"... a judge has ruled. Families of the three children and three staffers gunned down last year by Hale, 28, at the private Christian Covenant School can block media outlets’ access to the writings, Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea Myles ruled Thursday night. 'The original writings, journals, art, photos and videos created by Hale are subject to an exception to the [Tennessee Public Records Act ] created by the federal Copyright Act,' Myles wrote in court documents.... Interest in Hales’ writings stem from the assertion by police that she was 'assigned female at birth' but may have identified as a transgender man...."
Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, criticized the judge's opinion: "To say that evidence collected by police can be copyrighted by the criminal, or the surviving parent or spouse of the criminal, does not bode well for the transparency of the police or the judicial system."
But the article says the judge said the victims' families own the copyright.
पोस्ट्स
११४ टिप्पण्या:
Can't access the article, bad URL. But: How can a judge arbitrarily assign copyright ownership? Is it something of value, awarded as 'damages'. Seems awfully, capriciously, creative.
However unsavory, the public has a right to either ponder or ignore the ravings of a lunatic, and it has value for a society, if they care to examine if/where/how that person went wrong, and to consider how it might improve. This is just an imposed darkness. Would anybody argue that the Unibomber had nothing worthwhile to say, and that it should have been eradicated from public view? I wouldn't. The judge is wrong, IMO. The families' pain does not override the public interest, even if much of the 'public interest' is mercenary.
I didn't know there was some legal mechanism that transferred the literary works of a murderer to the victim's family.
Another radical black female judge.
DEI live...
Legally wrong by a wide margin.
Did the killers’ heirs file for a federal copyright? And was it deposited with the copyright office?
I just hate it when judges make up law.
Did the heirs of the murder convey the IP to the families of the victims?
Can that possibly survive an appeal (or whatever legal recourse is available)?
What are they covering up? And why?
Was she taking a testosterone treatment? Did she and her victims die of “roid rage”?
We’re not going to learn any lessons from this tragic disaster.
Althouse... Typo in last sentence. "not own"
This seems absurd. Can a judge assign copyright because doing so sounds nice?
This does not bode well. While it appears to be a reasonable act, it removes the ability to understand the motivations of such people and prevent bad acts in the future.
Indeed, all it does is highlight the highlights: persons who identify as something not considered normal are actually beyond a slight shift from normal, and are prone to act in the extreme.
Evidently we *can* make this sh*t up.
According to the story, the murderer’s family transferred the copyright to the victim’s’ families.
I wonder if everything was done properly.
The problem is far too many mass murderers are pretty much judgment proof.
Broken link.
First lets get the obvious out of the way.
Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea Myles is not a Judge.
She is a political hack working for a political hack party.
To quote John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”
I think it is important and in the public interest for the whole world to see this manifesto. The Yale computer professor who was seriously injured by the UniBomber didn’t stop the publication of his manifesto.
The world needs to understand that these trans minors are mentally ill and need therapy and not surgery.
And didn’t this girl live with her parents? Why didn’t they stop her? Is this a fraudulent conveyance to stop lawsuits against the parents?
Copyright doesn’t need to be registered, it exists at the time of creation of a work of originality.
I think Fair Use exception is valid and in play. The factors for the use here weigh in favor of Fair Use. Not commercial, news worthy, educational purposes.
Publish the "manifesto" and see what happens when you deny people medical treatment.
Do some science, dammit. There is zero actual evidence for this contention. What you're trying to do is blackmail - give the person with the mental disorder what she wants or she'll go on a killing spree.
However - if what you had meant was that this person was in dire need of the services of a psychiatrist (which is not what you meant, clearly, since you ended with "ie HRT"), you might have had some leg to stand on. Prayer as an adjunct to mental health care, not a replacement for it, would be my approach.
Derve Swanson said...
Was she taking a testosterone treatment? Did she and her victims die of “roid rage”?
We’re not going to learn any lessons from this tragic disaster.
