10 ms·

A time for silence

500 points by danielpal 14y ago

RyanMcGreal 14y ago
"Ortiz’s statement is a template for all that is awful in what we as a political culture have become."
endlessvoid94 14y ago
I know that in our most emotional moments, we tend to act rashly and sometimes say things we eventually regret. I'm not saying Lessig will regret writing this, but I wonder.
- garretruh 14y ago
  What (in your opinion) might he eventually regret? Honestly curious.
  - endlessvoid94 14y ago
    I'm not sure, I was really just curious. It's probable he won't regret any of it. Perhaps in his profession? I don't know.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  It's inconceivable that he will end up regretting any of this. It shows him at his most vulnerable and most powerful at the same time. He can be justly proud of writing this, I wished I could put how all this makes me feel into words like that.
purephase 14y ago
Very well put, and surprisingly earnest. I respect Lessig immensely and this sentiment only reinforces it. There is a very pervasive and troubling thread of professional "politicking" invading every single aspect of our lives both institutional and private. No one cops to anything, no one apologizes, and no one ever sees the errors in their ways. Admitting otherwise is weak and will undermine ones political future, career etc. It's sad that honesty is no longer the best policy.
BenoitEssiambre 14y ago
At this point, the DOJ should apologize, investigate internally and fire those who were involved in Aaron's case. If they refuse and insist that this is business as usual for them then it should be legislated by the government that all previous cases involving heavy handed plea bargaining under the current DOJ staff should be re-opened and re-negotiated under saner conditions. This is clearly not justice. Aaron Swartz himself wrote about this kind of situation: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis
- wissler 14y ago
  "At this point, the DOJ should apologize, investigate internally and fire those who were involved in Aaron's case." This is a bit naive. Certainly it would help the DOJ's image if they did this, and certainly firing those involved would be just, but that act alone misses the point: why are prosecutors who behave like this thriving? This isn't an isolated case at all. There's a more sinister factor at work, and doing only as you suggest would cover it up.
  - discountgenius 14y ago
    Firing someone is still a step in the right direction if it forces other prosecutors to even think about the possibility of them being fired as well.
    - wissler 14y ago
      It is only a step in the right direction if it's not thought to have solved the problem. If it is thought to have solved the problem, then it's a step in the wrong direction, even if it means that justice has been partly served. I.e., the real problem here is cultural. We live in a culture that creates opportunities for people like these prosecutors, and merely firing these people sweeps that under the rug so it can flourish in the future.
  - chris_mahan 14y ago
    The Law has become their Religion.
wissler 14y ago
What a profound moral sense and courage. We need more people in the world like Lessig.
javajosh 14y ago
This attitude of not taking responsibility for anything, of simply denying reality, not to mention humanity, has a very specific beginning: George W. Bush's defeat of Al Gore. He demonstrated to everyone in government and in the private sector that you can reach out for power, nakedly, without respect to any kind of decency, and take it. And, gasp, the American people would not clamor for justice. They would not demand something (or someone) better. It was a watershed moment for government, when everyone realized: we can do whatever the fuck we want, and no-one can stop us. And this thesis, hesitant at first, has been demonstrated again and again. By Bush himself - NSA wiretapping, gitmo, the TSA and the most epic 'fuck you' ever spoken to the American people: the attack and occupation of Iraq under false pretenses. Cheney's massive expansion of power of the office of the Vice Presidency was a more subtle but still important expression of this disregard for American oversight. Carmen Ortiz is an Obama appointee, but she is very much a product of the Bush era. Bush was a wake-up call for all government employees: you have unchecked power. If you want to use it, expand it, abuse it then do it. No-one is going to stop you. Our justice system is so expensive that it's out of reach of most, and really, in the end, you're playing on the same team so go ahead and do what you want. 'Justice' has your back. But the key to making this power grab work is to follow the Bush playbook: never, ever admit to any wrong doing. Do not, under any circumstances, even acknowledge the concerns of others - except possibly in tones of smirking dismissal and contempt. If you don't follow that playbook, then you give your opponents an opening, and weaken your position. Pretty soon you'll be explaining yourself, and when you're explaining, you're losing. You're losing power. Stonewall, deny, and fight with every last tool given to you. Do not cooperate or discuss. Force your opponents to find leverage against you: don't just give it to them. Ortiz is a smart woman, and learned her lessons well.
- scarmig 14y ago
  Ah, those pre-Bush wonder years, when we all could look up to honest politicians.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    The operative bit there is 'nakedly', without any pretense of decency or cover. Just do it and you can get away with it, nobody will lift a finger.
phren0logy 14y ago
There are few people I respect more than Larry Lessig, and stuff like this this is why. Thank you for doing what you do.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
Honest question: how many felonies the MLK commit? If he committed a lot of felonies but was charged with none, that would be quite surprising.
res0nat0r 14y ago
Everyone is blaming the evil government over this issue. Shouldn't we be blaming Aaron himself; maybe just a little? Shouldn't someone if they are going to commit an act of civil disobedience be aware just a little bit of the possible consequences?
- chasing 14y ago
  I would add that, whatever else it may have done wrong, the government didn't kill Aaron Swartz. Full stop. So I'm all about advocating for change. But I think saying he was killed only serves to demonize and dehumanize the opposition. Exactly what we need much less of in this country...
- bjustin 14y ago
  No. The response was so disproportionate to his actions that no reasonable person would have expected it.
