A world with less copyright infringement and more child molesters, I guess.
If copyright is what our society values most, then the punishment for violating that should be very steep. And apparently we value copyright more than we value keeping actual people from harm.
Our society really doesn't; it's the rich entertainment execs that can buy politicians that do. It's all about how much money you can use to bribe your government.
Money is law when you think about it. You get in more hell for pirating a kids show than assaulting a kid. Worst part is it's partly our fault, every time we give the media money the higher the copyright punishment will get.
And now it's overpassing the law itself. Every generation is getting worse and it's our damn falt. Everyone pitches in for our humanity's fall from what used to raise us.
So to sum it up we need a new law plan or we're utterly fucked.
True facts I knew someone who was molested my her, step father. He went to jail for 6 months and then was allowed to return to the house and father 3 children of his own. He had no probation or any other punishment
I have a cousin who raped a 6 year old girl and he went to jail for 5 years and was on probation for several more. He's not allowed around kids and has to inform people in his neighborhood, sex offenders list, etc.
Copyright is violated millions of times a day without punishment, so society obviously does not think it is that important. Child molesters on the other hand are put in prison and everyone just accepts that they will probably be raped or murdered there.
The post is talking about rapists not child molesters and, I assume, the activist Aaron Swarz who was not charged with copyright infringement, which is a tort, but with wire fraud, computer fraud, and unauthorized access.
Your argument is totally vacuous and without merit. Our laws don't remotely reflect public sentiment, they reflect the agendas of a small ruling elite. People don't give a shit what happens to rapists and child molesters in prison, because they're scum and probably would have been killed outright in a simpler world.
When those heretic muslims still refuse to bow to our lord and we find ourselves still marching over middle east in our crusade, you have to wonder, what kind of world are we leaving for our kids ?
Note: This is just a joke to represent the fact that every generation faces it's troubles that the next generation will get to deal with. Don't worry, friend, the world will be fine.
That's when you know the people issuing the sentencing terms are part of a larger conspiracy of shutting up people who are trying to wake up the masses.
Let's say society is a wheel. Internet activists threaten the rim that holds the wheel together, while rapists threaten a handful of spokes out of billions.
If the wheel were yours, what would you worry about more?
It's a culture of fear and an investment opportunity.
If rape gets classified as a psychological phenomenon and treated with therapy, drugs, time and community service, then yes the jail time will be lower. There's been research into the proliferation of free porn (yay!) and lower sexual abuse cases, but I'm not sure how long and how conclusive studies are. I'm just a paragraph of words and a silly username after all.
The other end of it is the Internet activists; a broad term. Some consider Kim Dotcom one, and some consider Brad Manning one and Julian Assange and the myriad of people in Russia, Belarus, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China and everyone else who is alone and scared and hungry losing time in some smelly prison. Dotcom as every tech blog fastidiously points out is wealthy, wraps his pierogi like body at night in sheets that cost more than your last five paychecks and has a PR team that'd make Andrew Bernaise's skull nod in approval from his grave.
These are intelligent people who made a choice to expose the inner machinery of the State. Other smart and not so smart people will reason it's safer to say nothing at all. The activists become outliers and one wonders why they even bothered when safety and comfort could have been had so easy. That is, if one remembers to think of them. Keeping the flame of their memories and deeds alive and more importantly WHY it's important is paramount.
In the post Arab Spring paranoia about the vulnerability of institutions to a well connected populace, more folks are going to be prosecuted. Copy right falls into this because once more get locked up for the crime, the reasoning is less will do it. It's not sound reasoning or even prudent, but I'm not a judge -- just words and a username.
The financial cost to business determines the sentence these days, in the UK at least. When the tables are turned and you sue, you don't get a huge payout at all, only what you can prove you lost, where's they always claim potential loss of earnings
In some ways, any jail sentence is a life sentence. That's a tangent we shouldn't get into so much here, but any felony charge will stay with you the rest of your life.
And prevented from using the internet or any computer-like device akin to Mitnick's punishment upon release and would only "re-earn" it at the government's say so.
When your entire life has been the internet, weigh that in to the factor.
And prevented from using the internet or any computer-like device akin to Mitnick's punishment upon release and would only "re-earn" it at the government's say so.
