6 ms·

Weev Needs To Walk

95 points by testrun 13y ago

mherdeg 13y ago
The author writes "Weev is a good guy. I know him." Is that true? What about his behavior towards Kathy Sierra? (I agree that it is a problem for unjust things to happen to bad people.)
- metatalk 13y ago
  I couldn't agree more. Weev is in no way, shape, or form a good guy. He's a horrific asshole, and the world is better with him locked up. Sadly he's locked up for the wrong reason. But he really is a stain on humanity.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    As abhorrent as his personality may be, there is no reason to lock him up. Prison is not a place to just put in everyone you find disagreeable, although most governments would likely insist against that.
    - Consultant32452 13y ago
      Actually, prison is exactly the type of place we invented for the sole purpose of putting people we find disagreeable. We create laws to attempt to define disagreeable behavior and intentionally keep them vague enough that if someone gets out of line we can lock them up.
      - agwa 13y ago
        > and intentionally keep them vague enough that if someone gets out of line we can lock them up. (Is this a joke? I honestly can't tell.) That may be what you'd expect in a despotic regime, but in a free country (which is what the US aspires to be), laws cannot be vague, and vagueness is grounds for a law to be found unconstitutional on its face. Individuals must have adequate notice as to what conduct constitutes a crime and what doesn't. Otherwise it's impossible to know if what you're doing is legal or not, and you can find yourself thrown in prison just for being unpopular.
        Consultant32452 13y ago
        Our prisons are primarily filled with unpopular people. We tend to refer to them as minorities. Some specific examples off the top of my head of intentionally vague law is when there's purely subjective decisions as to whether a crime is just a "regular" crime or a "hate crime." There also seems to be a lot of ambiguity around what exactly constitutes copyright infringement or the legal vs illegal varieties of hacking.
        agwa 13y ago
        Agreed, our prisons are full of unpopular people (though that's kind of circular, because being in prison makes you unpopular). Good point about minorities, though that's largely because of uneven enforcement of laws (e.g. blacks tend to receive harsher sentences, and are more likely to be busted for minor drug use) and arbitrary laws that are more likely to affect them (e.g. crack cocaine being treated way more harshly than powder cocain). It's not because the laws are vague (not to imply that that makes this acceptable) since vagueness is way for a law to be struck down. For example, vagueness is one of the primary arguments being made in Weev's case against the CFAA. (Don't know enough about hate crimes to comment, and copyright infringement is mainly a civil, not criminal, matter.)
    - metatalk 13y ago
      He does his best to ruin people's lives and to destroy their spirits for fun. he's not just disagreeable, he's a shitty human being who is exactly where he belongs. He's just there for the wrong reasons. I hope he grows up and changes, but all currently available evidence is that he'll never grow up. So fuck him. And fuck people like you who mischaracterize his malicious campaigns as merely being 'disagreeable'. I hope that he targets the people you love next time he gets out. Then maybe you'll realize what an utterly worthless sack of shit you're supporting.
      - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
        I hope that he targets the people you love next time he gets out. Then maybe you'll realize what an utterly worthless sack of shit you're supporting. Clearly you're not clouded by emotion in any way. I've been systemically targeted by trolls years ago, I have some experiences. Not as extreme as what weev may have done, but then again I didn't post much personally identifiable information. Can't say it's something to throw people in jail over, though it depends on severity, certainly.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        metatalk 13y ago
        Clearly you're not clouded by emotion in any way. No. I think you're an emotionless, unempathic member of a majority group who never really felt like your career, family, or friendships were in serious jeopardy. I sincerely doubt that you understand what it's like to see a loved one get psychologically attacked from multiple angles by a sociopathic piece of shit who thinks it's fun to break other people. In a perfect world, weev would reform. In this world, I hope that he chooses you and your loved ones as his next target. After all, if you're going to lobby for an evil bastard to be part of society, it would be best if the negative influence was limited to you. Sadly, the worthless sack of shit that is weev will get out. And shitstains like you will support it. Because you know that he attacks people who don't look like you, and because you really don't care that he does so.
DoubleMalt 13y ago