  - chasing 14y ago
    One unfortunately fact of Swartz' death is that we'll never get to find out how the case would've actually turned out. And this 35 or 50 year sentence has now ossified into the "truth," despite is actually being, as far as I can tell, not true. Orin Kerr: "Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news. And some people who know better but want you to have a particular view of the case repeat it, too. But don’t be fooled. Actual sentences are usually way way off of the cumulative maximum punishments." (http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...) Etc.
jacquesm 14y ago
Lawrence Lessig is an amazing person, and this piece underscores that. I really hope he will find that a time-out will help to heal these wounds and will begin to close the gap. Of all the words written about Aaron's plight these hit closest to home for me and I am halfway torn between following his example of tuning out and re-connecting with those around me (who I've been somewhat neglecting in the last week) and switching into 'action' mode from idle. If there is one thing that all this has done it is that it has shocked me like not much has done in the last couple of years and I thought I was pretty tough. Lessig is a giant, imagine how much it would take to hurt a man of such stature that he needs to recover incommunicado and contrast that with the piece written by Mrs. Ortiz. Worlds apart.
- FireBeyond 14y ago
  "Lessig is a giant, imagine how much it would take to hurt a man of such stature that he needs to recover incommunicado and contrast that with the piece written by Mrs. Ortiz. Worlds apart." Come on. One was a close, dear and personal friend of Aaron's for many years, the other was someone who saw him as the defendant in a prosecution. It hardly dehumanizes Ortiz to react and respond differently to Aaron's suicide than Lessig, and is something of a pattern in your posts over this week dehumanizing and demonizing her. I work in EMS. I see death regularly, including suicide. Though I see (however fleetingly) the pain of those surrounding the deceased, including their loved ones, I don't feel it. The person is, to me, a person and a patient, but I cannot be expected to have the same dark despair as I would, had I lost a long and close friend, and it makes me no less emotional or human to not have that response.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Feel free to compare MITs reponse to Ortiz response if you feel that Lessigs response as a personal friend is a bad comparison. I have not dehumanized Ortiz, she did that to herself, she wrote that piece. It feels insincere and her husbands response seems to confirm that it is insincere. I fully respect your professional detachment, but if you go so far as to make a public statement about a person you lost, possibly through your own actions then you should really mean it and get out of CYA mode, even if that's a life-long ingrained instinct.
Millennium 14y ago
"Yes, Ms. Ortiz, you obviously can “only imagine.” Because if you felt it, as obviously as Reif did, it would move you first to listen, and then to think. You’re so keen to prove that you understand this case better than your press releases about Aaron’s “crime” (those issued when Aaron still drew breath) made it seem (“the prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain”). But if your prosecutors recognized this, then this is the question to answer: Why was he being charged with 13 felonies?" Swartz was being charged for what he did, not for why he did it. Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. I'll buy that this was a misguided attempt at civil disobedience, but the point of civil disobedience is to pay the price: that's where the protest truly begins, not when you do the deed.
- bjustin 14y ago
  > Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. Yes they do. Intent is usually taken into account during sentencing, for example.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    And, in all likelihood, the same would have happened in this case.
- josephlord 14y ago
  There are plenty of interpretations of his actions that would not amount to 13 separate felonies while still enabling some charges to stand.
- cagey 14y ago
  > Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. But sometimes crimes are defined by what the perp was thinking or expressing: "Hate Crimes"
pasbesoin 14y ago
He is taking a break, for his personal need. I don't think he is advocating that we all do. Time for us to carry the ball. Personally, I have no hope in Congress. But I still do, perhaps, have some hope in the people. Who have the power to change Congress, and to reform the judicial system. For decades, people clamored for "tough on crime". Many of those voices may not change; however, many other voices may arise to insist that we... well, in the nature of things here, "look at the data" and "make some sense". P.S. I meant to add, that we currently -- as we did last year with SOPA/PIPA, have momentum and national attention. We should not miss the opportunity to take it and use it to (metaphorically) burn away at least some of the corruption before our eyes. And this should give at least some pause, hopefully, to those seeking to foist ever more corruption upon us. They are relentless; such respite would serve us well while continuing to construct an effective response.
Daniel_Newby 14y ago
I do not understand the hoopla around this case. Aaron Swartz picked a huge fight with the feds over, well, pretty much nothing. He then proceeded to run a spectacular PR campaign where he rubbed their noses in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the copyright laws. They did what the feds always do: calmly, carefully beat you to death with a billion dollar prosecuting machine. What happened to him was a foregone conclusion. He basically threw himself off a cliff a year ago. I am flabbergasted that folks like Lessig, people who appear knowledgable and together, were egging him on. Swartz may have been an overenthusiastic young man, but his elders and advisers knew about Steve Jackson Games. They knew about Mitnick and the hundreds of other crackers, hackers, and phreaks that have been crushed by the Feds. They as good as wrote his eulogy a year ago, and now they cry crocodile tears. Count me in the ranks of the unimpressed.
Create 14y ago
To the press — especially the press wanting “just five minutes” — I apologize. This isn’t a “just five minutes” story, at least from me. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/an_incredible_soul_lawrence_lessig_remembers http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/an_incredible_soul_law...

