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

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#181

Post by Evbn »

jacquesm wrote: post #169
danielweber wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Legal defense fund" is a fairly standard thing to have. And lawyers usually are happy to extend credit to people like Aaron and wait to be repaid later. This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.

I think Lawrence Lessig knows a bit more about this, one line in his piece stuck out for me, it reads: "yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense". I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you curious.

That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post.

We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#182

Post by Evbn »

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…

Did you read the recent discussion of article Black and Whitey?

It's fun to be a contrarian, but try to find a sensible angle.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#183

Post by tptacek »

Evbn wrote: post #181
jacquesm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Lawrence Lessig knows a bit more about this, one line in his piece stuck out for me, it reads: "yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense". I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you curious.

That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post. We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?

If it was that simple, would Lessig have said so after the case became moot?

I'm confused about this too.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#184

Post by Evbn »

smegel wrote: post #121
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…

I don't really understand this "mental illness" obsession on Hackers News. Yes, there is probably such a thing as "mental illness", but it is not directly comparable in most cases to physical illness, and what we refer to as "mental illness" is really a very complex interrelation of a range of factors including an individuals life circumstances, stress factors, history of abuse and trauma, drug usage, relationship is…

You are mostly right here, but abuse can absolutely cause a legitimate mental illness, just like it can break bones.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#185

Post by Evbn »

wilfra wrote: post #28
rdl wrote: post #14

This goes way beyond what I expected MIT would do. I guess MIT is more responsive to public opinion than any prosecutor's office or politician.

Prosecutors and politicians would respond the same way if a group so critical to their existence became enraged at their actions (think reporters or donors). MIT wouldn't be MIT without their stature in the tech community - precisely the people (and perhaps the only people) who care passionately about this.

No, the government would hire a non-independent investigator to write a whitewashed report.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#186

Post by Evbn »

ChristianMarks wrote: post #118

Contrast the MIT statement with the distancing of JSTOR: http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz They write, "The case is one that we ourselves had regretted being drawn into from the outset..." But in Lawrence Lessig's http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... he writes, "Early on, and to its great credit, JSTOR figured “appropriate” out: They declined to pursue their own action against Aaron,…

JSTOR was directly involved as the target of Aaron's actions.

MIT was involved collaterally as the scene of the crime, and ceased to be involved after JSTOR and the Feds took over.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#187

Post by Evbn »

jhprks wrote: post #124

All the organizations (MIT, JSTOR, etc.), specifically the people directly involved in bullying Aaron Swartz may have publicly announced their condolences, but to me they all sound like sugar coated empty jars. I can sense that when they all go home they'll be saying "Regardless of what happened, Aaron Swartz will always be remembered as a thief, a radical, and most of all a criminal". I bet those people are feeding…

You are pretty comfortable slinging unfounded accusations into the inner workings of people you have never met.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#188

Post by Evbn »

belorn wrote: post #19

The university does, what makes sense for a university to do. They do an analysis, and produce a report. What I hope happens afterward is that MIT take in the report and create meaningful changes. This however is not in the nature of universities and is where the challenge will be if MIT want to learn from this tragedy.

What is your basis for saying MIT never changes?

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#189

Post by mindslight »

rprasad wrote: post #97
dialtone wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usurpatio…

As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system. Unfortunately, it's not. It's just a great side effect of the right to a trial by jury. In the American legal system, the modification of laws is left to the legislature. A jury can express its displeasure with a law by nullifying, but this has no legal import, since a different jury could easily conv…

So while we're on the topic of jury nullification, could you please enlighten us how this subject is usually handled by defense attorneys for the times it would be advantageous to pursue?

A. Fully advocate for their client by informing the jury of their right to nullify in open court, especially if that nullification would involve disregarding mere administrative law in favor of a no-frills reading of constitutional law.

B. Refrain from informing the jury to avoid risking their relationship with the court or bar, but inform their client of this conflict of interest so that the client may interject partial self-representation if prudent.

C. Avoid informing the client of their rights or this major conflict of interest, but pretend they're still being fully represented.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#190

Post by Evbn »

jacquesm wrote: post #151
rhizome wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking to the assumption that promoting an agreeable person will necessarily have a favorable outcome. There's a huge presumption that Abelson's role in this precludes unfairness.

Please, let's give Abelson the time to do his work. If he botches it you can call him out fairly afterwards, and I'm pretty sure you won't be alone. To do this beforehand is not fair to the man.

You are replying to a known troll.
Post reply on HN