You're an ignorant fuck that doesn't know what post-release agreements exist
You seem confused. Mitnick was only forbidden from using computers during his parole, i.e. his sentence was still ongoing at the time the restrictions were in place. Swartz was offered a six month sentence, so as long as he did his six months his sentence would be over.
When you're charged with a federal offense and serve time for it you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have supervised release and it's completely up to the discretion of the the court how long it will be.
There was an NPR interview that nailed down the indefinite internet restriction post-release but now I can't find it. I'll keep looking for it, though.
When you're charged with a federal offense and serve time for it you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have supervised release
lol no you don't. You always have the option of just serving your sentence in prison.
For that matter a large percentage of federal convicts are sentenced without possibility of parole, so it's not even option for them. Please inform Charles Manson and Bernie Madoff about how federal convicts ALWAYS get supervised release, because I'm sure they'd love to know how to make that happen.
For that matter a large percentage of federal convicts are sentenced without possibility of parole, so it's not even option for them. We're not talking about them, but feel free to pick nits.
And by all means, feel free to commit suicide if you think you might be deprived of modern conveniences for a few years because you chose to do something you clearly knew was illegal.
Nietzsche made some remark in the genealogy of morals like the punishment of a crime has something to do with how threatening the crime is to the elites that run the show.
You have to understand that many of the 1% ARE rapists. Freedom of information and communication threatens the power structure. Rape is what they are into. The length of the sentences reflects their values.
So we're allowed to believe in kids again?! This is all very confusing! What will become of the world we are usually being Shanghaid into fighting for? Or abstinence in general? Except for drugs of course.
What is the point in saying 35 years if "it was really only going to be 6 months"? Why not just have realistic sentences that match the crime? The legal system is too convoluted.
It's so easy to shrug of 6 months of your life lost and a felony on your record when it isn't you.
You obviously have never been to jail, or had any serious dealing with law enforcement. Also you do realize that a felony conviction results in the loss of civil rights correct (no voting, guns, etc)? I doubt you would be singing the same tune it was your ass on the chopping bloc.
The point is that he was not looking at anywhere near what a rapist would get which is what the post asserted. He was an activist and well aware of the possible penalties for his actions
not necessarily true. some rapists get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If you don't believe me, google 'Steubenville football team rape'
Are the guys in that video holding a dummy? Is that not a young girl that's unconscious?
Remember, the point of the video being released was to make it clear that more people were involved than the two charged. If things are not reopened, it's probable (looking at the evidence available) that multiple people will get off without any charges at all. Is that not applicable?
Why do you require 'official channels' for all information? Can you not make a decision for yourself?
What does a picture of people carrying an unconscious girl prove? The rapists have been charged. What other charges do you think should be pressed? Making tasteless jokes about a crime after the fact is not a crime.
I am not defending anyone. Why are you defending the lynch mob that is anonymous?
If you were to take the joking teen as a witness to the event, he claimed it was far more than just two people who participated. Therefore, are the charges complete?
Have fun defending rapists tho. You're a gem. Peace out bro.
Because small town corruption and 'hero culture' surrounding high school sports doesn't exist, right? I participated all the same when I was young; It's not beyond reproach and you're silly for thinking these things are 'off limits' until the controllers tell us what is "true". At least the wool keeps your eyes warm.
Notice how neither of us are even talking about the point we started on tho? Keep trying to derail, this thread is too long by now anyways
They have been charged.
It will be interesting to see what they are charged with. To bring it back to where we started, do you think they will see more jail time than what 'hacktivists' are receiving? we'll find out next month.
I didn't derail anything. You're the one who brought up the Steubenville case. All I was doing is disputing the statement made by OP that hacktivists get longer sentences than rapists. This certainly isn't the case generally but if you find the extreme on either end you might be able to find 2 cases where this is true.
Can you name any "hacktivists" who have ever received any jail time? If so, for what?
Can you name any "hacktivists" who have ever received any jail time? If so, for what?
That depends on the definition of 'hacktivist'. Gary MacKinnon nearly got deported to the US despite never stepping foot in the country. Bradley Manning is in indefinite detention for releasing documents online. Are these 'hacktivists' or whistleblowers? What is the difference?
