5 ms·

"Justice Department lawyers believed Swartz's "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto" justified their bringing of felony charges because it demonstrated his "maliciou

"Justice Department lawyers believed Swartz's "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto" justified their bringing of felony charges because it demonstrated his "malicious intent" This is insane. Absolutely insane...I know this was intimated before, but to hear it confirmed... You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? I have stayed mostly silent about this until now, but this is just beyond the pale. Forget impeachment- Ortiz and the other prosecutor (forget his name) should be perp-walking for this. Their punishment should be public and severe enough that no one else in their position will think they can do this with impunity.

rm999 14y ago
>You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? No, but I don't see why they can't use it as evidence in a different case. IANAL, but it seems relevant if they wanted/needed to demonstrate intent.
mpyne 14y ago
> You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? I read the indictment and I'm pretty sure it talked about something about evading network bans and hooking computers up directly to network switches. Either way though, the conviction would come from the jury, not Ortiz, something which people always seem to conveniently leave out. The manifesto is one of the things the prosecutors use to determine if this is "just a kid on a joyride" or a repeat-offender-to-be. As such, why would they not consider that in their determination of whether to bring charges or not? Is it your thought that someone can post an open letter saying that they intend to bring about forcible change to the law of the land, by taking matters into their own hands if necessary, and have that letter get no response from the one branch of government charged with enforcing those same laws? And am I the only one who has noticed that he was never actually charged with piracy or copyright infringement? The ends don't justify the means, that leads only to a world where might alone makes right. By all means, open that access, but don't break into networks to do so.
GHFigs 14y ago
You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? That's absolutely not what is being said there. He was not being charged because of what he wrote in 2008. He was being charged because of his observed actions. What he wrote previously was only being cited as context for why he did it and as evidence of his intentions[1]. In law, intent (if it can be proven) can make an enormous difference in what you get charged with or convicted of. [1] e.g. "We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks." http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamju...

rm999 14y ago

>You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? No, but I don't see why they can't use it as evidence in a different case. IANAL, but it seems relevant if they wanted/needed to demonstrate intent.

mpyne 14y ago

> You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? I read the indictment and I'm pretty sure it talked about something about evading network bans and hooking computers up directly to network switches. Either way though, the conviction would come from the jury, not Ortiz, something which people always seem to conveniently leave out. The manifesto is one of the things the prosecutors use to determine if this is "just a kid on a joyride" or a repeat-offender-to-be. As such, why would they not consider that in their determination of whether to bring charges or not? Is it your thought that someone can post an open letter saying that they intend to bring about forcible change to the law of the land, by taking matters into their own hands if necessary, and have that letter get no response from the one branch of government charged with enforcing those same laws? And am I the only one who has noticed that he was never actually charged with piracy or copyright infringement? The ends don't justify the means, that leads only to a world where might alone makes right. By all means, open that access, but don't break into networks to do so.

GHFigs 14y ago

You can be convicted of a felony for expressing an opinion about how to improve goverment? That's absolutely not what is being said there. He was not being charged because of what he wrote in 2008. He was being charged because of his observed actions. What he wrote previously was only being cited as context for why he did it and as evidence of his intentions[1]. In law, intent (if it can be proven) can make an enormous difference in what you get charged with or convicted of. [1] e.g. "We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks." http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamju...