Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[TC-Alternate-list] the Brave Net World, #2 - the DSS case of Raphael Golb

Expand Messages
  • Steven Avery
    Hi, The Raphael Golb case is still a real concern. About a month ago, I went to the NYS Appellate hearing, Ron Kuby gave the defense side, and one lady
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      The Raphael Golb case is still a real concern. About a month ago, I went to the NYS Appellate hearing, Ron Kuby gave the defense side, and one lady appellate judge at the time really seemed to understand the case. This travesty of 2 felony convictions and a gazillion misdemeanor convictions (the misdemeanors de facto for posting under another name and being annoying to some) was heard. The Appellate threw out one absurd felony, but left everything else intact.  A poor result, and now the goal is to overturn in Albany or, if necessary, Federal, and hopefully bail will be continued. 

      I'm not gonna write up a whole thing here, there are some blogs, easy enough to find, and Raphael wrote up a 39 page summary.

      The Raphael Golb Trial
      Towards the criminalization of personal satire and controversy in America

      Dead Sea Scrolls Go to Court
      A brilliant young Harvard Ph.D. faces jail for impersonating a Bible scholar­and rival of his father

      Gatekeeping the Net: An Acadcmic-Political Quarrel and its Aftermath - Raphaels recent writing 39 pages

      proves d 'intention or "trial by intent." (p. 25)

      Fernando Passoa

      As the prosecution brilliantly demonstrated, the act of annoyance itself was to be performed by the recipients of the emails, who were to become my weapons in a scheme of harassment. This result put the case on the cutting edge of harassment law, marking a major exception to the so-called rules (undoubtedly unsound, or in need of revision) that speech cannot be criminalized merely because it is annoying, that harassment must not be confused with libel, and that emails only constitute harassment if they are sent directly to their victims.

      Although the language is a bit complex the new legal theory is that if some one says you annoy them on the net, they can wedge that into a prosecution for harassment. (p. 30)

      I am more inclined to believe I was spared because at one point I testified that I could probably settle my differences with him over a cup of coffee because
      he has a sense of humor. (p.31)  
      (hmm..same problem with the contras on the net)

      It is clear that, at least until recently, our tradition has drawn a line between offenses that take place in the intellectual realm and the type of tangible — i.e., financial.bodily, or intolerably invasive — harms or threats to safety that the criminal laws are often said to be intended to punish and deter. My conviction, efficiently handled by New York's more-than-capable prosecutorial and judicial officials, opens the door to a reassessment of these principles.  (p. 32-33)

      A fascinating area of distinction between satire, parody and comedy is brought forth.
      This was the heart of the prosecution's case .. "we did not find it funny".

      ...  if the verdict stands, The People v. Raphael Golb will have created extraordinarily remarkable legal precedent. (p. 34)


      Last posted about here:

      [TC-Alternate-list] Raphael Golb - implications of NYC case - the Brave Net World of internet prosecution
      Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:10 pm 

      And I remember the debates when Raphael was doing a little sock-puppet action (Charles Gadda, Robert Dworkin).  Still have them in archives.  Sometimes annoying, funny, no big deal.  The Duke poster, S. G., worked at the school with Jodi Magness, who I have seen speak here about .. the Dead Sea Scrolls !  At Queens College.  Also saw Lawrence Schiffman at NYU, including a film of him sliding or spelunking into a cave. (When he spoke at Queens College also, different topic, I asked him about Emanuel Tov and the LXX. When he spoke in Great Neck, one issue was the portrayal of the Sanhedrin in the NT, where he was surprisingly fair.)

      Anyway, any forum moderator can screen first posts.  The sock-puppet stuff was funny, it could be annoying, but it clearly was, in a sane world, not even remotely  criminal.  And the whole thing with Schiffman at NYU with the gmail account was really much ado about nothing, a clumsy parody attempt, actually a bit humorous. Except that Schiffman, with help from Cargill (who has clearly indicated that he has civil suit $$ hopes, one motive) went to the NYS DA office, with unclean hands.

      In reality, there was no harm, there might have been a smidgen of embarrassment. If there really was a concern Schiffman could simply put a blog post, or the equivalent, saying "that spoof email was not really me". However, there was not even that much of a concern ... and they had other motives.   Because of Schiffman's society connections, he would have home-court advantage similar to how Elisha Qimron won against BAR.  (However, that case, while a bad decision, was not a travesty, and was only civil, where such issues belong. Minor lasting effect.)

      You don't have to agree with the specifics of concern about the DSS issues and plagiarism (personally, I have no conviction either way on all that) to understand that this is the type of case that makes very bad law.

      And is a real foot in the door for establishment censorship.
      If you think I am being a bit melodramatic, read about the court hearings and the injustice system.

      Archived at:

      [TC-Alternate-list] the Brave Net World, #2 - the DSS case of Raphael Golb
      Steven Avery - Jan 29, 2012

      Steven Avery
      Bayside, NY

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.