<object width="448" height="374"><param name="movie" value="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshh3IwXkBGAD94saYb1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshh3IwXkBGAD94saYb1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" width="448" height="374"></embed></object>
As I see it, there's really no way to prevent this. They would either have to 1. prevent him from acting as his own counsel, 2. limit his access to the evidence against him (both of these options seem contrary to the Judiciary Act of 1789), or 3. withdraw the evidence.
Exactly right. The ideas and rights behind 1 and 2 are too important to be influenced by this case regardless of how revolted we are by the particulars.
I don't see anyway to stop this, and I'm not that concerned about it. If he's found guilty then he will spend many years in prison with not such access. The fact that he has some access now isn't as significant as making sure he gets a fair trial and is sent to prison if he's found guilty. I'm concerned about the fact that there is child p*rnography than some guy watching it.