Weev is not a good guy imo. I'm not even sure I prefer him outside of prison walls for some of his past actions (although of course the solitary stuff is outrageous). But: He really must be acquitted for the actions he is now in jail for. There is just no way this should ever be punishable. Otherwise it would set a very bad precedent for corporation bullying of people that uncover negligence when it comes to customer security.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  I agree that he should be acquitted for the "crimes" of which he finds himself incarcerated for, since they aren't crimes. However, weev also needs to stop being such an asshole about other things and being so proud of that.
- gadders 13y ago
  Agreed. There is no law against being a dick, which is his main offence.
- watwut 13y ago
  Criminal courts should not evaluate whether accused is good guy or a bad guy. The only possible exception is when the guy is found guilty and court is looking for sentence. Courts should evaluate whether the guy broke the law and whether the law is consistent with constitution. His trolling activities and personality should not play much role when determining guilt.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    Criminal courts aren't allowed to evaluate whether the defendant is good or bad. It's actually one of the basic federal rules of evidence. Character evidence is relevant and admissible only if the defense first makes the defendant's character a part of the defense. Courts should evaluate...whether the law is consistent with constitution. This seems to be a big misunderstanding in the tech world. Courts already do make sure laws are consistent with the Constitution; that is one of their primary jobs. But they primarily do this when the law is challenged--usually when it is first introduced or on its first application to a novel set of facts. The courts do not re-determine the constitutionality of a law every time a criminal case proceeds, and especially not when the constitutionality of the law has already been addressed in prior cases.
wankershim 13y ago
Just give him a rope and say, "Aaron knew what to do." a la Hoover's FBI and MLK.
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
> The problem, in short, is that the Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Moramarco doesn’t understand what Weev did and instead compared his hacking to “blowing up a nuclear plant in New Jersey.” He said: >> We have a case here where…[the defense] is arguing that this was completely open to everyone. But you look at the testimony of Daniel Spitler and the steps he had to take to get to this wide open Web and I’m flabbergasted that this could be called anything other than a hack. He had to download the entire iOS system on his computer. He had to decrypt it. He had to do all sorts of things—I don’t even understand what they are. Wow. When a prosecutor is not only technically illiterate, but proud of their illiteracy, they should be disbarred. In my opinion, this individual's statement makes them sound like a self-aggrandizing, grade-A asshole -- the prosecutorial equivalent of an ambulance chaser with a low-def ad on late night TV and a strip-mall office that smells like moldy carpet.
- angersock 13y ago
  Yeah, when the state can't even articulate the act, much less why it is wrong, it is really hard to respect their jurisprudence. EDIT: And before anyone counters with "Whether you respect it or not, it's the law (and they have the power to enforce it).", do consider that such an argument is basically saying that the rule of law boils down to men with guns. I don't think that that is either noble or desirable--for a civilization, we must do better.
  - ataggart 13y ago
    The rule of law does boil down to men with guns. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The rule of law boils down to men with guns listening to the judgment of twelve of the most ordinary people that can be found. If you're unlikable, or if you're acting outside the social norms, that creates a problem for you.
  - 13y ago
webkike 13y ago
[01:33] <weev> what kind of furry bluefox are you? [01:33] <weev> i have a giant weevil costume [01:33] <weev> with fawn horns [01:33] <weev> to symbolize my malevolence
- epochwolf 13y ago
  Why is this relevant?
bishnu 13y ago
I'm glad the tech industry has been able to come together in a defense for weev that they couldn't seem to for Aaron Swartz.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Better late than never. The same would go for ensuring that Stephen Heymann and Carmen Ortiz don't wreck other valuable lives.
meritt 13y ago
Weev needs to be in prison for attempting to blackmail and extort a company over private consumer information. Unfortunately, they put Weev into prison for hacking under CFAA, which on those charges, I agree - He needs to walk because they're utterly bogus.
- josephlord 13y ago