500 points by danielpal 14y ago

"Ortiz’s statement is a template for all that is awful in what we as a political culture have become."

I know that in our most emotional moments, we tend to act rashly and sometimes say things we eventually regret. I'm not saying Lessig will regret writing this, but I wonder.

garretruh 14y ago
What (in your opinion) might he eventually regret? Honestly curious.
- endlessvoid94 14y ago
  I'm not sure, I was really just curious. It's probable he won't regret any of it. Perhaps in his profession? I don't know.
jacquesm 14y ago
It's inconceivable that he will end up regretting any of this. It shows him at his most vulnerable and most powerful at the same time. He can be justly proud of writing this, I wished I could put how all this makes me feel into words like that.

purephase 14y ago

Very well put, and surprisingly earnest. I respect Lessig immensely and this sentiment only reinforces it. There is a very pervasive and troubling thread of professional "politicking" invading every single aspect of our lives both institutional and private. No one cops to anything, no one apologizes, and no one ever sees the errors in their ways. Admitting otherwise is weak and will undermine ones political future, career etc. It's sad that honesty is no longer the best policy.

BenoitEssiambre 14y ago

At this point, the DOJ should apologize, investigate internally and fire those who were involved in Aaron's case. If they refuse and insist that this is business as usual for them then it should be legislated by the government that all previous cases involving heavy handed plea bargaining under the current DOJ staff should be re-opened and re-negotiated under saner conditions. This is clearly not justice. Aaron Swartz himself wrote about this kind of situation: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis

wissler 14y ago
"At this point, the DOJ should apologize, investigate internally and fire those who were involved in Aaron's case." This is a bit naive. Certainly it would help the DOJ's image if they did this, and certainly firing those involved would be just, but that act alone misses the point: why are prosecutors who behave like this thriving? This isn't an isolated case at all. There's a more sinister factor at work, and doing only as you suggest would cover it up.
- discountgenius 14y ago
  Firing someone is still a step in the right direction if it forces other prosecutors to even think about the possibility of them being fired as well.
  - wissler 14y ago
    It is only a step in the right direction if it's not thought to have solved the problem. If it is thought to have solved the problem, then it's a step in the wrong direction, even if it means that justice has been partly served. I.e., the real problem here is cultural. We live in a culture that creates opportunities for people like these prosecutors, and merely firing these people sweeps that under the rug so it can flourish in the future.
- chris_mahan 14y ago
  The Law has become their Religion.