-------
No testosterone found in the system. She WASN'T getting medical treatment. She lived in TN in a conservative family that was praying and trying to convert her to their lifestyle.
Publish the "manifesto" and see what happens when you deny people medical treatment. Don't be a TN. Innocents died because she didn't/couldn't access medical care, ie HRT.
There is always testosterone "found in the system." Men and women both produce testosterone.
So you are obviously reading something said by a liar.
I had the impression that it had been leaked already anyway; perhaps I'm wrong.
The decision is absurd, of course, but par for the course nowadays.
And when was the conveyance of this copyright? If the public records request predates the conveyance, I don’t see how this stands.
Facts matter.
so the Crits were right: the law is what the judge ate for breakfast, or something.
Some of her writings were already leaked, but not sure about whole manifesto.
https://tennesseestar.com/covenant-school-shooting/
She was under psychiatric care since the age of 6 at Vanderbilt. She told her psychiatric caregivers that she wanted to kill her father and to shoot up a school, and that she had a plan.
If Hale had been a right-wing nut job the entire manifesto would have been released the day of the killings.
Freeman Hunt said...
This seems absurd. Can a judge assign copyright because doing so sounds nice?
No, But a Judge can assign copyright if it serves the interests of the Democrat Party.
It is right there in the Tennessee Constitution on the first page.
"A Judge can make up anything if it serves the Democrat Party. Notable supporting docs: Kelo, NFIB v. Sebelious, and Roe v. Wade.*"
*sorry about htat Roe v. Wade thing.
I'm thinking "follow the money" might be operative here.
Victim's families could probably take her family to the cleaners with wrongful death actions. They might settle for a way to ensure the family doesn't reap a windfall from somebody making a cause celebre docudrama (emphasis on 'drama') from the story.
The other possibility is the victims weren't random and there stuff in the writings they would rather not expose.
Is the expectation that the victims could sell the manifesto as some sort of compensation? Why would they want the rantings of the person who murdered their loved ones? To file suit against some responsible party?
She was under psychiatric care since the age of 6 at Vanderbilt. She told her psychiatric caregivers that she wanted to kill her father and to shoot up a school, and that she had a plan.
Holy smokes. That'll teach me not to follow a story.
I get that psychiatry is very hard to do, but surely there is a malpractice issue here.
If all of the victims' families own the copyright, can any one of them release the manifesto?
If this stands, how would it work? If one or two families wanted it blocked and the other families wanted it published who gets their way? Would they vote on it? It doesn't make sense.
I wonder how much the victim's families are being paid to take the position that the trans-GIBLET's journals shouldn't be released?
I'm convinced the journals contain the names of those who contributed to her mental illness and to the idea of murdering those at that school. It probably lists the names of the mental health physicians and her friends who she told what she planned to do and when she planned to do it.
Only good that would come from publishing the thing would be to potentially satisfy curiosity.
Would not change a thing. Crazy people get meds to help them, then figure they are cured, so quit taking the meds. Or, being normalized is too boring, so quit taking meds.
Far as talking therapy, not going to work on a genuine crazy person.
This girl was angry and unhappy her entire life. Probably bullied and made fun of for being a freak. Drugs, psychiatrist, parental love, involvement, and oversight had no positive effect.
No doubt many commenters here know, or know of, a child from a good, decent family who has gone bad, or crazy.
According to wiki, the murderer did live with her parents. She bought guns. Her parents knew she was mentally ill.
Negligence.
Are the victims' families incorporated in some way? I don't see how they as an amorphous group can "own" anything. Is there a lawyer in the house?
Just another coverup. Nothing to see here, move along. We can't be casting dispersion's on the entire trans movement now can we. That might offend someone if we expose the whole thing. So, just forget it and move on.
I used to be a little cynical pre-covid now I don't trust or believe anything I read or hear and only half of what I see.
Seems ridiculous. Hopefully will be appealed.
