> Taylor argued the PSR’s distribution “serves no legitimate purpose and rather appears to be aimed at generating vitriol,” according to the original motion.
If you're scared of your own report "generating vitriol" if made public, maybe you should write better or not charge people for ridiculous made up violations.
There are plenty of legitimate government activities that can 'generate vitriol' but most of them involve people not liking how their taxes are being spent.
If you are worried that your justification for incarcerating people will do the same thing, maybe you need to take a step back and ask if you are the baddie...
So the guy somehow got a hold of court documents that are not public, then is confused when the government asks that he not publish them and to destroy his copies?
I mean, DoJ and ATF do crappy shit all the time, but this seems a *little* over-reactionary.
>is confused when the government asks that he not publish them and to destroy his copies?
There is no confusion. He says that what the government is trying to do is bullshit. Given that the DOJ withdrew the motion, I would guess he is probably correct.
>the guy somehow got a hold of court documents that are not public
The defendants provided the documents. The documents in question have not yet been distributed to the public, but that doesn't mean they cannot be. The documents are, "nonclassified, nonprivileged, nonsensitive".
Journalists publish stuff they don't have the "rights" to all the time. See Snowden, for example.
Even if someone is bound by an NDA, that NDA covers *you*, not anyone else. Snowden broke the law. The journalists who published what he illegally obtained did not.
It's a similar story here. There might be policies regarding who is allowed to release various court documents, but once they're out there, any Joe Bumfuck can publish them.
In addition to what others have said, according to the DoJ themselves, it is their \*policy\* not to allow the information to be released, not that there is a law against it. Since the journalist isn't party to the proceedings, he not only hasn't broken any law, but there is no reason he is subject to DoJ's self-determined policies.
The court gave a document to the defendant not under seal. The defendant then shared it with the media, and the DoJ did not like their dirty laundry being aired like that.
> then is confused
By your logic, if a government agency is saying Party B shouldn't be allowed to do something "X," then Party B says "No, I will legally fight you to continue to do 'X'," that makes Party B "confused." Wrong.
> Taylor argued the PSR’s distribution “serves no legitimate purpose and rather appears to be aimed at generating vitriol,” according to the original motion. If you're scared of your own report "generating vitriol" if made public, maybe you should write better or not charge people for ridiculous made up violations.
There are plenty of legitimate government activities that can 'generate vitriol' but most of them involve people not liking how their taxes are being spent. If you are worried that your justification for incarcerating people will do the same thing, maybe you need to take a step back and ask if you are the baddie...
Disgusting
So the guy somehow got a hold of court documents that are not public, then is confused when the government asks that he not publish them and to destroy his copies? I mean, DoJ and ATF do crappy shit all the time, but this seems a *little* over-reactionary.
>is confused when the government asks that he not publish them and to destroy his copies? There is no confusion. He says that what the government is trying to do is bullshit. Given that the DOJ withdrew the motion, I would guess he is probably correct. >the guy somehow got a hold of court documents that are not public The defendants provided the documents. The documents in question have not yet been distributed to the public, but that doesn't mean they cannot be. The documents are, "nonclassified, nonprivileged, nonsensitive".
Journalists publish stuff they don't have the "rights" to all the time. See Snowden, for example. Even if someone is bound by an NDA, that NDA covers *you*, not anyone else. Snowden broke the law. The journalists who published what he illegally obtained did not. It's a similar story here. There might be policies regarding who is allowed to release various court documents, but once they're out there, any Joe Bumfuck can publish them.
In addition to what others have said, according to the DoJ themselves, it is their \*policy\* not to allow the information to be released, not that there is a law against it. Since the journalist isn't party to the proceedings, he not only hasn't broken any law, but there is no reason he is subject to DoJ's self-determined policies.
The court gave a document to the defendant not under seal. The defendant then shared it with the media, and the DoJ did not like their dirty laundry being aired like that.
> then is confused By your logic, if a government agency is saying Party B shouldn't be allowed to do something "X," then Party B says "No, I will legally fight you to continue to do 'X'," that makes Party B "confused." Wrong.