4 ms·

You're conflating "accused of" and "charged with". Note that the title does not say "charged with".

• JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > You're conflating "charged with" and "accused of". Note the title does not say "charged with" We don't have any context beyond a Georgia lawyer saying "strategy of terrorism." Given how broadly that term is used nowadays, sort of like "war on X", this could have been a reference to Public.Resource.Org's legal or PR strategy or many other things. It's a terrible choice of words, particularly for a government lawyer. But I don't see the evidence in the text to support the headline that he was accused, formally or informally, of terrorism. (Nor that he believed he was fighting terrorism, versus copyright, accusations or charges.) TL; DR A lawyer using the term "terrorism" loosely is not the most interesting facet of this case.
  • JdeBP 7y ago
    > We don't have any context Actually, we have both context and original source documents, going back to 1992. Consider discussions on this page, which I suspect will include lots of people arguing the accusation, as a case in point of how very few people read and do their research. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19899223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19899223
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]