According to the news, the feds are NOT investigating the production of the video. The feds are investigating him for parole violation.

News reports  are saying he was on probation for bank fraud conspiracy from stealing identities & SSANs and stealing $790K from others accounts, transferring them into accounts set up with fake identities, and then withdrawing the funds through ATMs.

He pleaded no-contest to the charges, was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. He was released early on probation, with the news reporting that the terms of his parole included being barred from assuming aliases and using computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

It's not relevant to this issue per se, but says a little about the guy himself--he served 1 year in prison in 1997 for possession of meth with intent to manufacture. He's not a pristine individual.

Originally Posted by: macbob 

funny thing is, the rights aren't supposed to just protect choir boys.

that's the problem when courts give broad conduct bans ("no internet") that mean punishment disproportionate ("restrict freedom of speech") to the offense ("defraud a bank").

Should the probation that follows completion of a prison term for an offense be able to trump the First Amendment?

It's that damnable distinction between "civil rights" and "natural rights" again. If freedom to speak and associate is simply a government-created "civil" right? Or is it something that exists prior to the Constitution?

The Supremes of course will say its "merely" the former, and will defer to the terms of the probation. According to the Supremes, freedom of speech is nothing close to an absolute, I'm afraid, zombieslayer.

Because the Supremes, as usual, are full of shit.

And "Justice Department" is an oxymoron.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

funny thing is, the rights aren't supposed to just protect choir boys.

that's the problem when courts give broad conduct bans ("no internet") that mean punishment disproportionate ("restrict freedom of speech") to the offense ("defraud a bank").

Should the probation that follows completion of a prison term for an offense be able to trump the First Amendment?

Originally Posted by: Wade