7 ms·

Lawmakers slam DOJ prosecution of Swartz as 'ridiculous, absurd'

236 points by wilfra 14y ago

beatpanda 14y ago
" Now that it is politically advantageous for them to do so, and their actions can have no practical effect, lawmakers slam DOJ prosecution of Swartz as 'ridiculous, absurd' "
- wilfra 14y ago
  You don't think Congress agreeing with us on this can have any practical effect? You realize they are the ones who make the laws and confirm judicial appointments, right? I know it's cool to hate on the government and criticize everything they ever do and assume they are all idiots - and most of the time they deserve it - but if they are on our side on this that should be welcomed and they should be given credit for it.
  - beatpanda 14y ago
    My point is that I don't think Congress actually agrees on this. Zoe Lofgren represents Silicon Valley. Making statements like this could just as easily be trawling for votes as it could be genuine outrage over the issue. No Congressperson ever said these things while Swartz was still alive, and his prosecution was just as ridiculous then, but saying so wouldn't have netted you nearly the positive media coverage in the tech press that it will now.
    - dromidas 14y ago
      I think the counter point would be that if they actually do make positive changes to the laws to reflect their newfound wisdom then perhaps their public pandering will actually be a good thing. The public just needs to make sure that they do make changes and aren't just happy with them eating crow. Saying shit is broken just to look good does nothing for the people, but if they actually fix shit then they can say whatever they want imo.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I don't know if you can really blame congresspeople for being apathetic while Aaron was alive if even HN of all communities largely was as well.
      - pyre 14y ago
        Until action takes place, there's no distinction between political opportunism (i.e. blowing a lot of hot-air at the press to look good and maybe win a few votes) and genuine concern about the state of the law.
    - intenex 14y ago
      Um. We didn't do anything much either before he killed himself. I think it's fantastic that they're on Aaron's side here - yes, it's unfortunate that it took his death to make them on his side, but that blame lies with all of us, not the lawmakers. We made this a big deal after his death, consequently leading to the politicians making their claims now. Had we made a big deal before he died, perhaps the lawmakers would have done the same. Our fault, not theirs. They really are representing us here.
      - pyre 14y ago
        I don't know. I think the fact that he killed himself is a very strong message that wouldn't have been attached to movement (by 'us') prior to his death (not that I'm happy it happened).
        WhaleBiologist 14y ago
        Martyrdom is a hell of a drug.
      - krichman 14y ago
        > Our fault, not theirs. They really are representing us here. Why are you blaming the victims? It's not difficult to determine that the current penal system is ridiculous, and unlike us, it's their responsibility to do so. <hyperbole magnitude="a bit"> Instead, they focus on making copyright legislation to support corporate interests. And the courts focus on whether or not the 5th Amendment was a good idea after all. </hyperbole> I agree with you completely that we should be doing more to advocate for reform, but it is far from being our fault.
- beatpanda 14y ago
  Just to play devil's advocate here though, how many people in the US wrote their congressperson over this? Zoe Lofgren was mine at the time Swartz' case went public in the media, and I didn't write. I guess that makes me partially guilty, too.
  - cafard 14y ago
    How? How can Congress affect a US attorney once confirmed, unless by impeachment? I guess that a committee could call in the attorney for hearings, but how likely is that?
    - dyno12345 14y ago
      The mere threat of damaging their political reputations in a hearing is probably enough to make a prosecutor suddenly change their mind given that it's all these prosecutors ever cared about in the first place.
- btilly 14y ago
  No practical effect for Aaron. But there is always a next person to come along. It benefits them. And there is a possibility that in the process of investigating someone will point out to them that PACER is breaking the laws that they wrote about how much can be charged. This might lead to more than symbolic reform there.
- rayiner 14y ago
  While it may be politically advantageous that doesn't mean it's not a good thing. Remember, this "tough on crime" attitude is largely the product of public outrage at the spike in crime in the 1970's and 1980's. The drug war was buoyed up on a tide of "just say no!" moms and dads in the 1980's and 1990's. Congresspeople aren't completely immune to responding to broad public pressure, if that is indeed what develops from this case.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  Certainly we wish they'd done something while Aaron was alive. The effect we can now hope for is prosecutors everywhere will learn that despite it being very unlikely that something bad will happen when they over-prosecute for career advancement, if it does, they're going straight under the bus. A moments hesitation in the mind of the next Ortiz/Heymann duo thinking about levering up against a "soft target" is a very good thing.
- lmkg 14y ago
  Yeah, that's how democracy works. Actions that are forward progress eventually become politically advantageous. That's pretty much the single principle that makes democracy as functional as it is.
- adastra 14y ago