wissler 14y ago

What a profound moral sense and courage. We need more people in the world like Lessig.

javajosh 14y ago

This attitude of not taking responsibility for anything, of simply denying reality, not to mention humanity, has a very specific beginning: George W. Bush's defeat of Al Gore. He demonstrated to everyone in government and in the private sector that you can reach out for power, nakedly, without respect to any kind of decency, and take it. And, gasp, the American people would not clamor for justice. They would not demand something (or someone) better. It was a watershed moment for government, when everyone realized: we can do whatever the fuck we want, and no-one can stop us. And this thesis, hesitant at first, has been demonstrated again and again. By Bush himself - NSA wiretapping, gitmo, the TSA and the most epic 'fuck you' ever spoken to the American people: the attack and occupation of Iraq under false pretenses. Cheney's massive expansion of power of the office of the Vice Presidency was a more subtle but still important expression of this disregard for American oversight. Carmen Ortiz is an Obama appointee, but she is very much a product of the Bush era. Bush was a wake-up call for all government employees: you have unchecked power. If you want to use it, expand it, abuse it then do it. No-one is going to stop you. Our justice system is so expensive that it's out of reach of most, and really, in the end, you're playing on the same team so go ahead and do what you want. 'Justice' has your back. But the key to making this power grab work is to follow the Bush playbook: never, ever admit to any wrong doing. Do not, under any circumstances, even acknowledge the concerns of others - except possibly in tones of smirking dismissal and contempt. If you don't follow that playbook, then you give your opponents an opening, and weaken your position. Pretty soon you'll be explaining yourself, and when you're explaining, you're losing. You're losing power. Stonewall, deny, and fight with every last tool given to you. Do not cooperate or discuss. Force your opponents to find leverage against you: don't just give it to them. Ortiz is a smart woman, and learned her lessons well.

scarmig 14y ago
Ah, those pre-Bush wonder years, when we all could look up to honest politicians.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  The operative bit there is 'nakedly', without any pretense of decency or cover. Just do it and you can get away with it, nobody will lift a finger.

phren0logy 14y ago

There are few people I respect more than Larry Lessig, and stuff like this this is why. Thank you for doing what you do.

jamesaguilar 14y ago

Honest question: how many felonies the MLK commit? If he committed a lot of felonies but was charged with none, that would be quite surprising.

res0nat0r 14y ago

Everyone is blaming the evil government over this issue. Shouldn't we be blaming Aaron himself; maybe just a little? Shouldn't someone if they are going to commit an act of civil disobedience be aware just a little bit of the possible consequences?

chasing 14y ago
I would add that, whatever else it may have done wrong, the government didn't kill Aaron Swartz. Full stop. So I'm all about advocating for change. But I think saying he was killed only serves to demonize and dehumanize the opposition. Exactly what we need much less of in this country...
bjustin 14y ago
No. The response was so disproportionate to his actions that no reasonable person would have expected it.
- chasing 14y ago
  One unfortunately fact of Swartz' death is that we'll never get to find out how the case would've actually turned out. And this 35 or 50 year sentence has now ossified into the "truth," despite is actually being, as far as I can tell, not true. Orin Kerr: "Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news. And some people who know better but want you to have a particular view of the case repeat it, too. But don’t be fooled. Actual sentences are usually way way off of the cumulative maximum punishments." (http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...) Etc.

jacquesm 14y ago

Lawrence Lessig is an amazing person, and this piece underscores that. I really hope he will find that a time-out will help to heal these wounds and will begin to close the gap. Of all the words written about Aaron's plight these hit closest to home for me and I am halfway torn between following his example of tuning out and re-connecting with those around me (who I've been somewhat neglecting in the last week) and switching into 'action' mode from idle. If there is one thing that all this has done it is that it has shocked me like not much has done in the last couple of years and I thought I was pretty tough. Lessig is a giant, imagine how much it would take to hurt a man of such stature that he needs to recover incommunicado and contrast that with the piece written by Mrs. Ortiz. Worlds apart.

