulebooks and dice and graph paper laid out across the seats. Now at other times and places we did other things in that car, but on that occasion, we were playing Dungeons and Dragons and nothing else. (A geek girl who plays D&D was every man’s dream!)

I don’t know what I found more embarrassing — being caught or being caught NOT making out with her. I think the police officer viewed me with pity.

Postscript: Seinfeld describes the Larry Craig incident as one of the greatest things ever to have happened in the history of comedy.

Is posting a 30 second clip from the Super Bowl on youtube to illustrate the NFL’s copyrighted terms of service announcement  an example of fair use? Probably.

George Will notices that a court case striking down Washington D.C.’s strict gun control law may finally be the test case that the NRA needs. Fascinating! (And it reopens a matter I thought had long been settled). Ultimately, Will makes a faulty comparison between the gun control debate and the political speech/campaign finance reform debate:

Sound familiar? Defenders of the McCain-Feingold law, which restricts the amount, timing and content of political campaign speech, say: Yes, yes, the First Amendment says there shall be “no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” But that proscription can be disregarded because the legislators’ (professed) intent — to prevent the “appearance” of corruption and to elevate political discourse — is admirable.

Wait, similarity in the motives of lawmakers is not the issue here; Gun control is a public safety issue; Campaign finance reform is not (and in fact, yelling fire in a crowded movie house is a case where public safety does trump free speech).

I occasionally have read articles about gun control issues. So until I read Will’s column, I thought the matter was settled. Now I honestly don’t know. It would be nice to courts to provide clarity on this issue. If only to shut the NRA people up.

Update: from Washington Post’s pingback feature I discovered The Nonsequitur , a splendid philosophy blog dedicated to unmasking fallacies in mainstream media.  Here’s the discussion of Will’s article.  My response to the NonSequitur people: lighten up! Will may reduce his argument for newspaper columns, but he does not consciously misrepresent scholarship. And he generally notices overlooked  issues, for which I’ve deeply grateful.  Yes, the snide tone does irritate me sometimes, but his opinions (albeit ideologically-driven at times) often bring me to make reappraisals. And that is a good thing.

If you’ve reading this site for the last month or two, you know you gaga I’ve been going over the Jamendo music site.

Here’s an enlightening discussion (with contribution from me) about the sticky question of Creative Commons licenses).

My favorite remark:

Giving artists the freedom to restrict music is like the freedom in giving a plantation owner the freedom to keep slaves.

Yes, I know, restricting music it isn’t as evil as slavery (since slaves suffer). I have a shotgun, a burlap sack with heavy rocks and a deep pond waiting at the back of my yard for anyone who dares to point that out.

The point remains: it is indeed a freedom, but it works by restricting the freedom of the music/slaves being controlled. And it deservedly prompts the question – should music/slaves be controlled?

Slashdot discussion of Cory’s denunication of shrinkwrap licenses. I’ve blogged about this a lot of times before. (see also www.reasonableagreement.org).

Most original slashdot comment: ask a minor to click all your EULA agreements so none of them are legally binding. One pointed out the main motive for onerous EULA’s was not awarding of more rights but simply indemnification. That is too generous, I feel.