  If you want a member of congress to act on something, you have to ask them. That's how the system works. If you don't put in the effort, their time is spent on the thousands of other people clamoring for their attention who were more motivated and passionate than you were. Really didn't want to bring this up, but I actually floated the idea of the community pursuing a political strategy to help Aaron here on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529907 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529907 The suggestion didn't get many upvotes, and was utterly belittled by one of HN's most prolific posters. Something to keep in mind before you ridicule the small number of representatives who are actually friendly to tech. (To be clear, I could have taken action myself anyway, and I didn't find the time. That's on me.) It's really, really unfortunate that this is the top comment.
  - etherael 14y ago
    This is probably the top comment because the zeitgeist is that the system is broken and making nice with it is a failing strategy.
    - adastra 14y ago
      So engaging the system would have resulted in an outcome that is worse than what actually happened? I don't think so. It's a false choice. You can engage the system and change it at the same time. Of course you can.
      - beatpanda 14y ago
        In my experience, the more you engage with the system, the more willing you are to rationalize or even overlook its failings.
        adastra 14y ago
        I've spent time doing both, and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
      - etherael 14y ago
TDL 14y ago
“It's absurd that he was made a scapegoat. I would hope that this doesn't happen to anyone else.” This type of shit happens every day. This is how prosecutors in this country operate.
michaelfeathers 14y ago
No mention of plea bargain reform. That's the real issue.
- mindslight 14y ago
  Or the extreme resource imbalance between prosecution and defendant that makes the threat of trial all the more powerful. What about at least: 1. Maximum sentence cannot be more than twice any offered plea bargain. 2. Making the counts non-severable. Or the defense only needs to win half of them to be cleared of all charges. Something needs to discourage stacking on limitless ridiculous charges and hoping some stick. 3. The government needs to cover the expenses for the defense, limited to the amount spent on the prosecution. (this doesn't seem politically palatable, but it needs to be addressed somehow) Yeah, these things are large meta-issues that aren't a political shoe-in. But pretending that merely amending the CFAA would have prevented this from happening is wishful thinking. Also, making TOS's inapplicable (which, didn't anyone see this coming with Lori Drew? But I digress..) wouldn't have stopped the prosecution in this case from claiming that simple trespass into an unlocked network closet should be considered felony federal "unauthorized access to communication network".
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    1. Minimum plea bargain cannot be less than half of maximum? What about crimes where the sentencing guidelines are already spanning 2x? That would mean you could get a lighter sentence by going to trial than the minimum plea.
    - michaelfeathers 14y ago
      I saw an argument recently, that most of the problem has been caused by the fact that sentencing has been pulled out of the hands of the judiciary (though mandatory minimums etc). Judicial discretion in sentencing was once a check on this sort of thing.
    - mindslight 14y ago
      Of course you can get a lighter sentence by going to trial - by being acquitted. And no, it would not work that way, because if you had an open and shut case with a plausible sentence of 20 years, prosecutors wouldn't or at least shouldn't be offering plea bargains of under 10 years.
sethbannon 14y ago
The key bit is where Rep Issa says “whether or not there was excessive prosecution is something we’ll look at.” This means, thankfully, that we'll be seeing some form of congressional investigation of Aaron's prosecution. Confirmed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/darrell-issa-aaron-swartz-_n_2481450.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/darrell-issa-aaron-...
- rprasad 14y ago
  When a legislator say they will "look" at something, it means they don't intend to actually do anything about it but are simply attempting to pacify their constituents by promising something.
  - pemulis 14y ago
    But in the case of Darrell Issa, we have a Congressman who, A) Worked with Aaron Swartz to fight SOPA, B) Sits on the House Judiciary Committee, and C) Has a history of hauling the Justice Department before Congress. Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Jared Polis are also on the House Judiciary Committee, and could potentially lend bipartisan support to any investigation.
    - newbie12 14y ago
      Rep. Issa is the real deal, he's a special member of Congress. He's a California tech entrepreneur and also voted against the TARP bailouts. http://issa.house.gov/about/about-darrell http://issa.house.gov/about/about-darrell
      - joeguilmette 14y ago
        He was also responsible for the absurdist witch hunt that resulted in the impeachment of Gray Davis.
  - danso 14y ago
    How many "constituents" of Issa's do you think actually care about Aaron Swartz? Do you think the San Diego/Orange County population have been running major protests for Swartz?
pemulis 14y ago