FireBeyond 14y ago
"Lessig is a giant, imagine how much it would take to hurt a man of such stature that he needs to recover incommunicado and contrast that with the piece written by Mrs. Ortiz. Worlds apart." Come on. One was a close, dear and personal friend of Aaron's for many years, the other was someone who saw him as the defendant in a prosecution. It hardly dehumanizes Ortiz to react and respond differently to Aaron's suicide than Lessig, and is something of a pattern in your posts over this week dehumanizing and demonizing her. I work in EMS. I see death regularly, including suicide. Though I see (however fleetingly) the pain of those surrounding the deceased, including their loved ones, I don't feel it. The person is, to me, a person and a patient, but I cannot be expected to have the same dark despair as I would, had I lost a long and close friend, and it makes me no less emotional or human to not have that response.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Feel free to compare MITs reponse to Ortiz response if you feel that Lessigs response as a personal friend is a bad comparison. I have not dehumanized Ortiz, she did that to herself, she wrote that piece. It feels insincere and her husbands response seems to confirm that it is insincere. I fully respect your professional detachment, but if you go so far as to make a public statement about a person you lost, possibly through your own actions then you should really mean it and get out of CYA mode, even if that's a life-long ingrained instinct.

Millennium 14y ago

"Yes, Ms. Ortiz, you obviously can “only imagine.” Because if you felt it, as obviously as Reif did, it would move you first to listen, and then to think. You’re so keen to prove that you understand this case better than your press releases about Aaron’s “crime” (those issued when Aaron still drew breath) made it seem (“the prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain”). But if your prosecutors recognized this, then this is the question to answer: Why was he being charged with 13 felonies?" Swartz was being charged for what he did, not for why he did it. Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. I'll buy that this was a misguided attempt at civil disobedience, but the point of civil disobedience is to pay the price: that's where the protest truly begins, not when you do the deed.

bjustin 14y ago
> Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. Yes they do. Intent is usually taken into account during sentencing, for example.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  And, in all likelihood, the same would have happened in this case.
josephlord 14y ago
There are plenty of interpretations of his actions that would not amount to 13 separate felonies while still enabling some charges to stand.
cagey 14y ago
> Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. But sometimes crimes are defined by what the perp was thinking or expressing: "Hate Crimes"

pasbesoin 14y ago

He is taking a break, for his personal need. I don't think he is advocating that we all do. Time for us to carry the ball. Personally, I have no hope in Congress. But I still do, perhaps, have some hope in the people. Who have the power to change Congress, and to reform the judicial system. For decades, people clamored for "tough on crime". Many of those voices may not change; however, many other voices may arise to insist that we... well, in the nature of things here, "look at the data" and "make some sense". P.S. I meant to add, that we currently -- as we did last year with SOPA/PIPA, have momentum and national attention. We should not miss the opportunity to take it and use it to (metaphorically) burn away at least some of the corruption before our eyes. And this should give at least some pause, hopefully, to those seeking to foist ever more corruption upon us. They are relentless; such respite would serve us well while continuing to construct an effective response.

Daniel_Newby 14y ago

I do not understand the hoopla around this case. Aaron Swartz picked a huge fight with the feds over, well, pretty much nothing. He then proceeded to run a spectacular PR campaign where he rubbed their noses in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the copyright laws. They did what the feds always do: calmly, carefully beat you to death with a billion dollar prosecuting machine. What happened to him was a foregone conclusion. He basically threw himself off a cliff a year ago. I am flabbergasted that folks like Lessig, people who appear knowledgable and together, were egging him on. Swartz may have been an overenthusiastic young man, but his elders and advisers knew about Steve Jackson Games. They knew about Mitnick and the hundreds of other crackers, hackers, and phreaks that have been crushed by the Feds. They as good as wrote his eulogy a year ago, and now they cry crocodile tears. Count me in the ranks of the unimpressed.

Create 14y ago

To the press — especially the press wanting “just five minutes” — I apologize. This isn’t a “just five minutes” story, at least from me. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/an_incredible_soul_lawrence_lessig_remembers http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/an_incredible_soul_law...