3 ms·
They're claiming he referred to his own actions as terrorism here (in the prologue): https://museum.media.org/eti/ https://museum.media.org/eti/ I disagree wit
by dfxm12 8y ago
They're claiming he referred to his own actions as terrorism here (in the prologue): https://museum.media.org/eti/ https://museum.media.org/eti/
I disagree with that claim and I think it is irresponsible for a lawyer to call what he was doing a "form of terrorism" or "part of a strategy of terrorism". I think it's even more irresponsible for a lawyer to equate what he was doing and his words, a "form of standards terrorism", to unqualified "terrorism".
- ajross 8y agoYeah, but it's not a criminal prosecution of a terrorism charge. It's a copyright case.
- dfxm12 8y agoFollowing that argument (which is beside the point), how does calling this guy a terrorist further their copyright case? The point is that this is poisoning the well. Now every time this guy is googled, his name will be associated with terrorism, thanks to this suit, putting doubt on his work, which is meant to balance the power between the state and its citizens. You don't see why the state calling this guy a terrorist is reprehensible?
- ajross 8y agoIt doesn't, but it's still a bad headline. I'm on Malamud's side here. Georgia is clearly in the wrong, and they're behaving badly. But it's not a story about Georgia trying to smear Malamud, it's a fairly dry story about the copyright case[1] they're bringing against him. Responsible editors don't take legal stories about appelate copyright cases and slap "terrorism" in the headline, they just don't. [1] It's even a fairly subtle copyright case. The laws themselves are public domain, what he copied was the annotations (e.g. links to relevant court cases) that appear in the heretofore-privately-published law texts. Do curated links count as copyrightable material? I don't know! It's an interesting subject and I'm interested to read about it. But not when it's headlined as a terrorism accusation.