A British judge admitted on Wednesday he was struggling to cope with basic terms like “Web site” in the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet.
Judge Peter Openshaw broke into the questioning of a witness about a Web forum used by alleged Islamist radicals. “The trouble is I don’t understand the language. I don’t really understand what a Web site is,” he told a London court during the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws.
Prosecutor Mark Ellison briefly set aside his questioning to explain the terms “Web site” and “forum”. An exchange followed in which the 59-year-old judge acknowledged: “I haven’t quite grasped the concepts.”
Prosecutors have told the jury at Woolwich Crown Court, east London, that the defendants kept car-bomb-making manuals and videos of how to wire suicide vests as part of a campaign to promote global jihad, or holy war.
The trial continues…
The judge is dealing with a law that says knowledge, having access to fact and opinion – completely aside from committing a criminal act – is equally criminal. Like all conspiracy law, it’s ultimately political. The politics of the offender are judged by who’s in power.
Having an ignorant judge is part of the politics.
Where does this “British judge” live? Mars?
If he doesn’t understand what a web site is, it would seem he’s also unaware of what the Internet is and he’s obviously he’s the perfect judge for this particular case. He won’t have any preconceptions.
Lord, please save us from unbelievably ignorant judges! Perhaps Senator Ted Stevens can explain to this judge about all the tubes circling the earth.
Everyone knows that it’s a series of tubes! Duh…
Powerful men rarely know the infrastructures that support them. Remember Bush the elder’s reaction to a bar-code scanner in a supermarket? If you have subordinates do everything for you, how can you understand how to do anything?
For every person like him who asks there’s 100 who don’t know but pretend they do. Sell computers for a while like I did and you’ll find out.
Maybe he can learn how a the little arrow on the screen actually works by watching this http://www.1-click.jp/
Remember Bush the elder’s reaction to a bar-code scanner in a supermarket?
Yeah, I do, actually.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.htm
Hmm. A “web site” is like a glass-covered notice board where the site owner has the key. I don’t know if there is an exact real-world analogy for a “forum”. Let’s say that the same notice board has an infinite number of slots in it, and at irregular times during the day, a postman arrives, opens letters and places their contents in those slots, behind the glass. The site owner has the key and can remove them, but nobody else can remove them.
I know there are other kinds of forum, but this is just a “for instance”.
It’s easy to sit at home, read an article for 5 minutes, and condemn somebody as a stooge or an idiot for a simple question, but the answer might make a difference to the outcome of the case. Let’s say, for example, that the bomb formula was found on a “web site”. Prima facie, you’d say that the site owner was responsible for that formula. But if the same formula appeared at a “forum”, it’s a lot more complicated. Who posted it? How long did it stay up? Etc. It could be that the judge wanted these matters clarified, and entered into the record.
I’ve never been in an English courtroom, but I have watched British courtroom dramas, and have spoken with educated Brits, and in both cases occasionally they do preface an innocent seeming but important question with a self-effacing “I’m not quite clear on this …”, which is just as much a verbal tic as somebody inserting “y’know” several times in a sentence. I wouldn’t place too much importance on verbal tics.
What is required is a precise “legal” definition of terms such as “web-site”, “forum”, “discussion group”, “blog”, etc.
Other factors for consideration by the judge should include how difficult would it be for a person to either disguise their own identity or assume the identity of another individual.
What is required is a precise “legal” definition of terms such as “web-site”, “forum”, “discussion group”, “blog”, etc.
Other factors for consideration by the judge should include how difficult would it be for a person to either disguise their own identity or assume the identity of another individual.
Years ago, when I was in high school and the sysop of a BBS run from the school, one of the users wrote a nastygram to the principal about our board. He was upset that we had barred him from the board with cause. The principal knew nothing of computers, so we sat him down and gave him a lesson. He understood something – at least that we were trying to run a fine system suitable for grade-school students – and that the plaintiff was off his rocker. It takes all kinds, even Luddites, to give us the society we have. I can certainly understand a judge being detached, although I would encourage him to get connected!
I think you made your point Bill “Chuck” Gates.
rofl thats really bad – but thats what you get for pssing the bar 40+ years ago
#12, Alger,
Sounds like you’re criticizing James for the exact same thing you are doing. The NY Times piece was an opinion of Bushes reaction. So is your take on it. At least Snopes put some rational behind their debunking. This was 1988. Common everyday scanning was just hitting its stride and was not universal yet. Bush was having the technology explained, something most intellectually curious people would be interested in and many would be amazed at.
Having an ignorant judge is part of the politics.
As is having ignorant reporters.
Both are vary dangerous.
#15, while I agree with the ignorant journalist being dangerous, I’m not so sure about the Judge. After all, our adversarial version of justice demands that he make his judgment on the evidence presented. If, like most of us, he already has some bias, then I don’t think he will make the most impartial decision.