  > Weev needs to be in prison for attempting to blackmail and extort a company over private consumer information. Can you back that up? I thought that Weev joked with friends about doing that but never took it anywhere or did anything that I would regard even as "attempting" to blackmail or extort instead just told Gawker. Would be interested if there is something but in the absence of further information my view is that all these charges should probably be dropped. Edit: From what I've read he isn't a good guy and there may have been a case to charge him on unrelated matter (stalking/harassment) but he should still go free on this stuff.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Can you back that up? I thought that Weev joked with friends about doing that but never took it anywhere or did anything that I would regard even as "attempting" to blackmail or extort instead just told Gawker. There are words on an IRC transcript. Whether those words constitute a "joke" is a matter of interpretation, and that's something we leave up to juries. For various practical reasons, we do not just trust criminal defendants when they say they are "joking." Weev's jury, which returned a verdict after just a few hours, apparently did not think he was joking. At the end of the day, this is the sort of thing that got Weev convicted, not some "corrupt prosecutor." If you do something at the edge of the law, and do it in a way where a jury of your peers is likely to find you unsympathetic or not understand what you did, you're going to have a bad time. Maybe this isn't fair, but it's a natural property of criminal law systems based on jury trials. The law isn't enforced by robots, it's enforced by people, and if people don't like you, that diminishes your odds.
    - josephlord 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
The article conveniently leaves out that he was convicted on one count of identify fraud in addition to the CFAA count: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-gu..., by a jury. If it had just been the CFAA count, he would've gotten just a misdemeanor.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  You conveniently leave out that "identity fraud" was setting his browser User Agent string to say "iPad". Which Safari does, via the "Develop" menu, right out of the box. This distinction is meaningless and laughable.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    shit so when I use the '-U' on wget I am also committing identity fraud? Did gnu set me up for this? If I call something a spade which clearly not a spade, am I committing identity fraud? I am so confused now.
runako 13y ago
I think the author makes a poor analogy here: >> This would be as similar to blowing up a nuclear plant in New Jersey only if the nuclear plant were stupid enough to put a button on their website – hidden, obviously, through a feat of minor obfuscation – that said “Press Here To Blow Up Nuclear Plant.” Not having experience in nuclear plants, I would not be surprised to learn that there's a lever/button/etc. that would destroy the plant if pressed at the wrong time. Maybe the button to remove all the control rods or something. Airplanes, cars, computers all have a similar button (e.g. steering wheel, rm -rf, etc.). In any case, it's not obvious to me that a power plant couldn't be destroyed by someone actively trying to do so, especially if that person thinks he's special because he can see through the "minor obfuscation". So I think this was a really bad analogy. I don't know enough about weev to have an informed opinion.
RealGeek 13y ago
This is ridiculous. We have a legal system where murderers like George Zimmerman get away for ridiculous defense like "following someone with a gun is not illegal", "shooting is not illegal" etc. But downloading iOS is illegal? We are hounding people like Aaron Swartz & Weev and threatening them with 30 yrs in jail time for downloading a few files with wget. I guess hackers should shoot a computer with a gun after hacking and use affluenza in their defense to get away. /s
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  >>>I guess hackers should shoot a computer with a gun after hacking and use affluenza in their defense to get away. While I realize this is sarcastic, there's a huge reason I stopped hacking into systems. I know its a felony, I know the government has a hard-on for making examples out of people they catch breaking into systems or doing anything they deem mildly illegal. To me, it's not worth it to test the government and try to show them the error of their ways. He was playing with fire and he knew it. On the bright side, he's still getting what he wants. He's getting plenty of people coming to his defense. His security company is getting a lot of exposure, and people are clamoring for a review of the law his was prosecuted under. His cost is going to be spending three years in jail and having to put that he's been convicted of a felony on every job application until he retires. If you asked him if it was worth it now, what do you think he would say?
ternaryoperator 13y ago
This article and others about Weev seem convinced that his sentence is attributable to his unpleasant personality and his previous malice on the net. In the absence of evidence that this was part of the judge's sentence, this seems like speculation. Which leaves the one real question: whether the sentence is fair independent of Weev's character. The sentence strikes me as certainly on the heavy end of the spectrum, but not so outside the bounds of what's just that I feel some grave injustice has been visited upon him.
Orangeair 13y ago
I take it as a sign that our court systems are failing when a judge can jail someone for crimes that has admitted to not even understanding. Whether he's a good guy or not, that's ridiculous.

