[JumpCrisscross]

> if a government wants to manufacture consent/support for a terrible law, they need to enforce it against the least sympathetic defendants they can find

Not everything is a conspiracy. He libelled a person. A court said stop libelling. He violated that injunction.

The takeaway from this guy’s history is he’s a liar and serial lawbreaker. The outrage in this story is reliant on his account. As a result, this is a nothingburger without more information, in the same category as sovereign citizens claiming repression for drunk driving without a license.

[eschaton]

His argument against being charged with a crime for refusing to provide access to his phone contents is actually reasonable. (Unlike virtually every other argument he has ever made, whether in court or out of it; he’s an idiot and a racist.)

If his planned defense against his other criminal charges was documented on the phone, that would make it information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess. And that’s not even considering his inherent right to privacy.

[JumpCrisscross]

> argument against being charged with a crime for refusing to provide access to his phone contents is actually reasonable

Sure. We have no evidence that is (a) true or (b) what happened.

> that would make it information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess

It might make some of it privileged. That's miles apart from "information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess."