3 ms·

If a great injustice really was being committed, the EFF and the ACLU would have fallen over themselves to represent Aaron pro bnono (for free). The fact they

by rprasad 14y ago

If a great injustice really was being committed, the EFF and the ACLU would have fallen over themselves to represent Aaron pro bnono (for free). The fact they did not suggests otherwise.

jlgreco 14y ago
New method for determining guilt: if (respectedOrganization(lawyer.getOrganization())) { return INNOCENT; } else { return GUILTY; }
jacquesm 14y ago
So, EFF and ACLU defend you if you're not guilty and if they don't defend you you're guilty? Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they didn't that would have said nothing about Aarons guilt or lack thereof? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz
- tptacek 14y ago
  Swartz's trial was scheduled, approaching rapidly, and he had already apparently spent an enormous amount of money on at least two different firms. The trial was not something hovering nebulously in the future; Swartz's need for assistance was immediate. I don't believe EFF's involvement or lack thereof speaks in any way to Swartz's guilt. I would say that this is the kind of thing you'd hope EFF would be right in the middle of. Were they?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Not openly afaik, which probably translates into not at all. Maybe someone should go and ask them if they were and if not why not. I offered to contribute to Aarons defense a while ago but he declined. That may have been because he knew that any help he needed was outside of my ability to render. Be careful, you're associating yourself with a 'known troll'.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      "Legal defense fund" is a fairly standard thing to have. And lawyers usually are happy to extend credit to people like Aaron and wait to be repaid later. This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        I think Lawrence Lessig knows a bit more about this, one line in his piece stuck out for me, it reads: "yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense". I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you curious.
        Evbn 14y ago
        That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post. We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?
        tptacek 14y ago
        If it was that simple, would Lessig have said so after the case became moot? I'm confused about this too.
        danielweber 14y ago
        Either of "Aaron's lawyers were required to bill upfront" or "Aaron was not permitted to set up a legal defense fund" would be huge civil rights issues. A lot huger than the narrative of a out-of-control prosecutor out for Aaron's head. Lessig really really needs to explain that sentence.

by rprasad 14y ago

If a great injustice really was being committed, the EFF and the ACLU would have fallen over themselves to represent Aaron pro bnono (for free). The fact they did not suggests otherwise.

jlgreco 14y ago

New method for determining guilt: if (respectedOrganization(lawyer.getOrganization())) { return INNOCENT; } else { return GUILTY; }

jacquesm 14y ago

So, EFF and ACLU defend you if you're not guilty and if they don't defend you you're guilty? Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they didn't that would have said nothing about Aarons guilt or lack thereof? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz

tptacek 14y ago
Swartz's trial was scheduled, approaching rapidly, and he had already apparently spent an enormous amount of money on at least two different firms. The trial was not something hovering nebulously in the future; Swartz's need for assistance was immediate. I don't believe EFF's involvement or lack thereof speaks in any way to Swartz's guilt. I would say that this is the kind of thing you'd hope EFF would be right in the middle of. Were they?
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Not openly afaik, which probably translates into not at all. Maybe someone should go and ask them if they were and if not why not. I offered to contribute to Aarons defense a while ago but he declined. That may have been because he knew that any help he needed was outside of my ability to render. Be careful, you're associating yourself with a 'known troll'.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    "Legal defense fund" is a fairly standard thing to have. And lawyers usually are happy to extend credit to people like Aaron and wait to be repaid later. This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I think Lawrence Lessig knows a bit more about this, one line in his piece stuck out for me, it reads: "yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense". I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you curious.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post. We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?
        tptacek 14y ago
        If it was that simple, would Lessig have said so after the case became moot? I'm confused about this too.
        danielweber 14y ago
        Either of "Aaron's lawyers were required to bill upfront" or "Aaron was not permitted to set up a legal defense fund" would be huge civil rights issues. A lot huger than the narrative of a out-of-control prosecutor out for Aaron's head. Lessig really really needs to explain that sentence.