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

MIT President on Aaron Swartz

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 223 posts

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#81

Post by shareme »

olefoo wrote: post #68
potatolicious wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The witch hunt angle has been bothering me a lot, and should be ample evidence that the people of Hacker News are no better than the reactionaries of Reddit or even 4chan. No sooner had the man's death hit the news that people started foaming at the mouth, writing long manifestos and diatribes, and calling for the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution. We are better than this. Actually, evidently, no…

That is a fine display of histrionics; but, the specifics of this case DO merit removing Ms. Ortiz and her assistant Mr. Heymann from office. Those of us who were following the case before Aaron's tragic episode knew that a great injustice was being perpetrated, but that it could not realistically be undone until after the damage had happened. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Heymann should be held accountable for their decision to…

no, correct way is disbarment

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#82

Post by tptacek »

jacquesm wrote: post #77
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This place needs more public interest lawyers. It does not need more questions about whether its participants deserve to call themselves that. Please stop doing this.

I agree that this place needs more public interest lawyers. Informed ones, rather than state level prosecutors that try to wash their professions hands clean without some introspection on cause and effect.

Is Kristin Lee a state prosecutor? All I see is "public interest lawyer". If she's worked as a prosecutor, we should 10000x more want her here. I'm trying my best to find someone who's worked as a prosecutor to explain the mentality behind the baffling-in-retrospect decisions made in the Swartz prosecution.

It is very obvious how upset you are. But we should want more perspectives, not fewer, especially from people with actual legal training.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#83

Post by jlgreco »

sampo wrote: post #75
jacquesm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am a state level prosecutor who specializes in domestic violence. I prosecute individuals for crimes and see myself as an advocate for victims, particularly victims of domestic violence. Public interest as it relates to the legal field includes prosecutors, public defenders, ACLU lawyers, and lawyers for causes similar to Aaron's. So, how do you feel about a prosecutor that throws the book at a guy that wants not…

> I have to admit that I have no idea how I would react to being pushed by the system to this extent. What about trying to apply for a political asylum in some other country?

Probably a bad idea to mention that you might consider that in such a permanent and easily query-able forum, lest you ever actually have to do that.

It would suck to be sitting in a court room some day and have yourself declared a flight risk because you said on hacker news a few years ago that you would absolutely be a flight risk.

On an unrelated note, I have always admired Socrates' response to Crito.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#84

Post by jacquesm »

tptacek wrote: post #82
jacquesm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this place needs more public interest lawyers. Informed ones, rather than state level prosecutors that try to wash their professions hands clean without some introspection on cause and effect.

Is Kristin Lee a state prosecutor? All I see is "public interest lawyer". If she's worked as a prosecutor, we should 10000x more want her here. I'm trying my best to find someone who's worked as a prosecutor to explain the mentality behind the baffling-in-retrospect decisions made in the Swartz prosecution. It is very obvious how upset you are. But we should want more perspectives, not fewer, especially from people w…

> Is Kristin Lee a state prosecutor?

Yes. By her own account.

> If she's worked as a prosecutor, we should 10000x more want her here. > I'm trying my best to find someone who's worked as a prosecutor to explain the mentality behind the baffling-in-retrospect decisions made in the Swartz prosecution.

Agreed, but she has already made up her mind. Aaron killed himself because he was mentally ill, and that's that as far as she's concerned.

> It is very obvious how upset you are.

You don't know the half of it.

> But we should want more perspectives, not fewer, especially from people with actual legal training.

