Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 229 posts

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#121

Post by reaperman »

nullc wrote: post #66
azinman2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that?

Among other reasons, because the DOJ accidentally leaked their internal communication about the case to the defense which turned out to be fairly exculpatory: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345276-Backpage-DOJ... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345275-Backpage-DOJ... The defendants are precluded from using or mentioning any of this information even though it shows that the case is being wrongfully…

It's crazy to me that our judicial system would be happy to knowingly find innocent people guilty, just because they feel like it's more important to pretend that exculpatory evidence simply doesn't exist.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#122

Post by yareal »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #115
yareal wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they described the situation fairly? The folks who legislate against sex work tend to tick most of those boxes.

To be fair, there is real shade to throw at traditional neoliberal uppercase Democrats of the 90's-10's too: copying features of conservatism but then putting off most of the country with bicoastal elitism. The Clintons and Reagans were both out of touch and announced policy on issues without much community engagement. Sex work is legal and more-or-less regulated in most of the UK and Europe even where Le Pen-flavor…

I'd argue plenty of democrats fit that description as well.

> Perhaps a compromise to placate the majority of Americans would be: "don't touch the right to bear arms in exchange for bodily autonomy and healthcare."

Most of the leftists I know are extremely strong opponents to gun control. Marx was pretty clear on the importance of an armed working class, and leftists tend to take that to heart ime.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#123

Post by yareal »

Auracle wrote: post #120
yareal wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they described the situation fairly? The folks who legislate against sex work tend to tick most of those boxes.

White supremacists? Really? And something tells me Muslims, practicing Jews, etc. aren’t a fan of prostitution either. So really you could just say “religious people,” and it’d be far more accurate.

Do we have many conservative Muslim or Jewish legislators? I would figure they tend to come from more progressive districts...

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#124

Post by yareal »

roenxi wrote: post #102
yareal wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All news media has a bias, it's literally impossible to serve a finite news set and not exert some editorial control. However, if you describe a news site as (very political ideology) I think it's fair to consider it slanted.

While that is philosophically true, but this thread is illustrating why that isn't a helpful perspective . Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. We could correctly call such an organisation "slanted", but it is missing the point that there some slants are privileged by virtue of leading…

> Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society.

Are there media organizations that don't believe they are doing this?

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#126

Post by Marsymars »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #117
huytersd wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I’m not mistaken, animal cruelty is the number one reason for vegans being vegans. What exactly are you saying?

While it should be a top reason, it's an extremely unpersuasive reason in the real world because people want their bacon burgers so long as they don't have to see what happens in a slaughterhouse or pay for the total cost of externalities of their consumption lifestyle choices. There are much more pressing, self-interested reasons to advocate veganism: 1. Meat ag and bushmeat lead to pandemics: bovine tuberculosis, "…

> While it should be a top reason, it's an extremely unpersuasive reason in the real world

Well it’s conditionally persuasive depending on the animal and people’s priors. Dogs vs horses vs pigs, etc.

Agreed on all your points though.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#127

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

huytersd wrote: post #112
hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. PrEP exists for high risk populations. For cures: Currently, it is if you're able and willing to wipe out your own bone marrow and able to find a compatible donor who's immune. 2 giant expensive and risky IF's. CRISPR personalized medicine may also work: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/25/1082306/gene-edi...

No one does that surgery unless you have very advanced lymphoma. It’s not a cure.

You're weaseling with the ambiguity of the word "cure". I already stated the extreme conditions that approach would require. It has resulted in deliberate, although incidental, cures several times. It was certainly a cure for them.

CRISPR personalized approaches are more promising by precisely excising vDNA.

There is no panacea here.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#128

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

Marsymars wrote: post #126
hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it should be a top reason, it's an extremely unpersuasive reason in the real world because people want their bacon burgers so long as they don't have to see what happens in a slaughterhouse or pay for the total cost of externalities of their consumption lifestyle choices. There are much more pressing, self-interested reasons to advocate veganism: 1. Meat ag and bushmeat lead to pandemics: bovine tuberculosis, "…

> While it should be a top reason, it's an extremely unpersuasive reason in the real world Well it’s conditionally persuasive depending on the animal and people’s priors. Dogs vs horses vs pigs, etc. Agreed on all your points though.

Yeah. Sigh. I'm realistic because the "meat is murder" with gross-out signage of slaughterhouse porn billboard-sign-on-cars approach hasn't really taken off.

In other news, Moolec is developing GMO "Piggy Sooy" to taste like pork by inserting pork genes into beans. (I'm wondering: will it be Halal or Kosher?) Impossible Foods' "beef" relies on heme from GMO yeast, while Moolec plans to have GMO "beef" too.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#129

Post by bawolff »

reaperman wrote: post #121
nullc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other reasons, because the DOJ accidentally leaked their internal communication about the case to the defense which turned out to be fairly exculpatory: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345276-Backpage-DOJ... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345275-Backpage-DOJ... The defendants are precluded from using or mentioning any of this information even though it shows that the case is being wrongfully…

It's crazy to me that our judicial system would be happy to knowingly find innocent people guilty, just because they feel like it's more important to pretend that exculpatory evidence simply doesn't exist.

I think its the lesser of two evils.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#130

Post by throwaway173738 »

petertodd wrote: post #12
underseacables wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with part of your statement. I think if you were found not guilty, the state should have to pay your legal fees. It's an unfair fight against the full might of the government.

Another way to do it would be to require the state to provide funds for legal defense for everyone, regardless of income or assets, with at least with the same budget as they use for the prosecution. Again, this won't change anything in the typical case, because the typical criminal case involves something who is clearly guilty. But it'll keep innocent people out of jail.

Or we could hire anyone who needed it a lawyer for their defense. We could call them public defenders.
Post reply on HN