They should both be required reading for those interested in the aaronsw case IMHO. There's a reason the consensus about the case (even on HN!) before Aaron's suicide was so wildly different from the current witchhunt, and the reason is contained in those two Kerr writeups.
I'd expect more intelligent people, which this community claims to consist of, to not react the way it has to the events, with nothing but hyperbole and sensationalism.
The only clear concise analysis I have seen in the myriad of submissions was an analysis by Prof Orin Kerr, which was full of comments containing more hyperbole, that disappeared to no where instantly.
Speaks volumes IMO, and it's really deterring to some of us who prefer learning and discussing the facts in a more well thought concise, clear, and logical manner.
I'd expect more intelligent people, which this community
claims to consist of, to not react the way it has to the
events, with nothing but hyperbole and sensationalism.
Your first comment here on HN contains this:
Even within this submission, the comments here still talk
and insinuate Aaron was facing life imprisonment, danger to
being raped daily, and suicide was his only option.
Talk about hyperbole and sensationalism. There's been some of that but I've seen none of those three specific statements and if that's all you've got out of these discussions, you're seriously missing something. Just because you disagree doesn't make it all "hyperbole and sensationalism".
People are emotional and justifiably angry. Maybe some of it has been a bit ridiculous but that doesn't invalidate the disgust with these events and with the larger systemic issues.
I saw all such specific statements yesterday, albeit from different people. In particular, the argument that he was facing life imprisonment because the maximum possible term for the offenses he was charged with totaled 35 years was widely repeated. The news media does this all the time because big numbers sound most impressive, but the maximum sentence is only sought and handed down in a small minority of criminal cases.
The fact that is handed down rarely does not mean it was not threatened. And the reason why it handed down rarely may very well be that others plead out, because they were scared of that maximum sentence - which was exactly the problem in this case, that he did not want to accept the plea.
Honestly read the comments in the submission.. It was insane the amount of misinformation being thrown around. I'm sorry if my comment was exaggerated, I was just trying to highlight the issue.
Maybe the comments in the submission... were just trying to highlight the issues they saw.
Don't defend exacting discourse with the very hyperbole you claim is destroying it.
Let it be noted: I find immense irony in this discussion occurring in a thread where the parent comment is about how things need their context. What you're defining as misinformation needs to be taken in context.
The challenge is that even a community that is 99.9% rational and intelligent people, leaves hundreds, maybe even a thousand irrational and outspoken people participating.
Add to that the scourge of people who circumvent community guidance demand that their speech be heard, even when there are clear indications from the community that it is unwanted. Poses something of a challenge to the system as a whole.
Side note: Are you, tcuk, really making all of these judgements based on being a member of this community for less than 48 hours?
Chuck could you provide an analysis of how this article ends up on the front page of here, specifically what value it adds to the situation and how relevant it is.
To me I'm struggling to figure out how it relates to Aaron's case , is it purposefully being obtuse? Is it not obvious to everyone who's ever read anything to do with the case that the only reason spoofing his MAC address mattered was his intent to circumvent blocks placed on his connection?
Actions by themselves are mostly meaningless it's the context and intent that matters...
I'd expect more intelligent people, which this community claims to consist of, to not react the way it has to the events, with nothing but hyperbole and sensationalism.
So it turns out "intelligent" people are first and foremost just people like everyone else. We need to remember our humanity and allow ourselves to be humbled by our flaws.
I agree with much that you say. Sensationalism satisfies many of our base neurological desires. Indeed, I know that I share many thoughts with "sensationalists" and I responded similarly.
I cannot make any statements of blame, since being sensationalist is to be human, as we all are. However, I'd ask that everyone please inform yourself as much as possible. The indictment is available [0]online and is well worth reading.
If you want sensationalism, read a federal indictment. Their job isn't to paint a fair picture of the accused; it's to make the accused sound like scum.
Thanks for that. A good read. Assuming they had evidence to back that up (which both legal teams would have been privy to and would have been presented at trial), it seems pretty clear to me that he knew that what he was doing was not exactly above board there. I have little doubt Aaron knew what he was doing would get him in trouble if caught. Sure he probably did not expect that much trouble. We can be upset that he was possibly facing 35 (or what ever) years as that seems a bit excessive... but let's not pretend that Aaron had no clue that he was doing something he shouldn't be doing.
