Genius Aaron Schwartz (founder of reddit) killed himself due to Obama's DOJ

[Heretic]

He definitely had depression issues, as I stated earlier. He seriously contemplated suicide before when he thought he was getting fired, if I remember correctly.

I don't think he did it to be a martyr, and I definitely think he broke some laws (trespassing for one it seems).

Doesn't change the fact that the prosecution went way over the line, especially after the two original parties asked for the lesser charges to be dropped.

But if you think this man deserved ANY time in a Federal Prison, you are fukked up in the head. Plain and simple.

I never said he deserved any prison time at all, nor do I think he deserved to be sandbagged like he did. Given the charges tho, it's most likely he would have had some sort of jail time issued, I just don't think it would have been 50 years. My thing is we'll never know. You also have to realize that in cases like this, prosecutors often overcharge the defendant in order to secure lesser convictions. The higher charges could be dismissed in order to guarantee a conviction for what they're actually aiming for. Either way dude would be ruined financially fighting these charges and by paying whatever fine they impose on him, along with possible incarceration.

 

[No1]

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Once again, the future lawyer demonstrates that he doesn't understand the difference between a social contract and regular laws. The law expert doesn't understand the ideas of a binding agreement between the government and the populace. The law expert also advocated throwing the Constitution completely away, when we already have a process to change it.

The lawyer also doesn't understand that no one is saying the man was obviously guilty of certain crimes but those charges were asked to be dropped by the two parties involved. The lawyer also doesn't understand the absurdity of such a sentencing and overzealous prosecution. The lawyer also doesn't understand the utter hypocrisy of the DOJ's selective application of laws, especially when it benefits certain segments of the society.

Hopefully the lawyer will have a successful career as a DUI attorney and hopefully he won't get anywhere near any significant legal position, otherwise we might get another John Yoo.

lol...I know you disagree with dude on a lot of things. And I know he can be a self righteous douchebag. But why do you use every excuse to take shots at his career path? Just asking...kinda seems like jealousy or something. Every time y'all get into a e-scuffle, you go to this angle of attack about him being in law school.

 

[No1]

lol...I know you disagree with dude on a lot of things. And I know he can be a self righteous douchebag. But why do you use every excuse to take shots at his career path? Just asking...kinda seems like jealousy or something. Every time y'all get into a e-scuffle, you go to this angle of attack about him being in law school.

I disagree with the bolded :obamaword:

 

[Type Username Here]

lol...I know you disagree with dude on a lot of things. And I know he can be a self righteous douchebag. But why do you use every excuse to take shots at his career path? Just asking...kinda seems like jealousy or something. Every time y'all get into a e-scuffle, you go to this angle of attack about him being in law school.

Quite the contrary. I find him to be an intelligent man. His principles are just absolute garbage though. People like BarNone usually become John Yoo if given the chance, which is dangerous.

I'd much rather see him fight traffic tickets.

Plus, I'm quite content with my major, which is one of the most sought out and prestigious majors in today's world. If I wanted to, I could get apply to law school. Not jealous at all.

 

[daze23]

If I wanted to, I could get apply to law school

an interesting typo

 

[Type Username Here]

an interesting typo

:ndt:


Anyway, some progress:

A Silicon Valley congresswoman wants to tone down the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prevent what she sees as overzealous prosecution, reports the Guardian. Democrat Zoe Lofgren says "Aaron's Law" is in tribute to Aaron Swartz, the free-information Internet activist who killed himself last week. Swartz faced 35 years in prison and millions in fines on charges that he illegally accessed online academic documents at MIT.

"His family's statement about this speaks volumes about the inappropriate efforts undertaken by the US government," Lofgren wrote on Reddit, a site that Swartz helped build. The way prosecutors interpreted the law "could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties," she wrote, reports the Los Angeles Times. Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, a friend of Swartz's, praised the legislation as "critically important." Read Lofgren's post, and Lessig's take on it, here.

Lawmaker Pushes 'Aaron's Law' After Suicide - Seeks to limit scope of computer fraud act

 

[ltheghost]

Department of Justice...yeah right. They did dude dirty and he took the sucka's way out. But all that for some FREE damn journals? There must have been something in their that made some people very nervous. I guess we will never find out. It just goes to show you freedom isn't free and neither is information.

 

[Type Username Here]

Department of Justice...yeah right. They did dude dirty and he took the sucka's way out. But all that for some FREE damn journals? There must have been something in their that made some people very nervous. I guess we will never find out. It just goes to show you freedom isn't free and neither is information.

What made them nervous was that he was directly associated with WikiLeaks, the anti-SOPA campaign, and was a genius with fantastic hacking skills.

These two prosecutors wanted to make a name for themselves for higher political office.

 

[ltheghost]

What made them nervous was that he was directly associated with WikiLeaks, the anti-SOPA campaign, and was a genius with fantastic hacking skills.

These two prosecutors wanted to make a name for themselves for higher political office.

fukking prosecutors are the scum of the earth......he still shouldn't have killed himself over this bullshyt tho.

