To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
This is totally leotarded. Why should the law discriminate against people like that, even if they are huge dickheads? Our country has a long history of allowing dickheads to profit by selling their schlock to other dickheads (e.g. this blog, often). What if we just made a blanket statement that said that nobody could profit from writing about any illegal act they have ever done? BO would have to give us our money back because youthful drug use spiced up his memoir.
And why would you hope that his book doesn’t get published. Aside from the puritanical, anti-first amendment tone of the sentiment, just think of all the fodder for satirists he could provide.
@ 1, he can start his own blog if he wants to share his side of the story. Anti first amendment my ass.
I do agree about the law, though. This isn’t like some serial murderer writing a book about his crimes.
Let’s just ghost write it.
“So I said: ‘Look I got something fucking valuable here and I want to some fucking money for it!’ She said yes and then and then I was all fucking married and shit. But, not being an idiot, I knew the real fucking money was in politics…”
Jesus Christ, they really have it in for this guy.
That Ala. gov put in jail by Rove and Freddy at DOJ needs to write a book about it, this kind of law would block him, also MLK Ghandi etc. Ever hear the song “Jailhouse Blues” ?
Would that be barred, too?
“Friend of the Devil”?
I would lean against laws restricting any speech or art. And what’s art to you ain’t art to me, right, so the fact it’s crap doesn’t count.
why do you give such a fuck? he’s hilarious, and no corruption actually occurred. he was impeached for attempting corruption.
So why can’t his wife or kids write a memoir of their experiences and get quotes from him.
Trust me, it will happen. There is always some way to do it.
What’s with the “freedom of speech” comments? This doesn’t prevent him from saying whatever the fuck he wants to. It prevents him from using his criminal notoriety for personal financial gain. If the penalty for public corruption and misuse of office is a slap on the wrist and a book deal, where’s the disincentive? Getting caught should mean your life is ruined: otherwise, the kind of people who pull this crap (i.e., people with no conscience, who are above nothing) have no reason not to try.
@6: Are you serious? Beyond the fact that demonstrable intent to commit a crime is, in itself, a crime, corruption actually lies mainly in the attempt. The act of offering to sell the senate seat was itself the crime.
The legal precedent would be the “Son of Sam” law passed in New York after the 1970s serial killer who was offered a lot of money for his story after he was convicted. Several states have such laws; some, including NY, have been struck down or revised on First Amendment grounds or for reasons mentioned by other Slogheads, i.e. Malcolm X, MLK, etc. This issue even came up with the Watergate conspirators, whose stories needed to be told in order for the American people to learn the truth about this scandal.
It’s not easy, of course, to find the right balance between the First Amendment and the public’s right to know vs profiteering from a crime. It’s even more complicated when the crime was political rather than something like a serial killer where there are identifiable victims who could receive the profits as compensation. My understanding is that states who have such a law (don’t know if that includes Illinois prior to this recent act) decide on a case by case basis how to enforce it.
I understand Blago was recently prohibited from appearing in some Survivor-type reality TV show set in the jungles of Central America. Personally I think that was a mistake. I never watch those shows but I would have gladly tuned in to see him attacked by killer bees, poison snakes, tarantulas and other creatures they have down there.
Whew, holy crap! I thought from the post title that you were for some reason mad at that cool hair-cuttin’ place down in Georgetown………. Whew!