If you want a legislative response, now is the time to write to your representatives. The EFF has an easy tool to send the appropriate people a message: https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9005 https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KE... The prefilled text is about the CFAA, but you can change it to say whatever you want before sending it. Don't feel apathetic, or think that you can't make a difference. One thing Aaron Swartz showed us is that Congress can be made to listen to the public, if we are loud enough.
il 14y ago
Contacting your representatives can make a difference. We saw it with SOPA and now we see it here. Now we, as a community, need to keep up the pressure on lawmakers and make sure meaningful reforms are passed to make sure something like this never, ever happens again.
superbaconman 14y ago
This happens all the time. Many face long sentences while innocent. How many innocent people are sitting behind bars today because they thought no one would ever believe them in court? I expect the number is small, but that does not change the circumstances of this case. Only the most immoral of our society could ever put a man in a cage because of a copied file. They equate their justice to morality, but in the end they only show the very nature of the animal within themselves. Man is a cunning and advantageous creature, the most deadly of them all.
jacoblyles 14y ago
>“We're looking at the real question of open government,” Issa said. “Has the government or even MIT been holding back materials that the public has a right to know?” >Issa said he wanted to make sure “that what is paid for is as widely available as possible to the American people.” It's good to see lawmakers paying attention to Open Access. While it is important to make sure that the unscrupulous practices of the Department of Justice are curtailed, it is also important that people pick up and carry on Aaron's campaign for Open Access. I am upset not just because Aaron was treated unfairly, but because he was treated unfairly for doing the right thing. Freedom of Information is at the core of Internet values, and that's what Aaron fought for.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Help me, I can't find "freedom of information" in either RFC 791 or RFC 793.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Help me, I can't find "freedom of information" in either RFC 791 or RFC 793. Come on, don't be that guy. You know when someone says "freedom of information is at the core of the Internet's values" they're really saying that freedom of information is at the core of the values of the people who worked hard to build and promote it (see Vint Cerf's recent statements about the ITU conference: http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/04/vint-cerf-save-the-internet/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/04/vint-cerf-save-the-interne...), not that the RFCs defining the Internet Protocol include those exact words.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      My point is that the Internet does not come packed with an ideology, the personal politics of some of its creators aside.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        To those of us who grew up with the Internet as our hometown and BBSes as our place of birth, it sure seems to have an inherent ideology just by its very structure.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
a "martyr" for why Congress should limit the discretion of prosecutors. Not going to lie, that sentence chills my bones. Lack of judicial discretion got us minimum sentences in the "war" on drugs. I don't have much faith that lack of any prosecutorial discretion will turn out much better. This is a power grab by congress, nothing more.
Tycho 14y ago
So what happens now if the prosecutor commits suicide, after being singled out by an Internet mob for doing his/her job?
scottm45 14y ago
Lets not forget he broke the law wether you or I think that what he did was for the benefit for good of the people or not. Laws are laws and what do I tell my children it's ok to break the law if your an activist. Making a saint out of basically a criminal because he believed in Internet freedom is insane. Who did this guy think he was Robin Hood. I think healthcare should be free should I steal money and give it to those without insurance. No, I can tell you this no person in government has the right to do anything but uphold the law. If the laws aren't right that is another conversation. Thousands of people are in jail for pot and I think it should be legal, but I'm not going to kill myself to try to get the law changed that's just stupid.
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  I'm not sure your rhetoric would stick much here on HN. I think this is trolling but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. The laws he may have broken are not necessarily the ones he has been charged with, this is partly why it has been called persecution overreach. Breaking immoral laws is our moral obligation, there is no other way around it. Would you expect anything less if I were to enact a law that made your children sexual slave ? Would you expect anything less if someone were to take public funded research and locked it up behind huge and crazy paywall without any competition ? Huge costs for things that are in the public domain, from a copyright prospective, but that JSTOR tried to keep that as a profit center. They are the one stealing from the public and akin to companies like the MAFIAA at that. If you think healthcare should be socialized then go and tell your politician and fight back with the groups that share your convictions. In my mind he broke very little laws and this is a crazy overreaction from the persecution. Damn you may well be a troll with your trolling attitude and 11 minutes old account (mine is only a few days old).

