Who will be first to liveblog an execution

We liveblog trials and oral arguments.  Why not an execution?  Iran and the US both work to kill people with as much pageantry as possible. 

Iran, while utilizing a fairly secretive judicial system feels it has nothing to hide and executes people in public so that their citizenry can decide for themselves if killing by government bureaucrats is a good thing or not.

The US, while it has a slightly more open judicial system is virtually and a fairly robust press, is virtually paralyzed with fear that if the general public were to actually witness a killing by government servants that they might change their mind.  Therefore, like Iran’s judicial system, state-sponsored killing are sealed.

In Iran they gather all the people around to a public area and kill 30 or so people.  In the US, we release .pdfs affirming death sentences and accuse each other of “judicial activism.”  The .pdfs often contain pop culture references to show that the presiding judges are hip.  A good time is had by all.  The Victims Rights Industry fills their coffers.

Iran and the US both have bloggers.  One of them is bound to be able to figure out a way to liveblog the beautiful pageantry of the killing of one of our own.  I don’t know if it is legal yet in the US despite the above-mentioned First Amendment (in Iran, I assume that it is).

China uses a “#1 Happy Execution Bus" a/k/a "Death Cab for Executie."

While I am sure that the liveblogger will have to bring their computer in a laptop bag, they should be careful that it doesn’t resemble a bowling bag.

Comments

[Jeff Nye]

Iran . . . feels it has nothing to hide and executes people in public so that their citizenry can decide for themselves if killing by government bureaucrats is a good thing or not.

You don't really believe this, do you? Iran executes people in public to suppress dissent, not to empower the citizenry. Come on.

Iran and the US both have bloggers. One of them is bound to be able to figure out a way to liveblog the beautiful pageantry of the killing of one of our own. I don’t know if it is legal yet in the US despite the above-mentioned First Amendment (in Iran, I assume that it is).

Again, I can't tell if you're serious or not. Blogging is illegal in Iran. It's punishable by death.

[S. COTUS]

Like most things, I believe it to a point.

1. I am not sure that blogging is completely illegal in Iran. I mean, if some Iranian wanted to set up a music or wrestling (both of which are popular in Iran) would he really be arrested? Likewise, would an Iranian lawyer be arrested for marketing via his commercial-law blog. After all, there are law firms in Iran and they need to market, too. Perhaps you could provide some details.

The article you cite does not even support your proposition. First of all, it speaks of a proposed law. (Similar laws have been proposed, but got nowhere in the US.) Second of all, assuming it was enacted, it only criminalizes “the creation of blogs and websites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy.”

Therefore, based on your own sources there is absolutely no indication that blogging is per se illegal in Iran.

In fact, it turns out that Mahmoud“there are no gays in Iran” Ahmadinejad has a blog of his own. I don’t know if it is linked to his Myspace page. However, he seems to agree with a number of American politicians on a few issues.

2. Iran executes people for all sorts of reasons. I seriously doubt that executing 30 people will suppress much dissen nor does the government of Mahmoud “there are no gays in Iran” Ahmadinejad think so.. Suppression of dissent is much more complicated than just a few executions. It takes carrots, sticks, and lots of things to do effectively.

3. Finally, and most importantly, at some level, Iran feels that its modes of execution will not shock people into revolution. There won’t even be strikes. Even assuming that there is no means of democratic change in Iran (a questionable proposition), the current regime feels that the people will not be drawn to violent revolution. On the other hand, states seem to feel that if people would see a killing by a state employee that they would be so horrified by the killing that people would act (hopefully legally) to change the government and end the death penalty. I can see no other reason for not letting us watch these killings.