Turd-World people as judges makes for a Turd-World polity, but otoh the proles of that city voted for this outcome at least indirectly, when they elected Her Honor didn't they? "Democracy now!", right? Vote with your feet and leave or else [fed poast] are about the only alternatives other than just shaking your head and embracing the suck.
I think it's only fair that people's morbid interest should compensate the victim's families.
That is strange. Can someone explain that to me? What about the Unabomber's manifesto?
“What are they covering up? And why?
Was she taking a testosterone treatment? Did she and her victims die of “roid rage”?
We’re not going to learn any lessons from this tragic disaster.”
Why would the victim’s family want to hide anything about the killer of their loved ones?
so, the Victims' familys can release it? or is THIS ALL A SCAM?
Hale has never been convicted of a crime and can't be now that she is dead.
Yes, she killed the others and probably would have been found guilty.
But she was not
John Henry
This story is so weird that it must be wrong. The "judge" is not the last word. It can't be.
If the victim families own the copyright, they also own publication rights.
Let the press pay for them
John Henry
We hear a lot about men being sent to women's prison.
Had she lived would Hale have been sent to a men's prison?
Why do we never hear about non-penised men getting sent to men's prison?
John Henry
"But the article says the judge said the victims' families own the copyright."
How does that make a substantial difference? Crime is a matter of public interest, especially an unresolved crime like this one. Audrey Hale never had her day in court. Handing this evidence to the joint ownership of the victim's families is probably not in the public interest, and who are the families? Does the definition include cousins? And what does joint ownership of the copyright mean? Will they have actual custody of the document(s)?
We have copyright laws to encourage mass shooters to write manifestos. Otherwise why bother.
This brings to mind the case of Marina Oswald. A Texas gun collector offered her thousands of dollars in exchange for her rights as Lee Oswald's widow to the guns he owned, a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver and the infamous Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm rifle. The Feds argued that Mrs. Oswald had no rights because they were evidence in two murder cases. That argument was disallowed on the grounds that Lee Oswald was never even brought to trial, let alone convicted. Falling back, the Justice Department argued that Oswald never legally owned those guns, since he used a false identity when he purchased them. That claim was also struck down given the applicable law didn't not explicitly demand the disclosure of a firearm purchasers legal identity. In the end, the United States purchased those weapons from Marina Oswald for about $200, a fraction of their market value. Why Marina accepted that offer is immaterial. Consequently, both guns are public property in the custody of the National Archives available for examination by historians and scientists.
Althouse said "But the article says the judge said the victims' families own the copyright. " seems to me a distinction without a difference. The shooter was an adult so she owned the copyright. Does that automatically transfer to the heirs upon her death? You may not have to register copyright anymore but surely there has to be some sort of contract involved when you transfer ownership? So let's see the contract that transfers the ownership to the victims families. Otherwise, what Jim Gust said at 9:21
Assume that Miss Hale had survived; would she be able to suppress the diary at trial by claiming copyright? This all sounds like a one-off BS decision to serve the political interests of the trans lobby, I'm just not sure why law enforcement and the courts are all in on the cover-up.
"I get that psychiatry is very hard to do, but surely there is a malpractice issue here."
My understanding is that any caregivers to which she expressed a desire to murder people were under a legal obligation to report her to law enforcement. Local talk radio has noted that supposedly (IANAL) TN law requires any lawsuits against such caregivers to be filed within one year, and that hiding the evidence is a way to run out the clock. I don't know if this is entirely accurate, but I have heard no pushback against these assertions. If anyone versed in TN law can clarify then please do so.
So is this like a Son of Sam law? If the family members of the victims own the copyright does that mean that all of them individually have the right to publish as they see fit, or that each of them individually have the power to veto any of the others from publishing it? While I can't speak to the mind of any individual family member and their particular personal feelings on publishing or not, I find it hard to believe that there aren't a few or even a sizeable portion of them that want it made public. Emmitt Till's mother wanted her son to have an open casket funeral so the public could see the hate and anger that motivated his killers after all.