236 points by wilfra 14y ago

" Now that it is politically advantageous for them to do so, and their actions can have no practical effect, lawmakers slam DOJ prosecution of Swartz as 'ridiculous, absurd' "

wilfra 14y ago
You don't think Congress agreeing with us on this can have any practical effect? You realize they are the ones who make the laws and confirm judicial appointments, right? I know it's cool to hate on the government and criticize everything they ever do and assume they are all idiots - and most of the time they deserve it - but if they are on our side on this that should be welcomed and they should be given credit for it.
- beatpanda 14y ago
  My point is that I don't think Congress actually agrees on this. Zoe Lofgren represents Silicon Valley. Making statements like this could just as easily be trawling for votes as it could be genuine outrage over the issue. No Congressperson ever said these things while Swartz was still alive, and his prosecution was just as ridiculous then, but saying so wouldn't have netted you nearly the positive media coverage in the tech press that it will now.
  - dromidas 14y ago
    I think the counter point would be that if they actually do make positive changes to the laws to reflect their newfound wisdom then perhaps their public pandering will actually be a good thing. The public just needs to make sure that they do make changes and aren't just happy with them eating crow. Saying shit is broken just to look good does nothing for the people, but if they actually fix shit then they can say whatever they want imo.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I don't know if you can really blame congresspeople for being apathetic while Aaron was alive if even HN of all communities largely was as well.
    - pyre 14y ago
      Until action takes place, there's no distinction between political opportunism (i.e. blowing a lot of hot-air at the press to look good and maybe win a few votes) and genuine concern about the state of the law.
  - intenex 14y ago
    Um. We didn't do anything much either before he killed himself. I think it's fantastic that they're on Aaron's side here - yes, it's unfortunate that it took his death to make them on his side, but that blame lies with all of us, not the lawmakers. We made this a big deal after his death, consequently leading to the politicians making their claims now. Had we made a big deal before he died, perhaps the lawmakers would have done the same. Our fault, not theirs. They really are representing us here.
    - pyre 14y ago
      I don't know. I think the fact that he killed himself is a very strong message that wouldn't have been attached to movement (by 'us') prior to his death (not that I'm happy it happened).
      - WhaleBiologist 14y ago
        Martyrdom is a hell of a drug.
    - krichman 14y ago
      > Our fault, not theirs. They really are representing us here. Why are you blaming the victims? It's not difficult to determine that the current penal system is ridiculous, and unlike us, it's their responsibility to do so. <hyperbole magnitude="a bit"> Instead, they focus on making copyright legislation to support corporate interests. And the courts focus on whether or not the 5th Amendment was a good idea after all. </hyperbole> I agree with you completely that we should be doing more to advocate for reform, but it is far from being our fault.
beatpanda 14y ago
Just to play devil's advocate here though, how many people in the US wrote their congressperson over this? Zoe Lofgren was mine at the time Swartz' case went public in the media, and I didn't write. I guess that makes me partially guilty, too.
- cafard 14y ago
  How? How can Congress affect a US attorney once confirmed, unless by impeachment? I guess that a committee could call in the attorney for hearings, but how likely is that?
  - dyno12345 14y ago
    The mere threat of damaging their political reputations in a hearing is probably enough to make a prosecutor suddenly change their mind given that it's all these prosecutors ever cared about in the first place.
btilly 14y ago
No practical effect for Aaron. But there is always a next person to come along. It benefits them. And there is a possibility that in the process of investigating someone will point out to them that PACER is breaking the laws that they wrote about how much can be charged. This might lead to more than symbolic reform there.
rayiner 14y ago
While it may be politically advantageous that doesn't mean it's not a good thing. Remember, this "tough on crime" attitude is largely the product of public outrage at the spike in crime in the 1970's and 1980's. The drug war was buoyed up on a tide of "just say no!" moms and dads in the 1980's and 1990's. Congresspeople aren't completely immune to responding to broad public pressure, if that is indeed what develops from this case.
noonespecial 14y ago
Certainly we wish they'd done something while Aaron was alive. The effect we can now hope for is prosecutors everywhere will learn that despite it being very unlikely that something bad will happen when they over-prosecute for career advancement, if it does, they're going straight under the bus. A moments hesitation in the mind of the next Ortiz/Heymann duo thinking about levering up against a "soft target" is a very good thing.
lmkg 14y ago
Yeah, that's how democracy works. Actions that are forward progress eventually become politically advantageous. That's pretty much the single principle that makes democracy as functional as it is.
adastra 14y ago
If you want a member of congress to act on something, you have to ask them. That's how the system works. If you don't put in the effort, their time is spent on the thousands of other people clamoring for their attention who were more motivated and passionate than you were. Really didn't want to bring this up, but I actually floated the idea of the community pursuing a political strategy to help Aaron here on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529907 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529907 The suggestion didn't get many upvotes, and was utterly belittled by one of HN's most prolific posters. Something to keep in mind before you ridicule the small number of representatives who are actually friendly to tech. (To be clear, I could have taken action myself anyway, and I didn't find the time. That's on me.) It's really, really unfortunate that this is the top comment.
- etherael 14y ago
  This is probably the top comment because the zeitgeist is that the system is broken and making nice with it is a failing strategy.
  - adastra 14y ago
    So engaging the system would have resulted in an outcome that is worse than what actually happened? I don't think so. It's a false choice. You can engage the system and change it at the same time. Of course you can.
    - beatpanda 14y ago
      In my experience, the more you engage with the system, the more willing you are to rationalize or even overlook its failings.
      - adastra 14y ago
        I've spent time doing both, and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    - etherael 14y ago