There's "shouldn't be doing" as in "will get you personally banned from MIT's network with a stern talking to from the IT department," and there's "shouldn't be doing" as in "will get you 35 years in federal prison."
I'd wager Aaron expected the former, or maybe a post-it note on his laptop saying, "Please discontinue what you are doing; call xxx-yyy-zzzz with any questions."
It doesn't really matter what he was expecting. If he knew he shouldn't do it then he should not have done it. And unless he had been living under a rock for the past decade, he should have expected a bit more than MIT leaving a post-it on his laptop asking him to stop. Come on... we all know that these types of actions have become more common and more public and therefore more heavily litigated. For him to expect anything less than police and lawyers would have been really naive boarding on stupid.
There are lots of things that people "shouldn't" do, like jump off of cliffs, jump out of airplanes, follow traffic even if traffic is going 75, yet people make the judgment that doing is better than not doing. In all of your "make stuff, do stuff, buy stuff, destroy stuff," life, have you never once colored outside the lines to accomplish some greater good?
There appears to be a vast cultural disconnect between those who recognize the nobility of Aaron's effectively harmless stunts, and those who take a hardline stance in defense of the status quo.
It is my sincere opinion that any sort of prison time should require genuine criminal intent (that is, the intent to do serious harm), that the judicial system should focus on prevention and rehabilitation, not punishment or deterrence, and that sacrificing the odd "example" here or there is an unacceptable infringement of the rights of the one who is made an example.
I have colored outside the lines plenty of times... both good and bad. And when it got me in trouble (which is has), I took my punishment. The people doing the act and the people standing on the sidelines and those that benefit from the act can think the act is "effectively harmless" or that there was no intent to do "serious harm" all they want. But there is always someone on the other end of it. Aaron's actions (and the efforts to stop/prevent them) caused servers to go down & legit access to be cut off. That caused harm to others. Maybe that isn't the same definition of "harm" that you use but you don't get to dictate what others feel is harmful or not any more than I do.
Whether it is cultural or whatever, I don't think what he did was noble at all. And hardly a stunt. He started downloading for free all the documents that were otherwise behind a pay-for-access service that placed limits on what a person could get at. He used various methods to circumvent attempts to prevent him from doing it. He took measures to conceal his activity. Those seem to be the facts that no one disagrees about. This has little to do with defending the status quo.
But we can agree here. It is also my opinion that Aaron should not have been facing prison time. We have prisons overflowing with bad people that have caused far greater chaos and pain than Aaron. Aaron probably should have had a lengthy house arrest and a hefty fine. Maybe restricted use of computers, etc. And that very well might have been what he would have ended up with if he'd stuck it out.
I'll restate some of the items from your second paragraph in a way that emphasizes why I think Aaron's Guerilla[sic] Open Access[0] concept is a noble one.
He started downloading for free all the documents that were otherwise behind a pay-for-access service that placed limits on what a person could get at.
He saw that scientific research, much of which was paid for by taxes (i.e. the people), was held hostage behind a paywall and wanted to provide that information to a deserving audience.
He used various methods to circumvent attempts to prevent him from doing it.
He encountered a bug in a computer system and created a workaround.
He took measures to conceal his activity.
He behaved like many of the students on any college campus would when preparing a harmless prank or exploring a steam tunnel, and perhaps didn't want his laptop stolen.
But we can agree here. It is also my opinion that Aaron should not have been facing prison time. We have prisons overflowing with bad people that have caused far greater chaos and pain than Aaron. Aaron probably should have had a lengthy house arrest and a hefty fine. Maybe restricted use of computers, etc. And that very well might have been what he would have ended up with if he'd stuck it out.
Much of my vehemence in these discussions of the last week stems from the sheer magnitude of the onslaught that is standard practice for prosecutors. If the law and its enforcers were more reasonable in this case, I'd find it much easier to be reasonable in response. Instead, prosecutors seem to see fit to alienate a huge chunk of the population, spreading disrespect for the law (and, I guess, giving them more defendants to prosecute in the future).