On June 20th, The Federalist Radio Hour had a good talk with Michael Patrick Leahy, CEO of Star News Digital Media and editor-in-chief of the Star News Network, about their battle to get the diaries and their reporting on legally acquired copies of the last diary/manifesto.
From it I learned that Vanderbilt university/hospital has some risk as they treated Audrey but did not follow the law about warning of her desire to kill her father and attack a school.
That the church and school are so adamant about the diaries not being released makes me wonder what they may have done to the girl when she was there in elementary school.
Inside The First Amendment Fight For The Nashville Trans Shooter’s Manifesto
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/inside-the-first-amendment-fight-for-the-nashville/id983782306?i=1000659644052
Professor,
I think who-knew is correct. The material would be copyrighted to the author upon creation but, if it is evidence in a crime, would it pass to the parents in the same manner that other objects owned by the decedent would?
Quaestor's comment is interesting but I find it peculiar that an item cannot be considered evidence in a crime even if the [alleged] criminal died before there was an adjudication. Is the common practice to return weapons seized to the alleged perpetrators' next of kin?
What a novel legal strategy given the fact that it has long been argued that the media furor around these shootings fed into the phenomenon.
They've released every single manifesto from every single other crackpot murderer, what's different here?
Myles' ruling in effect creates an involuntary association to administer the copyrights. These family members, no matter how that's defined, have little in common other than being related to someone allegedly murdered by Audrey Hale. Now they are stockholders in a "corporation" without a charter that they never sought to form. Are the individual members free to sell their interest in the documents? Does the "corporation" have officers? What about liabilities?
What about the content? Suppose some of the members want to reveal the manifesto (is that word really applicable?) and others don't. How will that be resolved? Seems to me the members of the Nashville Survivors Association are going to lawyering up against each other pretty soon.
Yet another example of Fauci's "the public can't handle the truth" behavior.
Derve Swanson writes, "Stop worshipping killers and learn from the victim's families about growth and how society changes for the better."
Perhaps this has escaped your notice, but how society changes for the better is and always has been a very contentious subject. Equally intelligent and morally beneficent people can be at odds over that question, so learning anything useful regarding that very slippery notion from persons accidentally connected by criminal violence is problematic, to say the least.
Nor has anyone who has commented here engaged in anything that can be characterized as worshipping killers, not by sound reasoning at any rate. Perhaps you should read this post and the associated comments more carefully or re-up your meds.
Something wrong here. The state and its actors really, really want to protect transgender rights. They'll deep six anything that might throw shade on those rights.
Sheesh.
FAIR USE!!!!
The murderer owned the copyright. The fact he was a murderer does not change that. When he died, his copyright passed to his estate, like his other assets. His parents are the beneficiary of his estate. The parents assigned the copyright to the victims family, and the families decided to protect their copyright. Nothing weird here
Have at it...
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/unabom-manifesto-2.html
"...medical treatment she never received in her home state and never had the gumption to go get elsewhere, it seems."
Medical treatment, meaning the old-fashioned drug therapy, or the newly popular faddish sex change operation therapy?
Meds work sometimes. Breast or penis removal work all the time.
“Blogger Inga said...
“What are they covering up? And why?
Was she taking a testosterone treatment? Did she and her victims die of “roid rage”?”
No, Blogger Inga did not say this. Blogger Big Mike said this, I was quoting him. Read more carefully.
Unabomber might still be active had his sister-in-law not read his published manifesto. Convinced her husband, Ted's brother, to contact authorities.
Naturally, FBI takes credit.
Anyway, Ted was paranoid about tech taking control of peoples lives. One scene showed the lonely FBI agents in the middle of nowhere, stopped at a red light at a four way intersection in the dead of night, with no traffic visible.
Waiting patiently for the light to turn green.
Made such an impression that I occasionally run those lights now. (Cautiously, after looking both ways, and stopping briefly)
The whole "Trans" phenomenon is an example of a fad that has escaped reality and will end up with considerable harm to the victims. The "Recovered Memories" thing is the closest example, that and the day care center hysteria.