TDL 14y ago

“It's absurd that he was made a scapegoat. I would hope that this doesn't happen to anyone else.” This type of shit happens every day. This is how prosecutors in this country operate.

michaelfeathers 14y ago

No mention of plea bargain reform. That's the real issue.

mindslight 14y ago
Or the extreme resource imbalance between prosecution and defendant that makes the threat of trial all the more powerful. What about at least: 1. Maximum sentence cannot be more than twice any offered plea bargain. 2. Making the counts non-severable. Or the defense only needs to win half of them to be cleared of all charges. Something needs to discourage stacking on limitless ridiculous charges and hoping some stick. 3. The government needs to cover the expenses for the defense, limited to the amount spent on the prosecution. (this doesn't seem politically palatable, but it needs to be addressed somehow) Yeah, these things are large meta-issues that aren't a political shoe-in. But pretending that merely amending the CFAA would have prevented this from happening is wishful thinking. Also, making TOS's inapplicable (which, didn't anyone see this coming with Lori Drew? But I digress..) wouldn't have stopped the prosecution in this case from claiming that simple trespass into an unlocked network closet should be considered felony federal "unauthorized access to communication network".
- tedunangst 14y ago
  1. Minimum plea bargain cannot be less than half of maximum? What about crimes where the sentencing guidelines are already spanning 2x? That would mean you could get a lighter sentence by going to trial than the minimum plea.
  - michaelfeathers 14y ago
    I saw an argument recently, that most of the problem has been caused by the fact that sentencing has been pulled out of the hands of the judiciary (though mandatory minimums etc). Judicial discretion in sentencing was once a check on this sort of thing.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    Of course you can get a lighter sentence by going to trial - by being acquitted. And no, it would not work that way, because if you had an open and shut case with a plausible sentence of 20 years, prosecutors wouldn't or at least shouldn't be offering plea bargains of under 10 years.

sethbannon 14y ago

The key bit is where Rep Issa says “whether or not there was excessive prosecution is something we’ll look at.” This means, thankfully, that we'll be seeing some form of congressional investigation of Aaron's prosecution. Confirmed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/darrell-issa-aaron-swartz-_n_2481450.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/darrell-issa-aaron-...

rprasad 14y ago
When a legislator say they will "look" at something, it means they don't intend to actually do anything about it but are simply attempting to pacify their constituents by promising something.
- pemulis 14y ago
  But in the case of Darrell Issa, we have a Congressman who, A) Worked with Aaron Swartz to fight SOPA, B) Sits on the House Judiciary Committee, and C) Has a history of hauling the Justice Department before Congress. Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Jared Polis are also on the House Judiciary Committee, and could potentially lend bipartisan support to any investigation.
  - newbie12 14y ago
    Rep. Issa is the real deal, he's a special member of Congress. He's a California tech entrepreneur and also voted against the TARP bailouts. http://issa.house.gov/about/about-darrell http://issa.house.gov/about/about-darrell
    - joeguilmette 14y ago
      He was also responsible for the absurdist witch hunt that resulted in the impeachment of Gray Davis.
- danso 14y ago
  How many "constituents" of Issa's do you think actually care about Aaron Swartz? Do you think the San Diego/Orange County population have been running major protests for Swartz?

