4 ms·

This is an extremely reasonable point to make, and AFAICT Aqueous wasn't arguing against anyone, just adding context to the discussion. I seriously don't unders

by mwfunk 11y ago

This is an extremely reasonable point to make, and AFAICT Aqueous wasn't arguing against anyone, just adding context to the discussion. I seriously don't understand why anyone on any side of this issue would downvote any of his comments in this thread. Looking at all sides of an issue is critical, even more so when it's a legal issue, even more so when you vehemently disagree with the legal system about it. No good ever comes from shutting down meaningful conversation about this stuff, all that happens is that people get louder, dumber, more polarized, and vastly less informed. I think most people here are frustrated at what appears to be an abuse of the legal system, and when you're on the outside looking in and wanting to change what you see, it's so freaking important to understand why things are the way they are. If you don't, then you're just setting yourself up to be trivially shouted down by the people on the inside because you don't understand the system, so how could you know how to fix it?

hyperpape 11y ago
So, he referenced an overturned supreme court case and stated what appears to be like...just his opinion, man. On the other side, a statement about the standards for threats given by a former federal prosecutor. So it sure looks like he's just bullshitting about the case. If somehow that's not true, Aqueous should work to improve on conveying that they actually have evidence for what they're saying. Hacker News is overrun with people making "reasonable sounding" points that are just factually wrong. And when they don't bother to offer a real argument for them, downvotes seem in order.
- Aqueous 11y ago
  As long as we are making fallacious appeals to authority, we also have here an actual judge who fucking issued the gag order and who approved the subpoena whose justification is under dispute. We might as well look at the argument of these other actual, currently federal lawyers who agree with what I am saying. Everyone here seems so certain of themselves, it's hard to believe there's ever any debate in an actual court of law! We should just start trying cases in the court of Hacker News. Look, everyone here seems to agree that the 'reasonable person' standard is the standard, though I misstated it in the beginning. My point is simply that two reasonable, disinterested people can disagree about what constitutes a threat. This does not seem to be a belief that justifies personal attacks, but apparently it is. But I essentially just walked into a room full of knee-jerk libertarians and mumbled that maybe their blanket view of free speech perhaps deserves some scrutiny, especially when we are also discussing violence in a country with a long history of violence (i.e. people making good on threats). As a matter of fact we just had a case last week where an individual made a vague threat in private company, said company didn't make anything of it, and then he went and murdered 9 innocent people.
  - hyperpape 11y ago
    1) as I understand this, the the judge's decision is not that these are threats, just that you can have a subpoena. As popehat noted, that's different: everyone acknowledges that there is some legal authority for a subpoena. It's just that it's been said to be an abuse of it because these are not true threats. 2) The "reasonable person" standard is not "what Aqueous, HN commentator, thinks a reasonable person would view as a threat", but a legal construct. While reasonable person is an ordinary language term, as these terms are used in courts, they establish precedents and criteria that are used. Ken White mentioned some criteria, tptacek mentioned some others. I don't see you offering any guidance beyond "seems reasonable to me". 3) As for the appeal to authority, you don't understand what that means. If you were citing actual evidence of anything, it might be appropriate to argue that dismissing it was an appeal to authority. But both you and White are basically saying "trust me, I know how the courts treat threats". In that context, the fact that he is a federal prosecutor, and therefore intimately acquainted with what courts do is quite relevant, and the fact that it really sounds like you're just making this up as you go along is also quite relevant. As I said, I do acknowledge that you could be right. It's just that you have absolutely failed to give anyone a reason to think so. If you assert first order logic is complete, and I say it's not, then it's a good question which of us studied math. If we both try to give proofs/counterexamples, then it's no longer relevant. But this case is much more like the first than the second.

by mwfunk 11y ago

hyperpape 11y ago

So, he referenced an overturned supreme court case and stated what appears to be like...just his opinion, man. On the other side, a statement about the standards for threats given by a former federal prosecutor. So it sure looks like he's just bullshitting about the case. If somehow that's not true, Aqueous should work to improve on conveying that they actually have evidence for what they're saying. Hacker News is overrun with people making "reasonable sounding" points that are just factually wrong. And when they don't bother to offer a real argument for them, downvotes seem in order.

Aqueous 11y ago
As long as we are making fallacious appeals to authority, we also have here an actual judge who fucking issued the gag order and who approved the subpoena whose justification is under dispute. We might as well look at the argument of these other actual, currently federal lawyers who agree with what I am saying. Everyone here seems so certain of themselves, it's hard to believe there's ever any debate in an actual court of law! We should just start trying cases in the court of Hacker News. Look, everyone here seems to agree that the 'reasonable person' standard is the standard, though I misstated it in the beginning. My point is simply that two reasonable, disinterested people can disagree about what constitutes a threat. This does not seem to be a belief that justifies personal attacks, but apparently it is. But I essentially just walked into a room full of knee-jerk libertarians and mumbled that maybe their blanket view of free speech perhaps deserves some scrutiny, especially when we are also discussing violence in a country with a long history of violence (i.e. people making good on threats). As a matter of fact we just had a case last week where an individual made a vague threat in private company, said company didn't make anything of it, and then he went and murdered 9 innocent people.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  1) as I understand this, the the judge's decision is not that these are threats, just that you can have a subpoena. As popehat noted, that's different: everyone acknowledges that there is some legal authority for a subpoena. It's just that it's been said to be an abuse of it because these are not true threats. 2) The "reasonable person" standard is not "what Aqueous, HN commentator, thinks a reasonable person would view as a threat", but a legal construct. While reasonable person is an ordinary language term, as these terms are used in courts, they establish precedents and criteria that are used. Ken White mentioned some criteria, tptacek mentioned some others. I don't see you offering any guidance beyond "seems reasonable to me". 3) As for the appeal to authority, you don't understand what that means. If you were citing actual evidence of anything, it might be appropriate to argue that dismissing it was an appeal to authority. But both you and White are basically saying "trust me, I know how the courts treat threats". In that context, the fact that he is a federal prosecutor, and therefore intimately acquainted with what courts do is quite relevant, and the fact that it really sounds like you're just making this up as you go along is also quite relevant. As I said, I do acknowledge that you could be right. It's just that you have absolutely failed to give anyone a reason to think so. If you assert first order logic is complete, and I say it's not, then it's a good question which of us studied math. If we both try to give proofs/counterexamples, then it's no longer relevant. But this case is much more like the first than the second.