So this is actually a big deal.

[stormlord]

If there's reason to believe the man is a threat outside jail I think it's better to just keep em locked up. Otherwise, you're setting a precedent by cutting away freedoms in the outside world. You start to take liberties with it and before long you're like the gatekeeper of what's acceptable and what's not. The big daddy.

[stormlord]

You might think I'm blowing smoke.

But cops aren't always good guys. Just remember that.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If there's reason to believe the man is a threat outside jail I think it's better to just keep em locked up. Otherwise, you're setting a precedent by cutting away freedoms in the outside world. You start to take liberties with it and before long you're like the gatekeeper of what's acceptable and what's not. The big daddy.

What precedent are you setting?

Freedom of association has been revoked thousands and thousands of times in bail agreements. Far more restrictive conditions are commonplace, including house arrest and tracking devices. What is so special about the political angle that makes it immune to bail agreements in comparison to, say, a person's right to move without the government tracking it?

And anyway, the reason for restricting his communication with anarchist groups had nothing to do with them being dangerous. It was based on him being a flight risk and anarchists openly opposing he submit to the justice system.

[Daldolma]

Er, anarchism promotes the non-recognition of governmental authority. The criminal justice system is an apparatus of governmental authority. So pretty much yes.

[Daldolma]

Still sticking with something I didn't say, that you implied? No.

If you had read your own link -- or even my post -- you'd see that I was merely relaying the reasoning given by the prosecution. The anarchist group he was involved with was "trying to obstruct" the federal inquiry. Naturally, the prosecution viewed them as a contributing factor to his risk of flight. But their ideological underpinning involves the promotion of non-recognition of governmental authority. It is then reasonable to expect that similarly minded groups may add to his risk of flight.

And it's anarchist groups -- it's not every single anarchist.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is a fallacy to apply to the general that which pertains to the specific. I'm sure you know that.

How does one differentiate between a group and an individual? Is any individual who is in a group therefore considered a group? If not, why have this ruling anyway since he can just talk to any individual in the group? They are repressing him from his friends and his family. They are doing it based on political ideology. This is part of a continuing trend within activist "justice" to make the level of consequences reflect NOT the level of criminality, but rather to reflect the level of ideological dissonance with the state. I can furnish many completely ludicrous examples of charges brought against radicals and anarchists and other non-statists if you're interested in me backing up that statement.

No, it isn't a fallacy. A fallacy would be to say that because his anarchist group obstructed his trial, every anarchist group would obstruct the trial.

The court has held that because the defendant is an anarchist that has allegedly acted criminally in conjunction with those beliefs, and because anarchism promotes an ideology that would interfere with his cooperation in criminal proceedings, further interaction with anarchist groups would increase his risk of flight. His own anarchist group is an example. That is not a logical fallacy.

And there are many ways for the court to differentiate between a person and a group, but for the sake of argument, let's say yes: communicating with any current member of an anarchist group would qualify as communicating with the group itself.

That is not a form of illegal repression. It is a restriction that he willingly accepted after being charged with a felony. But what you're not understanding is that even the worst of the things you're accusing the court of, repressing him by alienating him from his friends and family, are 100% legal under bail agreements. They could have eliminated the pretense altogether. They could have just said "you can't talk to friends or family". They could have said he can't talk to anyone at all except his lawyer. That would have been a 100% legal bail agreement.

He didn't have to accept this. There was no obligation for the court to give him bail, and no obligation for him to accept it. But he did. For all you know, it was his lawyer that proposed it. In fact, it probably was.

It's funny, he was also ordered to maintain a job, to abstain from drugs and alcohol, and to live with his girlfriend. Many of his civil rights were restricted, but there's only one that you seem to care about.

[SupaflyIRL]

tl;dr saying "If all Anarchists oppose the justice system, this specific anarchist must oppose the justice system." is not applying to the general that which pertains to the specific, but the exact opposite.

If an anarchist believes he should let the justice system decide his fate, he's not "doing it rite"

[Daldolma]

Oh and by the way, I'd seriously and not sarcastically like to see some historical proof that the level of consequences in this case are not in line with previous cases in which a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a police building or vehicle.

[SupaflyIRL]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shut your whore mouth. Grown folk are speaking.

You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, much less what this conversation is about.

fat

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1.) It absolutely is a fallacy to say that "It is then reasonable to expect that similarly minded groups may add to his risk of flight." It absolutely is NOT reasonable to expect that of every anarchist group based on the actions of any given group within the set.

1a.) Anarchism or anti-statism is not synonymous with "violent" or even "revolution." Anarchism can be and (most often) is practiced within the bounds of a state. If we need to define terms here, we should, because you keep casting implications that somehow this dude is a violent crazy BECAUSE HE IS AN ANARCHIST, rather than because he threw a molotov cocktail on a cop car.

2.) You keep coming back to this same argument of "willing acceptance." Of course he chose to be free during trial. That's a ridiculous statement, considering the issue has nothing to do with this dude's thoughts or actions, the premise I am holding is that the bail conditions are completely out of line with anything that has ever been done, and that the reason for said conditions is state repression of a political ideology.

3.) Those other bail conditions have precedents and well-understood rationales.

1.) Right, which is what I just said. You're ignoring the substance of my last post. It is not an expectation of "every" anarchist group, and it is not on the sole basis of the actions of his anarchist group. The defendant has allegedly acted criminally in conjunction with anarchist beliefs. Anarchism, as an ideology, would also promote his non-cooperation with court proceedings. His own anarchist group has provided an example of that. The ideology of non-cooperation, not the actions of his group, are the basis for the condition. His group merely provides evidence.

1a.) Is this even directed at me? I've never said anything of the sort. This man was, allegedly, violent. He was violent toward government officials, ostensibly in conjunction with his anarchist beliefs. That doesn't make anarchism violent, and in fact, the origins of his violent behavior are not a contributing consideration in this bail. It's about his risk of flight, not his risk of danger. He's not a violent crazy because he's an anarchist, but the fact that he has already (allegedly) broken the law in support of his anarchist beliefs should rightfully be weighed when considering his bail -- especially since that same ideology may very well also prompt him to not cooperate with the courts.

2.) Your premise is based on false information. This isn't at all out of line with anything that's been done before. Bail conditions routinely abridge a person's rights, including freedom of association. They don't often abridge a person's right to political association but that's a matter of practice more than a matter of principle, and freedom of political affiliation isn't materially different than freedom of association in general. It's not often necessary to restrict a person's political affiliation while on bail. That doesn't mean it's illegal or unethical. It's just not often done, for the same reason bail conditions don't often restrict access to video games or amusement parks.

3.) This bail condition also has precedent. Freedom of association is regularly abridged. Even within the sphere you're emphasizing, of political affiliation, you've yet to provide evidence that this is the first and only time it's ever happened. I find that difficult to believe. And the rationale behind this condition is evident. He subscribes to an ideology that promotes non-cooperation with governmental authority. His alleged crime ostensibly stems from that ideology. In other words, he has already allegedly broken the law in coordination with these beliefs. Now, his cooperation with the criminal justice system is a condition of his bail. As such, his continued association with groups that support an ideology that runs contrary to his cooperation with the criminal justice system is viewed as unacceptable by the court.