95 points by testrun 13y ago

The author writes "Weev is a good guy. I know him." Is that true? What about his behavior towards Kathy Sierra? (I agree that it is a problem for unjust things to happen to bad people.)

metatalk 13y ago
I couldn't agree more. Weev is in no way, shape, or form a good guy. He's a horrific asshole, and the world is better with him locked up. Sadly he's locked up for the wrong reason. But he really is a stain on humanity.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  As abhorrent as his personality may be, there is no reason to lock him up. Prison is not a place to just put in everyone you find disagreeable, although most governments would likely insist against that.
  - Consultant32452 13y ago
    Actually, prison is exactly the type of place we invented for the sole purpose of putting people we find disagreeable. We create laws to attempt to define disagreeable behavior and intentionally keep them vague enough that if someone gets out of line we can lock them up.
    - agwa 13y ago
      > and intentionally keep them vague enough that if someone gets out of line we can lock them up. (Is this a joke? I honestly can't tell.) That may be what you'd expect in a despotic regime, but in a free country (which is what the US aspires to be), laws cannot be vague, and vagueness is grounds for a law to be found unconstitutional on its face. Individuals must have adequate notice as to what conduct constitutes a crime and what doesn't. Otherwise it's impossible to know if what you're doing is legal or not, and you can find yourself thrown in prison just for being unpopular.
      - Consultant32452 13y ago
        Our prisons are primarily filled with unpopular people. We tend to refer to them as minorities. Some specific examples off the top of my head of intentionally vague law is when there's purely subjective decisions as to whether a crime is just a "regular" crime or a "hate crime." There also seems to be a lot of ambiguity around what exactly constitutes copyright infringement or the legal vs illegal varieties of hacking.
        agwa 13y ago
        Agreed, our prisons are full of unpopular people (though that's kind of circular, because being in prison makes you unpopular). Good point about minorities, though that's largely because of uneven enforcement of laws (e.g. blacks tend to receive harsher sentences, and are more likely to be busted for minor drug use) and arbitrary laws that are more likely to affect them (e.g. crack cocaine being treated way more harshly than powder cocain). It's not because the laws are vague (not to imply that that makes this acceptable) since vagueness is way for a law to be struck down. For example, vagueness is one of the primary arguments being made in Weev's case against the CFAA. (Don't know enough about hate crimes to comment, and copyright infringement is mainly a civil, not criminal, matter.)
  - metatalk 13y ago
    He does his best to ruin people's lives and to destroy their spirits for fun. he's not just disagreeable, he's a shitty human being who is exactly where he belongs. He's just there for the wrong reasons. I hope he grows up and changes, but all currently available evidence is that he'll never grow up. So fuck him. And fuck people like you who mischaracterize his malicious campaigns as merely being 'disagreeable'. I hope that he targets the people you love next time he gets out. Then maybe you'll realize what an utterly worthless sack of shit you're supporting.
    - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
      I hope that he targets the people you love next time he gets out. Then maybe you'll realize what an utterly worthless sack of shit you're supporting. Clearly you're not clouded by emotion in any way. I've been systemically targeted by trolls years ago, I have some experiences. Not as extreme as what weev may have done, but then again I didn't post much personally identifiable information. Can't say it's something to throw people in jail over, though it depends on severity, certainly.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - metatalk 13y ago
        Clearly you're not clouded by emotion in any way. No. I think you're an emotionless, unempathic member of a majority group who never really felt like your career, family, or friendships were in serious jeopardy. I sincerely doubt that you understand what it's like to see a loved one get psychologically attacked from multiple angles by a sociopathic piece of shit who thinks it's fun to break other people. In a perfect world, weev would reform. In this world, I hope that he chooses you and your loved ones as his next target. After all, if you're going to lobby for an evil bastard to be part of society, it would be best if the negative influence was limited to you. Sadly, the worthless sack of shit that is weev will get out. And shitstains like you will support it. Because you know that he attacks people who don't look like you, and because you really don't care that he does so.

