User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626)
OK, that covers the defendant, but what if the person in question is
not a defendant?
Simple .. they grant the person immunity from prosecution for the crime
in question, then compel their testimony. There goes the
"self-incrimination" argument, since the person can no longer be
prosecuted for their participation in the crime. Failure to *then*
testify, results in a contempt of court charge and a stay in the pokey
(although not for long, since the judge will eventually release the
person if they realize that punishment will not compel compliance).
Still, a stay in the pokey is a hard sell for most.
I disagree though that allowing police worldwide to come up with a
"blacklist" .. first it's under the guise of "protecting children" .. so
first the porn goes there. What next? talk about drugs, sex, ?
We're supposed to be making it harder to censor, not easier.
/mike.
PS: for those that notice the dichotomy between this and my previous
email about blocking academic journal access, this has to do not with
ideals, but practicality in getting institutional ssupport. I can handle
the police just fine, internal muckety-mucks are harder.