What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would?
Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
11–20 of 211 posts
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#12Suicide is completely a personal choice. MIT had no reason to try and defend an outsider who hijacked part of their network, and trying to make them seem like they caused him to hang himself smacks of tunnel vision. It's a natural response to a suicide; we try and search for something to blame. But unless you argue that MIT should have known Aaron was mentally unstable, saying MIT "caused" him to kill himself is illo…
A desire to kill oneself is a diagnosis of mental instability.
user: mentalhealth
created: 17 minutes ago
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
A desire to kill oneself is a diagnosis of mental instability.
user: mentalhealth created: 17 minutes ago You're really not a very good troll.
I learned quite a long time ago that realistic discussion of mental health as it actually affects real people generally results in a lot of negative votes here on HN. But please, continue to dismiss my argument by attacking me and not the statement I made. More par for the course hereabouts.
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
A desire to kill oneself is a diagnosis of mental instability.
I'm genuinely curious, is that a widely accepted position on suicide and mental stability? I can think of a number of situations where suicide might be preferable to continued existence.
I think it may be widely accepted, but I also think it's nonsense. As you allude to, someone with a terminal and painful disease could have an entirely rational desire to commit suicide based on a sensible projection of the future as containing a persistent unacceptable level of suffering.
I think we should only invoke "mental instability" when someone's projection of their future level of suffering is clearly mistaken.
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#15What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would?
What's more libertarian than calling the police when someone misuses and infringes on your property?
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#16Suicide is completely a personal choice. MIT had no reason to try and defend an outsider who hijacked part of their network, and trying to make them seem like they caused him to hang himself smacks of tunnel vision. It's a natural response to a suicide; we try and search for something to blame. But unless you argue that MIT should have known Aaron was mentally unstable, saying MIT "caused" him to kill himself is illo…
Well, they certainly did not help to prevent the ridiculous prosecution being made
I am curious, what was wrong with the criminal charges against Swartz? Can someone clarify how the prosecutor handled things wrong?
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
MIT did not on its own "cause" Aaron to commit suicide, but MIT certainly did play a role in the events that led up to the suicide. Perhaps MIT had no reason to defend Aaron, but what reason did they have to help the prosecution -- why did MIT turn over information without being subpoenaed for it? MIT deserves its share of the blame.
if someone broke into my Network Closet, I would not need a subpoena.
OK, then you would receive your share of the blame if that person killed themselves after being hounded by the prosecutors you aided.
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#18Suicide is completely a personal choice. MIT had no reason to try and defend an outsider who hijacked part of their network, and trying to make them seem like they caused him to hang himself smacks of tunnel vision. It's a natural response to a suicide; we try and search for something to blame. But unless you argue that MIT should have known Aaron was mentally unstable, saying MIT "caused" him to kill himself is illo…
MIT leadership had a duty to act reasonably, and they didn't. MIT's position should have been that, at most, this amounted to trespassing and matter for the Cambridge PD. Aaron Swartz was no threat to MIT's network. They might not have prevented subsequent events, but they failed, horribly, by not speaking up for a reasonable outcome.
MIT's IS&T office had a knee jerk security-oriented reaction, and was over impressed with interacting with Steven Heymann, who is a fixture at the sort of conferences where Swartz's "crime" is inflated out of proportion.
It's not OK that Heymann, Ortiz, and MIT's personnel who overcooked this case contributed to the death of Aaron Swartz. And it's not OK they got away with it so far.
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they certainly did not help to prevent the ridiculous prosecution being made
I am curious, what was wrong with the criminal charges against Swartz? Can someone clarify how the prosecutor handled things wrong?
Nothing. It's exactly how the US works and our legal system is constructed. Until pleas and plea bargaining are (rightfully) considered duress/forced confessions, piling on charges to force a plea is commonplace, and will continue to be commonplace.
Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
if someone broke into my Network Closet, I would not need a subpoena.
OK, then you would receive your share of the blame if that person killed themselves after being hounded by the prosecutors you aided.
So the US should stop prosecuting crimes if there is a worry that person might be mentally unstable?