DoubleMalt 13y ago

Weev is not a good guy imo. I'm not even sure I prefer him outside of prison walls for some of his past actions (although of course the solitary stuff is outrageous). But: He really must be acquitted for the actions he is now in jail for. There is just no way this should ever be punishable. Otherwise it would set a very bad precedent for corporation bullying of people that uncover negligence when it comes to customer security.

wavefunction 13y ago
I agree that he should be acquitted for the "crimes" of which he finds himself incarcerated for, since they aren't crimes. However, weev also needs to stop being such an asshole about other things and being so proud of that.
gadders 13y ago
Agreed. There is no law against being a dick, which is his main offence.
watwut 13y ago
Criminal courts should not evaluate whether accused is good guy or a bad guy. The only possible exception is when the guy is found guilty and court is looking for sentence. Courts should evaluate whether the guy broke the law and whether the law is consistent with constitution. His trolling activities and personality should not play much role when determining guilt.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  Criminal courts aren't allowed to evaluate whether the defendant is good or bad. It's actually one of the basic federal rules of evidence. Character evidence is relevant and admissible only if the defense first makes the defendant's character a part of the defense. Courts should evaluate...whether the law is consistent with constitution. This seems to be a big misunderstanding in the tech world. Courts already do make sure laws are consistent with the Constitution; that is one of their primary jobs. But they primarily do this when the law is challenged--usually when it is first introduced or on its first application to a novel set of facts. The courts do not re-determine the constitutionality of a law every time a criminal case proceeds, and especially not when the constitutionality of the law has already been addressed in prior cases.

wankershim 13y ago

Just give him a rope and say, "Aaron knew what to do." a la Hoover's FBI and MLK.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

> The problem, in short, is that the Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Moramarco doesn’t understand what Weev did and instead compared his hacking to “blowing up a nuclear plant in New Jersey.” He said: >> We have a case here where…[the defense] is arguing that this was completely open to everyone. But you look at the testimony of Daniel Spitler and the steps he had to take to get to this wide open Web and I’m flabbergasted that this could be called anything other than a hack. He had to download the entire iOS system on his computer. He had to decrypt it. He had to do all sorts of things—I don’t even understand what they are. Wow. When a prosecutor is not only technically illiterate, but proud of their illiteracy, they should be disbarred. In my opinion, this individual's statement makes them sound like a self-aggrandizing, grade-A asshole -- the prosecutorial equivalent of an ambulance chaser with a low-def ad on late night TV and a strip-mall office that smells like moldy carpet.

angersock 13y ago
Yeah, when the state can't even articulate the act, much less why it is wrong, it is really hard to respect their jurisprudence. EDIT: And before anyone counters with "Whether you respect it or not, it's the law (and they have the power to enforce it).", do consider that such an argument is basically saying that the rule of law boils down to men with guns. I don't think that that is either noble or desirable--for a civilization, we must do better.
- ataggart 13y ago
  The rule of law does boil down to men with guns. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The rule of law boils down to men with guns listening to the judgment of twelve of the most ordinary people that can be found. If you're unlikable, or if you're acting outside the social norms, that creates a problem for you.
- 13y ago

webkike 13y ago

[01:33] <weev> what kind of furry bluefox are you? [01:33] <weev> i have a giant weevil costume [01:33] <weev> with fawn horns [01:33] <weev> to symbolize my malevolence

epochwolf 13y ago
Why is this relevant?

bishnu 13y ago

I'm glad the tech industry has been able to come together in a defense for weev that they couldn't seem to for Aaron Swartz.

Zigurd 13y ago
Better late than never. The same would go for ensuring that Stephen Heymann and Carmen Ortiz don't wreck other valuable lives.

meritt 13y ago

Weev needs to be in prison for attempting to blackmail and extort a company over private consumer information. Unfortunately, they put Weev into prison for hacking under CFAA, which on those charges, I agree - He needs to walk because they're utterly bogus.