But the article says the judge said the victims' families own the copyright.
Ms. Fisher spoke correctly. The article says, "Hale’s parents transferred ownership of her writings . . . to the families of the people she murdered in a bid to keep them out of the public eye." If the surviving parents had no valid copyright, there would have been nothing to transfer.
I guess this like Muslims yelling Allah Akbar when they slice someone up and we never will know the motive. White guy would be dissected down to his DNA.
This is why we should always hope to get the full story. Initially I thought the judge probably made a political ruling to protect trans ideology.
But reading this article, it's apparent that the judge may very well have had a solid basis for her ruling. First of all, under the law (presumably), Hale's parents owned the materials in question. They then transferred that ownership to the families of the victims.
The judge also noted that the materials depict strategies of mass shooting attacks and lionize prior mass-shooters.
Should the victims have the ability to block release and thereby deny Hale the notoriety she craved; deny Hale the ability to spread her poisonous ideology and hero-worship of prior mass shooters?
WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
I have never written an all capos comment before.
Inga writes "Read more carefully."
And write more carefully.
"Mom, Dad, my rich friend's parents bought him a new Corvette for his 16th birthday. If you don't buy me a Corvette, I'll kill myself!"
Kid gets shuffled off to inpatient psych facility...
"Mom, Dad, my friend just had her penis and testicles removed. If you don't get that for me, I'll kill myself!"
Mam and Dad sign hospital consent form...
So will the copyright owners publish and charge to read this stuff?
Kaczynski was turned in by his brother. Who may have been the survivor at law; he may have authorized the release.
If the writing was never copyrighted, is this all a red herring?
Leftist Democrat Trans shooter - protected.
g? we are all so shocked.
There have been at least five other trans shooters
Wow, Althouse. This page has become this weekend's Latest Demonstration of How Far the Althouse Comments Pages Have Fallen.
I do see a small handful of earnest questions about the legality and the legal questions involved in this case. Far more numerous were comments like this one:
Joe Smith said...
Another radical black female judge.
DEI live...
7/6/24, 9:12 AM
And absolutely no one even acknowledging that there is actually an interesting body of law on this topic, colloquially known as "Son of Sam Laws". With, like a Wikipedia page on the subject for laypersons who have just a modicum of curiosity.
So a cohort of trans people go homicidal and the regime doesnt want to point this out
The buffalo shooter guided by an ex bureau agent the colorado shooter who was binary the el paso shooter who was a deep ecologist all those came out
One must conclude the regime is indifferent to the slaughter of christian children
Hypothetical:
Suppose the killer wasn't herself killed.
The police find her manifesto. They take it as evidence.
Could the perp assert copyright and not allow her "work" to be published at trial?
I don't think so.
Here, the killer is dead, but that manifesto remains evidence of her motivations. Can the victims' family prevent its publication in the final police report on the crime?
Show your work.
With the pulse shooter they made remarkable effort to hide his jihadist ties to the blind sheikh to his fathers mosque to a cell in the kingdom funny how that works
Chuck, you poor booby.
Nobody is asserting that the victims' families are selling the manifesto for profit. It's just the opposite: they AREN'T going to release it.
So "Son of Sam" laws do not apply. Anyone with a modicum of curiosity" could see that at Wikipedia. But not you.
But yeah, your always off-point comments make many of us believe nitwits like you and Inga are fouling Althouse's nest.
There was also the trans/homosexual male serial rapist not that long ago.
This one seems to be a female with Levine dreams and abortive ideation. Were the arms traceable to the Obama-era gun running program with Whitmer conspiracy intent, or did they migrate across the boarder with illegal aliens care of the federal government?
The school mass abortions in recent years were linked to persons receiving psychiatric therapy and psychotropic drugs.