I'd be perfectly happy myself, if I were Aaron, to publicly apologize, do some community service, and go on my way never to interact with JSTOR or MIT again, as this prevents the alleged harm that would have come to JSTOR with the minimum necessary imposition from the law. But I would not be happy about being bullied by prosecutors. I don't even see why house arrest should be "lengthy," or a fine "hefty," because in reality his actions had a minimal effect on MIT or JSTOR (bandwidth is cheap).
Someone had to do something to upset the status quo of paywalls and ignorance because it certainly wasn't going to happen from within the publishers. Increased scientific literacy and better science reporting due to the availability of the entire paper (and all the other papers that support or refute it) instead of a press release are greater goods than profit for Elsevier (which wouldn't be significantly affected by releasing historic papers anyway).
I can't stand the mob, sometimes I feel that they are insulting my intelligence. But no revolution is possible without them. When intelligent people come together and try to make a deal, that's called dirty politics.
I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished, and that his case is a cause for reform in things that perhaps don't deserve to be reformed on this merit alone.
It may very well be that there is need for reform in these laws, but does that give Aaron the right to break them? And if so, does this lead precedence for others to behave similarly without consequence? If so, where do we draw the line in what constitutes which laws are allowed to be bypassed? How does this not lead to massive abuse?
I do not believe that no matter how wrong we think the laws are, in a democratic society, we must act in appropriate ways to cause reform. This is because edge cases like this where laws are broken that perhaps shouldn't exist, are never real reasons to change how we prosecute people.
There is so much confusion within this whole situation:
1) Reform on the laws
2) Reform on how we prosecute people
3) Termination of prosecutors involved
Each of the above needs to be clearly defined, and a case made against each one. I don't believe this case by itself causes for reform in prosecution, or termination of prosecutors.
I only believe this case should cause reform in specific laws, and that it's said a man felt his only option to cause reform was to break the law, which ultimately ended in him taking his whole life.
I see similarities between this and the Anders Breveik case in equal but opposite ways, where 20 years life sentence was said by many to be absurd for his crime, and many called for reform, when in fact the Norwegian system is extremely effective, and this was just an edge case.
This idea that "the law" is a fixed and unambiguous thing that can only be objectively enforced, however lamentable a given case may be, is totally at odds with how the legal system really works. There's a good reason why we've been hearing the phrase "prosecutorial discretion" over and over again in the last few days — that is what was driving this case. Not some dispassionate sorry-but-our-hands-are-tied legal code.
p.s. Invoking Breivik in this context is really inappropriate.
If I proposed that perhaps in an age where cyber crime is not only misunderstood but increasingly high (see anon et al), that perhaps the prosecution wanted to deter Aaron who by all accounts was an activist, from committing further more serious crimes.
What would you think of the above? Is it a plausible reality to the alternative one where the prosecutors are merely evil?
Agreed 100%, your reasoning is sound. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation, and that if more people could hold this opinion, more reform against the laws that so many disagree with would actually happen.
But I also believe that your question is exactly what is bad about the situation. It is a total red herring to the issue at hand. Let me expand:
He should have pleaded guilty to the crimes, because it is in my opinion, that he did infact break current laws, and that 6 months + felony, is not life ending sentence, far from it.
Consider this:
I also believe the laws in which he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity as they do.
You can hold both the above beliefs, and when you do, it gives you power to make reform in an appropriate capacity.
When you say "because it is in my opinion that in fact X," what you've said is simply that "in your opinion X". I point that out because Aaron apparently had a different opinion that led him to make a different choice. I find it strange that posing a question which you and Aaron answer differently in order to probe your rational is "a total red herring".
I respect that you don't believe these laws are just. One such power that helps society push back against such laws is jury nullification - the right to for a jury to say "not guilty" regardless of what the law claims.