josephlord 13y ago
> Weev needs to be in prison for attempting to blackmail and extort a company over private consumer information. Can you back that up? I thought that Weev joked with friends about doing that but never took it anywhere or did anything that I would regard even as "attempting" to blackmail or extort instead just told Gawker. Would be interested if there is something but in the absence of further information my view is that all these charges should probably be dropped. Edit: From what I've read he isn't a good guy and there may have been a case to charge him on unrelated matter (stalking/harassment) but he should still go free on this stuff.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Can you back that up? I thought that Weev joked with friends about doing that but never took it anywhere or did anything that I would regard even as "attempting" to blackmail or extort instead just told Gawker. There are words on an IRC transcript. Whether those words constitute a "joke" is a matter of interpretation, and that's something we leave up to juries. For various practical reasons, we do not just trust criminal defendants when they say they are "joking." Weev's jury, which returned a verdict after just a few hours, apparently did not think he was joking. At the end of the day, this is the sort of thing that got Weev convicted, not some "corrupt prosecutor." If you do something at the edge of the law, and do it in a way where a jury of your peers is likely to find you unsympathetic or not understand what you did, you're going to have a bad time. Maybe this isn't fair, but it's a natural property of criminal law systems based on jury trials. The law isn't enforced by robots, it's enforced by people, and if people don't like you, that diminishes your odds.
  - josephlord 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

The article conveniently leaves out that he was convicted on one count of identify fraud in addition to the CFAA count: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-gu..., by a jury. If it had just been the CFAA count, he would've gotten just a misdemeanor.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
You conveniently leave out that "identity fraud" was setting his browser User Agent string to say "iPad". Which Safari does, via the "Develop" menu, right out of the box. This distinction is meaningless and laughable.
- sitkack 13y ago
  shit so when I use the '-U' on wget I am also committing identity fraud? Did gnu set me up for this? If I call something a spade which clearly not a spade, am I committing identity fraud? I am so confused now.

runako 13y ago

I think the author makes a poor analogy here: >> This would be as similar to blowing up a nuclear plant in New Jersey only if the nuclear plant were stupid enough to put a button on their website – hidden, obviously, through a feat of minor obfuscation – that said “Press Here To Blow Up Nuclear Plant.” Not having experience in nuclear plants, I would not be surprised to learn that there's a lever/button/etc. that would destroy the plant if pressed at the wrong time. Maybe the button to remove all the control rods or something. Airplanes, cars, computers all have a similar button (e.g. steering wheel, rm -rf, etc.). In any case, it's not obvious to me that a power plant couldn't be destroyed by someone actively trying to do so, especially if that person thinks he's special because he can see through the "minor obfuscation". So I think this was a really bad analogy. I don't know enough about weev to have an informed opinion.

RealGeek 13y ago

This is ridiculous. We have a legal system where murderers like George Zimmerman get away for ridiculous defense like "following someone with a gun is not illegal", "shooting is not illegal" etc. But downloading iOS is illegal? We are hounding people like Aaron Swartz & Weev and threatening them with 30 yrs in jail time for downloading a few files with wget. I guess hackers should shoot a computer with a gun after hacking and use affluenza in their defense to get away. /s

at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>>I guess hackers should shoot a computer with a gun after hacking and use affluenza in their defense to get away. While I realize this is sarcastic, there's a huge reason I stopped hacking into systems. I know its a felony, I know the government has a hard-on for making examples out of people they catch breaking into systems or doing anything they deem mildly illegal. To me, it's not worth it to test the government and try to show them the error of their ways. He was playing with fire and he knew it. On the bright side, he's still getting what he wants. He's getting plenty of people coming to his defense. His security company is getting a lot of exposure, and people are clamoring for a review of the law his was prosecuted under. His cost is going to be spending three years in jail and having to put that he's been convicted of a felony on every job application until he retires. If you asked him if it was worth it now, what do you think he would say?

ternaryoperator 13y ago

This article and others about Weev seem convinced that his sentence is attributable to his unpleasant personality and his previous malice on the net. In the absence of evidence that this was part of the judge's sentence, this seems like speculation. Which leaves the one real question: whether the sentence is fair independent of Weev's character. The sentence strikes me as certainly on the heavy end of the spectrum, but not so outside the bounds of what's just that I feel some grave injustice has been visited upon him.

Orangeair 13y ago

I take it as a sign that our court systems are failing when a judge can jail someone for crimes that has admitted to not even understanding. Whether he's a good guy or not, that's ridiculous.