What about ownership of the physical copy. Interestingly you can physically own something containing copyrighted materials by not own the copyright (publication rights) of the same.
https://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/blog/tale-of-the-tape-the-nfls-copyright-claim-to-the-only-known-super-bowl-i-recording
I wasn’t aware that a copyright was a tool used to deny access, but rather it’s a tool insure attribution and compensation.
And in any case even copyrighted content can be used for editorial purposes.
It makes it both difficult and impossible not to imagine what terrible content our eyes must be shielded from.
Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck: "Wow, Althouse. This page has become this weekend's Latest Demonstration of How Far the Althouse Comments Pages Have Fallen."
Your explicit and loudly proclaimed objective to "drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers" in order to advance New Soviet Democratical narratives and talking points has never succeeded and will never succeed.
Even new readers pick up on your schtick very quickly....its just that adolescent and twisted.
this is a really weird decision no matter how you slice it
Its a ridiculous exercise in 'civering with a pillow, until it stops moving
How far did univision go to hide the islamist nature of the pulse shooter they found somd old guy who claimed to be the shooters lover yes it was that ridiculous also they masked the face and muffled the voice
Covering we saw when a nation of islam adherent actually stab a capitol policemen crickets
But somebody already did mention the Son of Sam laws. So it would appear that the commenter that complains and criticizes the lack of insight or meaningful commentary on Althouse's thread, is ironically guilty of the same offense, and worse, oblivious to the self-parody.
How unaware can one be? And, in light of that commenter, I'll just add: That was not a rhetorical question.
Remember this tragedy was used to try to extort the legislature into restricting lawful gun owners like sandy hook like parkland they succeeded to a degree with uvalde thanks to the possums
The law™ is everywhere mere cobwebs for the rulers and steel chains for everyone else. All of Mensa members among the Professor's commentariat (and some are even lawyers no less) just can't seem to see this no matter how many times it's rubbed in their faces. Go figure? The Law™ is whatever the fuck they tell you it is my fellow peons. Most of you WP simply cannot grasp this. You can't fight city hall. Now if the document in question were a SCOTUS' medical records that would be different. And you all know why. Even with their masks dropped you just won't see.
Levi Starks said...
I wasn’t aware that a copyright was a tool used to deny access, but rather it’s a tool insure attribution and compensation.
>>> Yes. Much like patents, a copyright holder can prevent others from reproducing or distributing their copyrighted material, and sue them if they do. Authors and song writers do it all the time.
>>>Just harken back to the millions George Harrison had to pay for (unintentionally) copying "He's so Fine" with the Chiffons' "My Sweet Lord". Just about note for note, chord progression for chord progression.
And in any case even copyrighted content can be used for editorial purposes.
>>>Only "fair use". Not the whole thing.
It makes it both difficult and impossible not to imagine what terrible content our eyes must be shielded from.
“I wonder if everything was done properly.”
If not, you can bet a lawyer will show up and make some money on it. 🤨
So Chuck, you mock Joe Smith comment about "another radical black female judge". Have you wondered why a lot conservatives feel that way? Emphasis on radical. Of course you don't, because any hint of conservatism is an alien concept to you.
Permit me to 'splain it you. Every mass shooting has been blamed in some way, shape, or form on the right wing. The NRA, the gun lobby, AR-15 manufacturers, or Trump. So here we have a Tranny who describes in explicit detail her/his actions ..... and it clearly does not point to a right wing shooter. So a lefty judge buries it! Understand? Nope, you refuse to.
Blogger Humperdink said...
Permit me to 'splain it you. Every mass shooting has been blamed in some way, shape, or form on the right wing. The NRA, the gun lobby, AR-15 manufacturers, or Trump. So here we have a Tranny who describes in explicit detail her/his actions ..... and it clearly does not point to a right wing shooter. So a lefty judge buries it! Understand?
Still don't know the motive of the Las Vegas Shooter and little interest in the Nashville bomber.
So "Son of Sam" laws do not apply.
