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

DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

pjmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#11

Post by defen »

sp332 wrote: post #5

This article makes the prosecution sound much more reasonable than other articles I've seen before. "The prosecutor’s response was that it disturbed him whenever a defendant ‘systematically re-victimized’ the victim, and that was what Swartz was doing by dragging MIT through hearings and a trial." The trial must have seemed like a deliberate waste of everyone's resources, when (from the prosecutor's view) Aaron would…

I'm hoping this is just really subtle sarcasm - there is a Constitutional right to a trial, you know...even when "everybody knows" that the defendant is guilty.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#12

Post by ferdo »

tareqak wrote: post #9

This story makes me wonder what would have happened if the Watergate scandal would have happened in the age of the Internet. Would the Internet rally in favour of Richard Nixon's impeachment and against his subsequent pardon? Would impeachment proceedings still take place irrespective of the pardon because of massive public support?

The NSA spying on all of us is a bigger crime and a bigger scandal than Watergate. I don't see any groundswell for impeachment.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#13

Post by tareqak »

sp332 wrote: post #5

This article makes the prosecution sound much more reasonable than other articles I've seen before. "The prosecutor’s response was that it disturbed him whenever a defendant ‘systematically re-victimized’ the victim, and that was what Swartz was doing by dragging MIT through hearings and a trial." The trial must have seemed like a deliberate waste of everyone's resources, when (from the prosecutor's view) Aaron would…

Shouldn't it be the judge's call to decide whether or not resources are being wasted? The fact that the prosecutor raised charges in spite of the fact that the nature and severity of crime did not change seems reprehensible and basically amounts to revenge.

It reminds of the time I was reprimanded by a teacher more harshly because I chose to share the sequence of events that unfolded with my parents. My parents called the teacher about it, and the next day, things were magically worse.

Edit: fixed typo

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#14

Post by Vivtek »

fiatmoney wrote: post #7
ferdo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message seems to be, "If you assert your rights or your innocence, we'll make life very difficult for you. Comply." Pure mobster mentality.

It's worse than that. "If anyone advocates on your behalf, we'll make sure you regret it."

I think the message was meant for the Internet, actually. Something like "You think you own this country? We'll show you who owns this country".

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#15

Post by sp332 »

defen wrote: post #11
sp332 wrote: post #5

This article makes the prosecution sound much more reasonable than other articles I've seen before. "The prosecutor’s response was that it disturbed him whenever a defendant ‘systematically re-victimized’ the victim, and that was what Swartz was doing by dragging MIT through hearings and a trial." The trial must have seemed like a deliberate waste of everyone's resources, when (from the prosecutor's view) Aaron would…

I'm hoping this is just really subtle sarcasm - there is a Constitutional right to a trial, you know...even when "everybody knows" that the defendant is guilty.

Yes, and criminals routinely abuse it. There is a "right" for the prosecutor to prosecute a crime, too.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#16

Post by sigzero »

ferdo wrote: post #3
VladRussian2 wrote: post #2

They wanted to send a message. Just like mobsters tripping on power do.

The message seems to be, "If you assert your rights or your innocence, we'll make life very difficult for you. Comply." Pure mobster mentality.

Really? He didn't have the "right" or the "innocence".

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#17

Post by hga »

tareqak wrote: post #9

This story makes me wonder what would have happened if the Watergate scandal would have happened in the age of the Internet. Would the Internet rally in favour of Richard Nixon's impeachment and against his subsequent pardon? Would impeachment proceedings still take place irrespective of the pardon because of massive public support?

Urrm, you seem to be under the impression that impeachment does something more than remove someone from office (technically it doesn't even do that, if the House impeaches then the Senate holds a trial, which happened with Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP, and Bill Clinton).

All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. It allowed the nation to Move On; the alternative would have pretty quickly ended the Republic if history is any guide.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#18

Post by jlgreco »

sp332 wrote: post #15
defen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hoping this is just really subtle sarcasm - there is a Constitutional right to a trial, you know...even when "everybody knows" that the defendant is guilty.

Yes, and criminals routinely abuse it. There is a "right" for the prosecutor to prosecute a crime, too.

Oh please, tell me how criminals "abuse" their right to trial.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#19

Post by sp332 »

jlgreco wrote: post #18
sp332 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and criminals routinely abuse it. There is a "right" for the prosecutor to prosecute a crime, too.

Oh please, tell me how criminals "abuse" their right to trial.

A stalker can demand to face their accuser, just to harrass that person more. This is exactly the example given in the article: if you're trying to make trouble for someone, dragging them through a lawsuit is effective.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#20

Post by ferdo »

sp332 wrote: post #15
defen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hoping this is just really subtle sarcasm - there is a Constitutional right to a trial, you know...even when "everybody knows" that the defendant is guilty.

Yes, and criminals routinely abuse it. There is a "right" for the prosecutor to prosecute a crime, too.

Prosecutors have power to prosecute, not the "right" to prosecute. The evolving history of individual rights is a response to the even longer history of abuses of those powers by little people that get big jobs.

Ortiz and Heymann abused their power and abused Aaron's rights. They should be in jail, not getting a paycheck from taxpayers.

Post reply on HN