[summer]

Besides, it also would get the government into the business of deciding what is and is not "the truth" ... and I don't think there's a single one of us here that doesn't find that concept disgusting.

Well, that's a good point, but consider this scenario: Say the US Attorney's office alleges and proves Blair is in fact guilty of the crime of grand larceny, because Blair was demanding money from the NYT for travel expenses when Blair was actually home in his apartment.

Now, Blair is tried and convicted. Depending on the amount of money involved, and what exactly the Son of Sam law states, Blair would be prohibitied already from selling his story. If OTHERS want to tell his story and profit, they can. But, not Blair. I think that is fair.

[Timesink]

Now, Blair is tried and convicted. Depending on the amount of money involved, and what exactly the Son of Sam law states, Blair would be prohibitied already from selling his story. If OTHERS want to tell his story and profit, they can. But, not Blair. I think that is fair.

Yeah, if they can nail him on something like that, I wouldn't have any problem with it.