💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29453814 captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
Relevant paragraphs from the article:
Normally, accusations of misconduct are handled out of public view by a little-known state committee. But the professors wanted to make some noise. They filed grievances against 21 Queens prosecutors, and instead of keeping their complaints quiet, they built a website and published everything online — and made plans to expand the effort to other boroughs.
The 21 grievances were based on judicial findings of misconduct. In many cases, the convictions that the prosecutors’ misbehavior had helped to win had been reversed or overturned. But the prosecutors, who worked to send innocent people to prison or otherwise violated professional standards, had not been held accountable. Indeed, a number have continued to work as prosecutors in Queens, or elsewhere in New York.
The city has argued that the professors’ actions violated a New York law that requires that complaints related to lawyers’ conduct be kept private unless judicial authorities decide otherwise. The professors are asking that a judge declare that law to be unconstitutional, a violation of their First Amendment rights.
IMO it's absurd that criminal convictions are public, and yet the mere public mention of a _third party's_ complaint against a prosecutor _after a judge has found the prosecutor's actions to be misconduct_ is quashed. IANAL but it seems like a straightforward First Amendment case.
The lawyers write the laws and rules to protect their club members. Good for the professors to publicize the prostituter (!) misconduct.