Wednesday, June 02, 2010

This is not a post


This is not a post.

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that if you wish to invoke your right to remain silent, then it is not sufficient merely to remain silent. To have the right to remain silent then you have to break your silence to say that you wish to remain silent.

Can anyone else see the logical problem with this concept?

I was hoping not to write a post on this blog today. I wished to remain silent today.

However, under the new interpretation of the law I have to write a post to say that I'm not writing a post today.

This is the post saying I am not writing a post today.

This is not a post.

31 comments:

JP said...

I formally announce that I reserve my right under the US Supreme Court ruling to not post a comment on this blog today.

(got there first :)

Anonymous said...

I hereby invoke my right to counsel, including my right to have counsel present, my right to remain silent, and my privilege against self-incrimination.

Dan Gurney said...

No comment.

Doc Häagen-Dazs said...

I'm not posting a comment yet because I haven't had my first cup a java. But I can still see enough to know that, even with my first sip of black gold, I'll recognize this as a post. So, this is only a provisional comment, contingent upon my coffee maker. Where is she?

Antolin said...

reminds me of that riddle....what is so fragile that the very mention of it breaks it?.....silence

tillerman said...

Or Racing Rule 18.1 which lists 4 conditions in which Rule 18 does NOT apply, in which case of course Rule 18.1 doesn't apply either and so Rule 18 DOES apply in which case of course so does Rule 18.1 and so...

Oh, never mind.

O Docker said...

This makes perfect sense, if you are a lawyer.

Instead of hiring a lawyer to speak on your behalf, you will now need to hire a lawyer to remain silent on your behalf.

SoxSail said...

Tillerman, You do know that the guy didn't in fact remain silent. Under lengthy and intense questioning, he finally talked. The right to remain silent, is actually a right to end questioning. In order to actually remain silent, you need only remain silent... forever.

tillerman said...

Quite right SoxSail. I did simplify the case a bit. Apparently if you break your silence to say you want to remain silent and the police continue you to ask you questions anyway, then what you say while you are not actually remaining silent cannot be used against you.

But the new ruling means that if you don't break your silence to say that you want to remain silent and the police continue you to ask you questions, then what you say while you are not remaining silent can be used against you.

This all makes perfect sense if you are a constitutional lawyer.

The moral of the tale is that if the police ask you whether you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down then it's probably not a smart move to answer in the affirmative. This is exactly the kind of mistake that can get you life without parole.

Silence is golden.

Baydog said...

precisely

O Docker said...

Of course, If you're French, life without parole is the same thing as remaining silent.

tillerman said...

O Docker, it's comments like this that makes you not one of my favorites.

BeachComber said...

Very post-modern, Tillerman. Ce n'est pas un pipe.

Litoralis said...

Tillerman is right. If you intend to exercise your right to remain silent merely by remaining silent, you must continue to remain silent. Anything you do say can be used against you (which is what happened to the defendant in the Supreme Court case). However, this case makes it clear(er) that if you want questioning to stop on the basis of your intention to remain silent (i.e., not incriminate yourself) then you have to make that intention known (just as you must make your desire for counsel known in order to stop questioning until counsel is present).

Baydog said...

Sailing a Laser is fun!

Doesn't do nicknames said...

I too would prefer to hear about sailing, but since we are off topic ... "justice" and "getting away with it" are not the same thing.

Tillerman said...

Doesn't do nicknames, it's not doing a nickname like Doesn't do nicknames that makes you one of my favorite nicknames. Or not.

I would prefer to write about sailing too but I did my Tuesday night sailing on Wednesday night this week.

Doesn't do windows said...

Sailing a Laser is fun.

Pat said...

There's an easy solution if you want to remain silent:

Duct tape.

Baydog said...

:|

Zen said...

This is another one of those , left blank on purpose posts.

Zen said...

Only the blogfather can write a unpost about posting a non-post, and get 21 comments.

Word verification: Unpres = a nonpublished unpost

Tillerman said...

It is true Zen that I get many more comments when I write a post about nothing than I usually get when I write a post about sailing. Maybe I should write a whole blog about nothing?

O Docker said...

I'm already writing a blog about nothing.

We are always advised to write about what we know, so that's what I do.

I've always been particularly interested in nothing, so I write about nothing in particular.

I value the comments you leave on my blog. Sometimes you have absolutely nothing to say, and you do so very well. Thanks for nothing.

Tillerman said...

O Docker. It's not for nothing that comments like this don't make you not one of my favorite nobodies.

BeachComber said...

You're right, O'Docker, we should write about things we have expertise in. An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing. You and Tillerman must be experts.

tillerman said...

I resent that remark BeachComber. I don't always write about nothing. Sometimes I write about Laser sailing, a field in which I have zero expertise.

On second thoughts, I suppose that when I am writing about my total lack of Laser sailing expertise I am actually writing about nothing.

On third thoughts, I am an expert in writing about not being an expert.

O Docker said...

I have nothing to add.

I've always wondered why people feel compelled to say that.

Pat said...

Yeah the ratio is way unbalanced; how often do you hear public speakers say they have nothing to subtract, multiple, divide, differentiate, integrate, invert, etc.?

Are we missing something?

Pat said...

multiply, sorry

Tillerman said...

BeachComber, it seems as if your last comment was multiplying itself so I took your advice and multiplied all except one copy by zero.

Post a Comment