I and many others have protested the persecution of Martha Stewart. Although the media treat it like a celebrity gossip story, it is in fact a travesty of justice. Ironically, her release from prison makes this even clearer. She must now present herself to the authorities to be fitted for an ankle bracelet (an electronic shackle) so that they can enforce her house arrest for five months. Is the law supposed to be mean-spirited? Here is a woman who assaulted no one, stole from no one, defrauded no one. She did no harm to anyone in any way. At worst, she lied to goverment agents who asked about a stock sale that was none of their business. She was never charged in connection with the sale per se.
Yet she is now confined to her home (not her entire property) until August. It may be a nice home, but that does not change the fact that the state intends to humiliate her. It goes to show that the state will tolerate many things. But lying to its agents is not one of them. Of course, those agents are perfectly free to lie to us.
comments powered by Disqus
Tom G Palmer - 3/5/2005
Good for you, Sheldon! Few people will stand up for someone who's been prosecuted/persecuted for the crime of being successful. Alan Reynolds did a nice job of dissecting the cast at http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040309.html
Max Swing - 3/4/2005
I can't say anything more, than that I feel deeply sympathic towards that woman, who lost everything to a state that had no right to meddle with her on THAT basis.
- Five Things You Need to Know to be a Better Digital Preservationist
- Book on Losing British Generals Wins American History Prize
- Stanford scholar explores civil rights revolution's positive impact on the South's economy
- Harvard Historian Nancy Koehn on Amazon's Tentacular Reach
- Q&A with historian and author Nick Turse