4 ms·

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

by tcuk 14y ago

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.

happyhappy 14y ago
Your personal "objective" opinion? Kinda shows your own way of thinking.
RobotCaleb 14y ago
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)
- tcuk 14y ago
  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.
  - BrokenPipe 14y ago
    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!
  - RobotCaleb 14y ago
    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.
jhuni 14y ago
> I actually feel sorry the Tom Dolan You are perfectly free to do that, however, know that as a well off IBM executive he is the last person in the world in need of sympathy right now.
- tcuk 14y ago
  Can you explain how his personal wealth, is related to his emotional distress over this case?
martinced 14y ago
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.
SwellJoe 14y ago
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".
- tcuk 14y ago
  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?
  - 14y ago
gavinlynch 14y ago
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 :)

by tcuk 14y ago

happyhappy 14y ago

Your personal "objective" opinion? Kinda shows your own way of thinking.

RobotCaleb 14y ago

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)

tcuk 14y ago
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.
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  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!
- RobotCaleb 14y ago
  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.

jhuni 14y ago

> I actually feel sorry the Tom Dolan You are perfectly free to do that, however, know that as a well off IBM executive he is the last person in the world in need of sympathy right now.

tcuk 14y ago
Can you explain how his personal wealth, is related to his emotional distress over this case?

martinced 14y ago

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.

SwellJoe 14y ago

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".

tcuk 14y ago
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?
- 14y ago

gavinlynch 14y ago

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 :)