It doesn't matter what aaronsw's opinion was; it's still illegal to break intoa w riing closet and attach our computer to someone else's network without permission. If you found someone doing that in a typical workplace, you'd call the cops too. I think my local library should be open 24/7 but that doesn't give me the right to remove the door by the hinges.
politician, with respect I think you need to be more concise with your questions, I would hope Aaron would also say 'no' to the vague:
'Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of?'
Did you perhaps mean to ask:
'Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of, even when you believe you are right?'
Which is still a red herring because it doesn't address the issue:
Did Aaron truly believe he broke no current laws, or did he believe so strongly the laws were bullshit, so he shouldn't be prosecuted at all? (which means he still actually broke them)
No, but if there's prima facie evidence of criminal activity (such as the surveillance video, being caught red-handed with the laptop), then maybe you should consider it. Effectively the government was asking him to face up to the fact that whatever his views about the ethics of JSTOR were, the way he acted upon them (breaking into a wiring closet etc.) was illegal. It's not like anybody contests the facts of what he did.
It seems to me that there is a fine difference between admitting you did the act, and admitting you did the act and conceding the act indeed violated the laws the prosecutors assert.
For example, presumably Aaron's lawyers would argue that while Aaron did in fact use a fake name on a captive portal, but that doing so was not wire fraud.
Why should you abstain from arguing if your actions violated the law just because they have hard proof that you did in fact perform those actions?
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
JSTOR was in a different state. Swartz caused signals to be transmitted by wire for the purpose of an artifice to defraud. The indictment is specific and cites to statutory definitions of what constitutes criminal behavior.
As I've said over and over again in relation to copyright issues, maybe things like copyright infringement should not be considered crimes at all, but right now, they are. If the elements of a crime are defined as X, Y, and Z, and there's proof that someone engaged in X, Y, and Z, then that person has committed the crime n question. Now if you want to argue that the law in question is unconstitutional for some reason, that's fine, but that's something you do at appeal. the purpose of a trial Court is simply to establish whether a certain set of facts is true or not.
What "everybody doesn't contest" is different from the 13 felony charges, including wire fraud (!), the government indicted him on.
For instance, the trespassing charges, supported by the surveillance video of him opening an unlocked closet used by the homeless to store their personal effects, were dropped. [1]
That article strikes me as absurdly biased. To take just one example, the argument is made that Swartz did nothing to cover his tracks, but if this is the case why buy a new laptop for this purpose instead of using his everyday one? What is so wrong about the comparison between spoofing one's MAC address and changing the VIN on a car, when the purpose of both is to identify a specific piece of hardware? Why cover one's face with a cycling helmet if one does not care about being identified? Why place one's computer in a wiring closet if one could have just downloaded freely from anywhere on campus?
Look, I don't want to bash the poor guy for his idea that such material should be free. But plugging into other peoples' networks without permission and so on are criminal offences, and Swartz was educated enough to know this. If you look through the indictment (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartz...) it's very clear about which statutes were being broken. Boingboing is presenting it as if Swartz was some wide-eyed ingenue that didn't realize that anyone would consider his downloading a problem.
No, but suicide is not the only alternative (you could try to flee the country or otherwise go into hiding). It is just horrible that somebody already battling with depression for so long got caught up in the twisted game that is the prosecution of federal crimes.
It's a sad day when the mob campaigns to end the career of someone who's simply doing there job, rather than causing change to the actual law that defines how they do the job.
But this particular prosecutor was just a bully, right? Who had it out for Aaron out of personal hate, perhaps the Illuminati are involved also?
The only other reasoning is she was just doing her job and prosecuting a man who broke the actual law, and showed traits of an activist who could be a repeat offender, and was trying to deter him from getting into more serious trouble in the future.
A suspended sentence and a felony doesn't seem too bad if she was deterring him from something that could see him in jail 10 years with a plea bargain.
No mob is trying to "end the career" of some mid-level public servant for whimsical reasons.
The United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts is not someone just "doing their job", it is a very high-level position appointed to serve the public interest. What people want is to prevent this person from abusing the power entrusted in them any further.
I believe it's because for most people who read the case, there's so much mud in the water, the first impression one receives of the case, is that Aaron was facing 35 years in prison, and 1 million dollar fine.