And yet Chuck has, in the past, claimed to be a lawyer. Doesn’t Althouse have a tag “things not believed”?
The "Establishment" does so many awful things to hide the truth from the people that it's not surprising that this story generated some situational paranoia, but is that fear justified here?
Quite a few commenters say that the transaction described constitutes a coverup. Of what? if anyone has a cause of action against anyone for these murders, it's the victims and their families against the family of the perpetrator (claims against the school and others don't seem to be relevant to this discussion). So the family of the perpetrator have given evidence they have to the families of the victims. What kind of cover-up is that?
@Leland. I suspect for the reason that I outlined above.
I know that Steven Crowder had released, at least portions, of the manifesto which which had been leaked to him. I wonder if this is going to be used so they can flag his videos on it for copyright violation under DMCA and get them taken down from YouTube.
Hes at the Lionel Hutz stage at this point,
but it is a serious issue, well adjusted people do not go on a rampage,
Lawlessness by the Judge again. How much Soros cash was she paid?
how long do they cover things up,
https://www.floridabulldog.org/2024/06/saudi-princes-cell-phone-linked-to-9-11-hijackers/
The murderer owned the copyright. The fact she was a murderer does not change that. When she died, her copyright passed to her estate, like her other assets. Her parents are the beneficiary of her estate. The parents assigned the copyright to the victims family, and the families decided to protect their copyright. Nothing weird here.
Audrey Hale was born a female. 'He' is a she.
Audrey Hale was born a female
Conceived as the female sex. Conception is the point of no return, no refunds, and no change 'til death do us part. Gender denial care does nothing to alleviate the symptoms.
Jim at said...
The murderer owned the copyright. The fact she was a murderer does not change that. When she died, her copyright passed to her estate, like her other assets. Her parents are the beneficiary of her estate. The parents assigned the copyright to the victims family, and the families decided to protect their copyright. Nothing weird here.
************
What's weird is that the manifesto is EVIDENCE in a multiple murder investigation. It's well-established law that claims of copyright alone cannot defeat a subpoena for those materials.
Recall the maxim, " the law requires every man's evidence", meaning that ----absent certain exceptions like attorney-client privilge, the 5th amendment, and the like , a person has to produce materials demanded under a valid subpoena. Asserting copyright as a way of twarting a subpoena will get you nowhere in all courts --- but maybe not in this DEI dirtbag's courtroom.
But in a rigged court attempting to stifle the public's right to know the facts behind a heinous crime, citing "copyright" as a way to avoid the truth is simply corrupt woke DEI bullshit.
Lawyer Chuck should speak to his classmate Judge Nonce Name about this.
Judge is somewhat photogenic
This will be appealed faster than the speed of light.
If the shooter was being treated by a psychiatrist/psychologist, and she had both expressed homicidal thoughts, that therapist was supposed to report her to authorities so she couldn't buy guns, and maybe even warn the ones she was plotting to kill.
Major malpractice suit for the families.
Is this the same judge sitting on the Epstein client list? (Rhetorical question)
Back in the days when dinosaurs walked the earth, Howard Hughes formed a company that would acquire the copyright of works that had significant biographical detail about himself. He then used those copyrights to terrorize anyone trying to tell the Howard Hughes story. That worked for a while, until fair use put an end to the scheme.
People wishing to comment on the shooter, the shooting, or transgenderism have a fair use right to quote the diary in a reasonable amount.
As for the assignment, I'd like to see it. Something is fishy here.
The feds had nothing to do with this except for missing it. Then they showed up and took the manifesto and kept it secret. Why? Maybe parked it next to Seth Rich's laptop.
See the Crumbley case in Michigan. The parents of the shooter at Oxford High were convicted of some version of manslaughter for allowing ane facilitating their obviously nutcase son to have a gun.
That sets a precedent, as long as the parents in question are ugly and are Not Like Us.
IT would be nice to know what the Duty to Report law--if it exists in the state--would have required of various folks who had contact with Hale.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा