3 ms·
>...even the Reddit crowd despised That's a terrible standard. There are some pretty awful things said by Redditors, especially in Weev's recent thread. I thi
by fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
>...even the Reddit crowd despised
That's a terrible standard. There are some pretty awful things said by Redditors, especially in Weev's recent thread.
I think Kerr's defense of Weev is less for Weev's personal sake than it is for the sake of Kerr's vocation. Either way I'm glad he is stepping up.
- _delirium 14y agoYes, that's what makes me quite trusting of his claimed motivation. Weev is one of the less sympathetic defendants you can find in this case in general, and is not aligned with Kerr's own politics or personality either (Kerr is generally a moderately conservative guy, in favor of law-and-order but with strong safeguards for liberty). That leads me to suspect that Kerr is especially worried about the precedents here, much more than he's worried about Weev's own fate.
- danso 14y agoI guess what I mean is that as a purported figure of Internet freedom and federal overreach, weev is not a great poster boy. Usually, when you're in the position of picking battles to fight, as Kerr is, you want everything in your favor, and hell, why not a defendant that you have no problem being associated with. Kerr's insistence on turning back a flawed law apparently outweighs whatever distaste he might have for weev on a personal or political level. So, good on Mr. Kerr.