Especially non USA-natives who have no idea how the juridical system there works, for the first few days, I actually believed the above, that if found guilty he would face that sentence, I had no idea how plea bargains works there, it's been a frustrating experience to say the least.
The million fine is effectively an underestimate when the average cost of defending yourself is $1.5 million. And to avoid prejudicing the judge, Aaron was unable to say how bad his problems were, which made asking for assistance hard. Kind of makes a mockery of "the right to a lawyer".
Being a convicted felon is no walk in the park either. That shows up on every job application you submit, and makes it much harder to find jobs for the rest of your life. (Which is something Aaron would have faced, because he'd exhausted his financial resources.)
Im sure having a felony conviction would be terrible for your ordinary person, but with Aaron's resume and public presence I dont think it would be hard for him to find work.
Some felony convictions more than others, having a felony embezzlement conviction for example would certainly make it hard to get a job in accounting. Stock traders who have been convicted of fraud often find it hard to get jobs on Wall Street. But I agree with you that a felony copyright conviction on Aaron's record would probably not be a barrier to him working in a technical capacity.
I'm sorry, but if you are arguing that Aaron Swartz did absolutely not break any current laws (whether you agree with them or not), then you are delusional, I urge you to read Orin Kerr's analysis of the situation, and refute anything he has stated, in a logical coherent manner, with solid evidence.
I'm sorry but I'm sure this man, his wife, or any of the prosecution team did not expect Aaron to commit suicide or was their intention. I'm sure they are just as upset as everyone else.
Try and put your emotions aside, and let your logic take control again.
> I'm sorry but I'm sure this man, his wife, or any of the prosecution team did not expect...
> I'm sure they are just as upset as everyone else.
What makes you sure about those things? Do you have private information that the rest of us don't have? Based on the information in the press it sounds like the prosecution just didn't care, or worse it sounds like this is the way they act as a matter of policy.
Basically we operate in a society (thankfully in my opinion), where actually the onus is on the accuser to prove the accusations, with evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.
The above humans outlined unless have some emotional deficiencies, I believe are like the rest of us, and it's safe to assume when anyone kills themselves it's a sad situation, and can empathise with said person.
So in fact I turn your statement back on to you, please provide solid evidence that would make me to believe they WOULD NOT be upset at the situation.
Considering Heymann has a history of badly under-estimating the suicide risk of young hackers he prosecutes, I'd say he either has "emotional deficiencies", or he's just incompetent. Replying to a suicide risk with "well then we'll lock him up, he'll be safe there" is callous in the extreme.
In both cases, this reflects badly on him and his boss, wouldn't you say?
Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "sure" which you used plenty. I didn't accuse you of anything so I don't have to prove anything. You told us you were sure of some things and I asked you what made you to be sure. I was genuinely interested in the information you might have. It seems there was none and you just use words liberally, without regard for their meaning. In fact, I am sure of it. See what I did there?
It read to me as if you were accusing the prosecutors of not having any empathy to Aaron in this case. I believe the default human reaction is to feel said emotion, and such I think it's reasonable to assume they did feel empathy unless we have evidence that directly contradicts that. Sorry for any confusion.
How about you give up on your mind reading powers for a while? I'm sure you can read the psychology of Ortiz and every other prosecutor, and determine that their opinions of Aaron Swartz are exactly like normal people.
I'd rather believe that they saw him like a target to be scalped, bullied into submission by plea bargain. I don't know why, maybe because US prosecutors have a history of treating the accused like targets to be scalped, and bullied into submission by plea bargain?
Books have actually written on this subject, why don't you have a look? Here are some references:
Finally, don't expect me to re-interpret the idiotic opinions that you post as something really profound, because my mind reading powers are as awful as yours.
Express yourself clearly instead.
And don't call me a child - that's ad-hominem, jackass.
You do realize it's perfectly plausible that they did want to bully him into a plea bargain and that they also didn't want him to commit suicide, and do feel empathetic towards the situation?
This whole Aaron Swartz episode, has really shown how un-objective this community is. The last few days I've never seen such hyperbole and sensationalism plague a community. It's the exact same you'd expect from the comments section from any mainstream media comment section.
Even within this submission, the comments here still talk and insinuate Aaron was facing life imprisonment, danger to being raped daily, and suicide was his only option.
The more I sift through the crap most of the community is posting, and actually find more objective facts (why is Orin Kerr's objective analysis of the law no where to be found after a day?! Does this not speak volumes of the community?).
I actually feel sorry the Tom Dolan, and his wife and everyone else involved (isn't it weird how you can empathise with multiple polarizing parties??).
I don't actually think from the facts I've observed that 6 months (his lawyer actually suspected a suspended sentence), is actually a bad deal in this case, given all the facts, but this is my personal objective opinion.
I would like to see people be more objective, and communicate with less emotion and more reason, but it's something I've observed happening over the past few years, and I think this just highlights what type of community it's mutated into.
Your "personal objective opinion" isn't objective (and your use of the word "objective" over and over again in contexts where you are clearly stating your opinion rather than "objective facts" to dismiss those who disagree with you is contrary to a productive discussion), and it's missing the point of all of these discussions (the law is wrong, and the prosecutor used the law to bully a brilliant kid past his breaking point). Your dismissive tone, in general, is annoying and generally not welcome in this community.
I also find it interesting that your account is 27 minutes old, and was created specifically for this discussion. Your concerns about "how un-objective this community is" seem self-serving...it seems pretty clear you aren't of this community, and exhibit few signs of understanding what makes this community tick. Also, as a nerd who values clear, concise, and accurate language, your misunderstanding of the word "objective" really bugs me. And that's my "personal objective opinion".
Without getting into a philosophical debate, you can read 'objective opinion' as 'it is my un-biased opinion in a neutrally emotional state, to believe the facts to be..' if it helps.
I agree the law is perhaps wrong, but who could have known he was being bullied past breaking point and would lead to suicide but himself? Do you believe that if someone disagrees with a law they can break it to cause reform, and if so which laws do you draw the line at? Is this the best way to act? Do you not think regardless of whether we agree with it or not, if we break it we should be punished? He clearly broke the current law, is 6 months imprisonment, a felon, and a highly likely suspended sentence really such a grave punishment? Do you honestly believe Aaron if convicted felon would struggle for work? Do you think he was emotionally sound and compos mentis at the time of taking his life? Do you believe this man did not show traits that he could possibly go on to further break other laws he didn't agree with in the name of his version of liberation?
I don't think Aaron went about his goal in an amicable way, and I don't think he believed he was either, he knew what he was doing, and unfortunately if you break laws, whether or not you agree with them, you ought to be punished. If you don't like the laws, cause reform without breaking them,there are other ways.
Whats the minimum requirements to be considered part of this community?
I believe non-violent civil disobedience is an ethical imperative in the face of unjust law. I've participated in non-violent civil disobedience on a number of occasions, and hope I will have the courage to do so again in the future.
Civil disobedience is not the only, or often even the best, way to change oppressive laws...but, it has been a necessary component of most major cultural shifts. Civil rights, LGBTQ equality, etc. They all happened because a few people were brave enough to break the law, even in cases where the law was popular. However, it is very much worth pointing out that most prosecutors, when pursuing charges against participants in non-violent civil disobedience exercise restraint. They rarely pursue felony charges (though this has been changing; activists in Texas are alarmed by the new use of bizarre old laws to charge participants in the Tarsands Blockade with felonies; but this is the exception rather than the rule), and it is usually possible to continue your life without major impediment, perhaps after a short stint (a few days or weeks) in jail, and without the weight of a felony conviction following them around for life. A political act with no profit motive should be treated very differently by prosecutors, and judges, and the law, than an act committed for personal gain.
So, I disagree with your assessment that breaking the law is not a valid part of changing the law. Often, it is the only way change happens, and I have great admiration for the people willing to lay their own well-being on the line for something they believe in. In this case, an unjust law was broken, and I consider that an ethically sound decision.
