4 ms·

>Also, banning people based on what's illegal I think he shouldn't be speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars. See

by robswc 4y ago

>Also, banning people based on what's illegal I think he shouldn't be speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars. Seems like a pretty easy decision. People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less.

capableweb 4y ago
> speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Maybe I'm just morbidly curious, but I'd like to hear even out everyone, guilty of crime or not. Doesn't mean I'll take what they say to heart. But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. > People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less. Does that mean it's right?
- robswc 4y ago
  >Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Sure. I don't see why that has to be hosted by the NYT though. He could make a YouTube video at any time explaining all of that. The NYT talk was scheduled before all of this happened tho, so I don't think that was their original plan. >But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. I don't think we have to talk legal or illegal. He stole billions of dollars from his customers. There's 0 silver lining there. >Does that mean it's right? No, it just highlights the bias of institutions.

by robswc 4y ago

capableweb 4y ago

> speaking at an event after defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Maybe I'm just morbidly curious, but I'd like to hear even out everyone, guilty of crime or not. Doesn't mean I'll take what they say to heart. But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. > People have been barred from talking at college campuses for much less. Does that mean it's right?

robswc 4y ago
>Wouldn't it be useful even if people have done criminal acts to let them speak about what they have done? If not to hopefully prevent it in the future, to be able to understand the motivation behind it. Sure. I don't see why that has to be hosted by the NYT though. He could make a YouTube video at any time explaining all of that. The NYT talk was scheduled before all of this happened tho, so I don't think that was their original plan. >But without that view, I'm afraid we'll throw away people like Snowden, Mitnick, Manning and more, just because what they did was illegal in the eyes of law enforcement. I don't think we have to talk legal or illegal. He stole billions of dollars from his customers. There's 0 silver lining there. >Does that mean it's right? No, it just highlights the bias of institutions.