 

[zerozero]

Which confuses me as to why you would post up that image just now.

breh you think a DA couldn't nail you on all sorts of bullsh1t tomorrow morning if they really wanted to? It's not just about Aaron. It's about renegade DOJ & bad laws made for a different era of computing. The image is very relevant. What prosecutors spend their time doing (letting HSBC off cause it's too big to jail, but going after vindictively going after some guy who downloaded academic articles) is a complete indictment of our culture

 

[No1]

breh you think a DA couldn't nail you on all sorts of bullsh1t tomorrow morning if they really wanted to? It's not just about Aaron. It's about renegade DOJ & bad laws made for a different era of computing. The image is very relevant. What prosecutors spend their time doing (letting HSBC off cause it's too big to jail, but going after vindictively going after some guy who downloaded academic articles) is a complete indictment of our culture

I disagree with the laws, but that image is factually inaccurate. There was nothing illegal about it. Maybe, you don't get what I always try to get people on this board to do.

I try to help people make good arguments. Starting with hyperbole is never a good argument. I don't mean to say this in an arrogant way, but I could much better make the argument you're attempting to make than the way you're espousing it and the way that image is structured. Start off with the purpose of the laws you're criticizing and then point out how they defeat that purpose. Like that case you posted up earlier, read Breyer's (who I nearly always agree with) dissent. THAT is how you make the counter argument. You're setting up arguments that are too easy to dismiss when a guy who wants to agree with you can dismiss them.

 

[zerozero]

I disagree with the laws, but that image is factually inaccurate. There was nothing illegal about it. Maybe, you don't get what I always try to get people on this board to do.

I try to help people make good arguments. Starting with hyperbole is never a good argument. I don't mean to say this in an arrogant way, but I could much better make the argument you're attempting to make than the way you're espousing it and the way that image is structured. Start off with the purpose of the laws you're criticizing and then point out how they defeat that purpose. Like that case you posted up earlier, read Breyer's (who I nearly always agree with) dissent. THAT is how you make the counter argument. You're setting up arguments that are too easy to dismiss when a guy who wants to agree with you can dismiss them.

breh my side and aaron's side lost eldred. we lost that damn case. it doesn't matter what breyer thought. 99% of people in america think breyer is a toaster brand. SOPA wasn't stopped by abstruse legal arguments, it was stopped cause people got off their backsides and called their representatives en masse. Things like the image I posted on a forum are not legal briefs, they are made to lay the situation out starkly using a reshareable image. If you look at most of the serious writing on Aaron's death it makes the same point about social choices. Was it really worth snuffing out such a bright light? I don't know what you mean by "nothing illegal about it", but I hope you're not saying that determined investigators couldn't have nailed any of the banks there is reams and reams of data to indict many of those players on especially in terms of ratings agencies. Heck, but never mind that. How about HSBC? They literally uncovered actual illegal activity but declined to pursue charges just a few days ago

 

[No1]

Quite the contrary. I find him to be an intelligent man. His principles are just absolute garbage though. People like BarNone usually become John Yoo if given the chance, which is dangerous.

I'd much rather see him fight traffic tickets.

Plus, I'm quite content with my major, which is one of the most sought out and prestigious majors in today's world. If I wanted to, I could get apply to law school. Not jealous at all.

First off, I'm disapointed that @VictorVonDoom would dap up this post, we may have personality clashes but I never thought he was intellectually dishonest (though I guess BN vs. TUH is probably entertaining). Really John Yoo? You once again prove you know very little about people, I'm beginning to think I overestimated your intelligence (that is real talk from me since you seem to want it). Go sit down. Secondly, my principles are nearly identical to VVD and most of this board on all of these issues so if my principles are garbage then I guess a lot of people's principles are garbage. Yet, you only have a problem with me because you don't realize that half of the people find you tedious and I'm the only one who does you the favor of talking you down. Because for whatever reason, I don't think you're a bad guy.

Go look at SOHH, I was you. I grew up. You miss the forest for the trees. Your intransigence is not strength. It is weakness. AND if you were so happy about your major you want not be on the campus asking about whether or not you need to go get an MBA (yeah I had to toss that shot in).

You're mad at me because I have a systematic way of viewing things that is superior to your dipping, posturing and dodging? Because I've studied MLK's Letter from Birmingham jail and it is my favorite piece of writing in principle and design, the work of Charles Hamilton Houston, and because I idolize Jack Greenberg and Bryan Stevenson? People who actually did something using the courts and aren't some ex-military guy who killed people for a living who is now trying to lecture me on morals.


I spent all of this thread saying I didn't think this was worth pursuing, I just said on a strict legal basis of the existing law the charges seem sound, not that it should be applied to someone like this guy. Just because something is legally proper, that doesn't mean it's right. , something you are incapable of refuting because all you do is yell. There's a difference between making the legal argument and the social critique and policy argument. You get mad at me because I provide the former as well as the latter. What kind of law student would not make the legal argument? You sound like laymen arguing about laws you can't comprehend. You seem to think the status quo changes by people blinding screaming that something is unfair.

*Looks at your last post basically being a Congresswoman agreeing with me* I can't believe I wasted my time, don't worry I won't do it again.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

First off, I'm disapointed that @VictorVonDoom would dap up this post, we may have personality clashes but I never thought he was intellectually dishonest (though I guess BN vs. TUH is probably entertaining).

I'm not even following this shyt for real. I just dapped it because I kinda called him on something I perceived and he explained what he meant...not that I agree with him.

Y'alls little "beef" is pretty lame to be honest. You might as well both say fukk the attempts at intellectual oneupsmanship and just start viciously clowning each other.