Aaron Swartz was known to be a suicide risk. Prosecutors responded to this knowledge with, "We'll lock him up." Evil rarely looks like a James Bond villain...it's usually somebody just following orders. Evil was committed in this case, and it's part of a systemic problem in our culture and in our state. "Well, he broke the law!" is no justification for hounding a kid into bankruptcy and deep depression. It simply isn't. There is no justification for the behavior of the prosecutors in this case, and there is no justification for the way the law treats non-violent offenders in politicized cases like this.
Had Aaron hurt someone with his actions, I would have little sympathy. But, he didn't; he sought only to help people, to free the poorest people from an oppressive lack of access to information. When someone spends their entire life trying to help those least able to defend themselves, and the state responds with threats of decades in prison, the state is committing a great evil. I'm not even going to discuss the distraction of a six month sentence in a plea deal; this case damned near bankrupted him and that was used to back him into a corner where he had no options, and that's deeply unjust.
The requirement to be a part of this community is to respectfully discuss topics. Your approach has been to insult the intelligence, objectivity, and knowledge of anyone you engage with. In a community like this, which contains some extremely bright (famously so, in many cases) and curious people, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as not being objective, or being too emotional, or being biased, while staking out your own claim of being unfailingly objective, unemotional, and unbiased, is insulting. Shutting down conversations by way of insult is unproductive, and unwelcome here.
Many people here disagree with you; if you can't convince them by way of reason, you're going to have to deal with being in the minority. To suggest that disagreement with you is uninformed or unobjective, on issues that many of us have taken very seriously for decades (and have seen the force of the state used to oppress friends or acquaintances on a number of occasions in similarly unjust fashion), is not productive.
With all due respect to this great community and the intelligent posters here, I have to agree. It's a little dispiriting seeing objectivity fly out the window. But we all have blind spots, it's part of our human nature... Just wanted to add my singular dissenting voice to the chorus for what it's worth--not much I know :)
But it wasn't just six months. It was six months and a felony on his record. In other words, to get that six months he would have had to plead guilty, something which he didn't think he was and wanted to fight. (Until he didn't want to fight, apparently)
Ok a felony on his record... I'm sorry I don't think that, 6 month jail time, and a felony on his record === no option but suicide.
In contrast given the facts of the case, I honestly believe this is a fair deal. From what I've read of Aaron, and the case, I would assume this wouldn't of been his last fight of freeing information, if prosecuting I would also have wanted to try and deter Aaron from taking steps further on his next conquest, which I think the above deal does without ruining his life.
How many people here would not employ Aaron once out of jail? It was no where near the end of the road, or his only option, it was far from it. The man was quite clearly mentally ill, that's the main thing being clouded here by trying to scapegoat everyone.
Of course it doesn't mean that. And I wasn't arguing that. I wasn't arguing anything, just laying things out a bit more clearly since you didn't seem to have a solid grasp on reality.
troll maybe?
Can't be serious. 6 months in jail plus financially ruined and criminal/felony record is a fair deal?
Regardless of your 30 mins old account, if you are not a troll I want to do business with you, I'm a prince and I need to transfer a large amount of money out of the country and would be happy to compensate you for your help a whopping 25% commission!
But you're either astroturfing and not part of the community or you created a new account to post this... Why?
I'm from Europe and, honestly, I can something deeply rotten in the american legal system (not that the ones in Europe are perfect, far from it).
The person committed an act of civil disobedience. OK, fair enough. But was the law fair to qualify such an act as civil disobedience in the first place?
35 years or "recognize you're guilty and get 'only' 6-months" for a victimless crime?
And crazy high lawyers fee bringing you and potentially your family to bankruptcy.
Add to that a prosecutor obviously having long teeth and wanting to advance in her "career" and you have something which looks ugly.
There's one word in the dictionary to describe what this whole issue feels like.
UNJUST.
It's unjust because the whole point of the legal system should be to bring justice and, in this case, it brought death.
Death in the name of insane lawyer fees. Death in the name of careerism. Death in the name of unjust laws, created under pressure of powerful lobbies abusing the golden law (the one who has the gold makes the law) over and over again.
That's why this "community" --and many other communities-- are very very upset.
That's why the white house shall have to respond to tens of thousands of people who wants one thing: a legal system that is just.
