Follow the linking ball...

Babble on.

If Adscam linkage is what you seek, look no further than Bound By Gravity. On this matter, I not only defer to him, I refer to him too.

OK, that was lame...

My only original thought on this issue: what's the rush? I mean, I admire the risk-taking spirit of those bloggers who are shaking their fists at The Man, Speaking Truth to Power, and any living out any other populist slogan you care to name. If they really believe getting this information out for the world to read right frickin' NOW is essential, then good on them for having the cojones to do it.

As regular readers (enough to put together three full rugby sides these days) know, I'm not your one-stop-shop for fast-breaking news. I figure between CNN, Drudge, and everything in between, we get all the fast-breaking news we need, plus some. What we lack, in many cases, is perspective.

So, for whatever you think it's worth, my perspective is this: if the Lib's called a snap election, I'd be all for getting relevant information about Adscam out to the voting public as fast as my fingers could type. But if the information's going to be released eventually, I can't see how exactly getting it out right frickin' NOW helps turf the theiving Liberal buggers out.

And the crazy thing is, it might even hurt those efforts. If the Liberals can point to an overzealous, witch-hunt mentality among conservatives that rushes to circumvent the law, how does that help? If the publication-ban sub-story gets huge media play and sucks oxygen from actual details of Adscam itself, or creates a Gomery-weariness among Joe and Jane Canuck, how does that help? If the leaks create legal escape tunnels for the guilty Liberal swine to exploit, how does that help?

Unless this is just a play for traffic. The thrill of the chase, pursued for its own sake.

If there's a better justification, feel free to educate me. It's not like I haven't been wrong before.

Babble off.

Update: Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has taken a step back:

I've kept on digging, and done a lot of thinking. If I thought this ban was complete b.s., I'd raise my middle finger, note that our server is in the USA and our readership is international, and dare them to try bothering us. But if these individuals whose testimony is under publication ban are already facing criminal charges, they deserve the best we can give them for a fair one.
...
I myself have removed the links to material in this article that might violate the publication ban directly - and that is truly the best we can give Brault et. al. in the Internet age.

Given the potential legal ramifications of releasing this information contrary to the publication ban, I ask again: what's the rush?

Update 2: Andrew has pulled all his relevant posts. That's a lot of linkage down the tubes.