This I agree with. But attempting to whitewash this is not very productive.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#85

Post by tptacek »

jacquesm wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Kristin Lee a state prosecutor? All I see is "public interest lawyer". If she's worked as a prosecutor, we should 10000x more want her here. I'm trying my best to find someone who's worked as a prosecutor to explain the mentality behind the baffling-in-retrospect decisions made in the Swartz prosecution. It is very obvious how upset you are. But we should want more perspectives, not fewer, especially from people w…

> Is Kristin Lee a state prosecutor? Yes. By her own account. > If she's worked as a prosecutor, we should 10000x more want her here. > I'm trying my best to find someone who's worked as a prosecutor to explain the mentality behind the baffling-in-retrospect decisions made in the Swartz prosecution. Agreed, but she has already made up her mind. Aaron killed himself because he was mentally ill, and that's that as far…

Jacques, I hear you, and I'm sorry. But can we ask her questions? There's so much I want to know about how this happened.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#86

Post by hamai »

potatolicious wrote: post #55
kennywinker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better in what way? Less caring? More apathetic? I think we should have been better than this too... I think we should have been up in arms while Aaron was still alive . It was wrong then too, but easier to dismiss because it was someone else' fight.

I agree, and it's why I find the witch hunt angle all the more troubling. Half of the people making angry diatribes right now on HN couldn't write a cogent paragraph about the failings of the American prosecutorial system, two days ago. And now they're busy tripping over each other with hyperbole-filled condemnations, and casting all members of the justice system as something subhuman. And in all of this noise we've…

>There is justice, and there is mob justice.

Which one is this? http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2013/01/03/bla...

Coincidentally the Whitey's case was by the same Carmen Ortiz, according to news sources.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#87

Post by tptacek »

kristenlee wrote: post #7

Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their "story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker Ne…

Do you know much about how prosecutions like this work?

What do you think the logic might have been behind "doubling down" on the felony charges last September?

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#88

Post by natrius »

kenko wrote: post #27
kristenlee wrote: post #7

Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their "story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker Ne…

"Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened." But he didn't do it then, did he? It's absurd to think that these things are completely unconnected. (Look at the timing, for one thing.) A severely depressed person is perhaps more likely to commit suicide than a person who is not severely depress…

"Who would commit suicide in order to get attention? You can't get attention when you're dead."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#89

Post by dialtone »

arrrg wrote: post #76
Illychnosis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust. Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.

That’s not what jury nullification is for – not in the sense you are talking about it. The possibility of jury nullification is an inevitable consequence of how the US justice system is set up. There is no way around it. It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature. Put another way: For juries to have meaningful power, jury nullification has to be a possibility. I also think it’s illusory to be…

You are wrong and it is intentionally designed in the system. Why then have the verdict of a jury be final, with impossibility of re-trial, even in the eyes of Congress, if not to defend the Constitutional Right of Jury nullification?

From the same article[1] I quoted in another reply:

Theophilus Parsons, first Chief Justice of Massachusetts, explained:

The people themselves have it in their power to resist usurpation, without an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.

Or, as Patrick Henry put it:

Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort ” that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.

[1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#90

Post by jacquesm »

tptacek wrote: post #85
jacquesm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Kristin Lee a state prosecutor? Yes. By her own account. > If she's worked as a prosecutor, we should 10000x more want her here. > I'm trying my best to find someone who's worked as a prosecutor to explain the mentality behind the baffling-in-retrospect decisions made in the Swartz prosecution. Agreed, but she has already made up her mind. Aaron killed himself because he was mentally ill, and that's that as far…

Jacques, I hear you, and I'm sorry. But can we ask her questions? There's so much I want to know about how this happened.

Go for it, I don't think anybody ever stopped you from doing anything you wanted to do.

My biggest question is this: was there any link at all between the PACER case and the way Aaron was hit over the JSTOR issue?

And if there wasn't what was the reason that Aaron was prosecuted when the aggrieved party was already satisfied that no harm had been done?

I'm pretty sure that with Hal Abelson as the head of the MIT internal investigation that we'll get a very clear picture of what happened at MIT but I'm not so sure that the Justice department will come clean (in fact I'm pretty sure they'll just put the blame squarely on Aaron, just like ms. Lee did here).

And I highly doubt ms. Lee has any of the answers here that would truly give us insight in where this whole thing went off the rails.

Post reply on HN