pemulis 14y ago

If you want a legislative response, now is the time to write to your representatives. The EFF has an easy tool to send the appropriate people a message: https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9005 https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KE... The prefilled text is about the CFAA, but you can change it to say whatever you want before sending it. Don't feel apathetic, or think that you can't make a difference. One thing Aaron Swartz showed us is that Congress can be made to listen to the public, if we are loud enough.

il 14y ago

Contacting your representatives can make a difference. We saw it with SOPA and now we see it here. Now we, as a community, need to keep up the pressure on lawmakers and make sure meaningful reforms are passed to make sure something like this never, ever happens again.

superbaconman 14y ago

This happens all the time. Many face long sentences while innocent. How many innocent people are sitting behind bars today because they thought no one would ever believe them in court? I expect the number is small, but that does not change the circumstances of this case. Only the most immoral of our society could ever put a man in a cage because of a copied file. They equate their justice to morality, but in the end they only show the very nature of the animal within themselves. Man is a cunning and advantageous creature, the most deadly of them all.

jacoblyles 14y ago

>“We're looking at the real question of open government,” Issa said. “Has the government or even MIT been holding back materials that the public has a right to know?” >Issa said he wanted to make sure “that what is paid for is as widely available as possible to the American people.” It's good to see lawmakers paying attention to Open Access. While it is important to make sure that the unscrupulous practices of the Department of Justice are curtailed, it is also important that people pick up and carry on Aaron's campaign for Open Access. I am upset not just because Aaron was treated unfairly, but because he was treated unfairly for doing the right thing. Freedom of Information is at the core of Internet values, and that's what Aaron fought for.

rayiner 14y ago
Help me, I can't find "freedom of information" in either RFC 791 or RFC 793.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Help me, I can't find "freedom of information" in either RFC 791 or RFC 793. Come on, don't be that guy. You know when someone says "freedom of information is at the core of the Internet's values" they're really saying that freedom of information is at the core of the values of the people who worked hard to build and promote it (see Vint Cerf's recent statements about the ITU conference: http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/04/vint-cerf-save-the-internet/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/04/vint-cerf-save-the-interne...), not that the RFCs defining the Internet Protocol include those exact words.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    My point is that the Internet does not come packed with an ideology, the personal politics of some of its creators aside.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      To those of us who grew up with the Internet as our hometown and BBSes as our place of birth, it sure seems to have an inherent ideology just by its very structure.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

a "martyr" for why Congress should limit the discretion of prosecutors. Not going to lie, that sentence chills my bones. Lack of judicial discretion got us minimum sentences in the "war" on drugs. I don't have much faith that lack of any prosecutorial discretion will turn out much better. This is a power grab by congress, nothing more.

Tycho 14y ago

So what happens now if the prosecutor commits suicide, after being singled out by an Internet mob for doing his/her job?

scottm45 14y ago

Lets not forget he broke the law wether you or I think that what he did was for the benefit for good of the people or not. Laws are laws and what do I tell my children it's ok to break the law if your an activist. Making a saint out of basically a criminal because he believed in Internet freedom is insane. Who did this guy think he was Robin Hood. I think healthcare should be free should I steal money and give it to those without insurance. No, I can tell you this no person in government has the right to do anything but uphold the law. If the laws aren't right that is another conversation. Thousands of people are in jail for pot and I think it should be legal, but I'm not going to kill myself to try to get the law changed that's just stupid.

BrokenPipe 14y ago
I'm not sure your rhetoric would stick much here on HN. I think this is trolling but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. The laws he may have broken are not necessarily the ones he has been charged with, this is partly why it has been called persecution overreach. Breaking immoral laws is our moral obligation, there is no other way around it. Would you expect anything less if I were to enact a law that made your children sexual slave ? Would you expect anything less if someone were to take public funded research and locked it up behind huge and crazy paywall without any competition ? Huge costs for things that are in the public domain, from a copyright prospective, but that JSTOR tried to keep that as a profit center. They are the one stealing from the public and akin to companies like the MAFIAA at that. If you think healthcare should be socialized then go and tell your politician and fight back with the groups that share your convictions. In my mind he broke very little laws and this is a crazy overreaction from the persecution. Damn you may well be a troll with your trolling attitude and 11 minutes old account (mine is only a few days old).