Besides them, there has been Sabu and other 'Anons' that have been caught. Often they are worth more as resources to the government than in a jail cell tho...
That was never the point. The point is that often these activists are delivered trumped up charges to intimidate them, often being quoted longer jail times than those who do acts like rape or sexual assault.
Schwartz was being charged on downloading and releasing already free academic journals because the publishers were taking payment for the viewing of them instead of passing on those revenues to the author of the research itself. Does that call for a maximum 30+ year sentence? You keep shying away from this part of the argument....
No, it doesn't call for a maximum 30+ year sentence but some instances of the crime he committed do. Computer fraud covers a wide range of crimes. If someone committed computer fraud and cleaned out the retirement funds of thousands of retirees they would probably get the maximum. His crime caused much less damage so he would only get 6 months, maybe even less if it went to trial and he had a good lawyer and a technologically literate judge.
Yet that isn't what happened at all in the Schwarz case. He was delivered trumped up charges on top of more charges, because he wasn't willing to bend over and take the plea bargain. Is that how things should work? The government should be able to use trumped up charges to intimidate defendants into accepting plea bargains against their best interest?
Remember too, this Schwarz kid was a genius. He invented the RSS feed, among other things. Considering he was only sharing free academic articles to bypass a publisher's 'get rich quick' scheme, should he have been facing 30+ years in prison for his crimes? Should the prospect of such a sentence even have been broached considering the non-severity of his actions?
From how it's been presented to me, he was charged, refused the plea bargain, and then was hit with another dose of even more serious charges as an intimidation measure. In response, he took his life. Are we looking at the same thing here?
Assuming that your question is genuine, I shall attempt to enlighten you, Mr. PoopdickMcThroatFuck.
We shall being with the narrative intent of the articles presumed to be at hand and in question. To wit, the very notion that Aaron Swartz was not MERELY a Jewish scion of internet royalty, but was, IN FACT, the murderer of his own self in order to avoid a worse fate.
Now, Barbara Streisand up here, would have you believe that he knew FULL WELL the entire weight of the US government stacked against him was nothing but bluster and blather. Because, as we all know, the government of the United States is about as weighty as a gnat... just ask any Mexican, am I right?
However, Mr. Swartz did not seem to agree. In fact, he seemed to disagree enough to believe that being stone-cold dead was a preferable alternative.
Whether or not that decision was correct is outside the scope of this discussion. That it was made, is not.
Have I enlightened you in any fashion Mister PoopdickMcThroatFuck?
What Barbara was saying was that the statement made in the original post was incorrect because Mr. Swarz was offered a plea bargain down to 6 months in jail. Rapists do not receive such offers.
As to Mr Swarz's suicide, you do not know that he did this because of his legal travails.
you do not know that he did this because of his legal travails
First undeniably true thing you've said. I do NOT know that. I am entertaining a reasonable suspicion. I am willing to entertain others equally reasonable, that explain what drove a successful young man to suicide. Perhaps he chewed too much bubble gum? Apparently you would have some option that is not obvious to me, but better suited to the facts?
I know nothing of his life except this incident. I know nothing of your life except these 3 comments on this page. If you killed yourself tomorrow I would not assume that it was because of this exchange. In the same way I do not assume his suicide was because of the one thing I know about him.
Very few people kill themselves when facing 6 months in a minimum security prison. There were probably other factors.
Even in a trial with a guilty verdict, he would probably not have been sentenced to anywhere near that given the minimal damage done. Those are maximum sentences for those crimes.
He was offered a 6 month sentence as a plea bargain. There are no mandatory minimums for these charges and given the minimal damage done and the fact that both aggrieved parties dropped their charges, any sane judge would not give him a harsh sentence.
You don't take a plea bargain when you've not committed a crime.
Well, you can. But it just makes you the idiotic little sheep that the system depends on the general populace to be.
If that were true then we'd have appropriate punishments for the crime.
Instead prosecutors have turned into a game of chicken. "You face death, but if you admit wrongdoing we may give you what you should've gotten with a conviction."
He probably would have gotten around the same with a conviction. A plea bargain is not a game of chicken. It is to save both sides the expense of a trial. The plea bargain is usually similar to what a trial judge would have sentenced.
edit: or if he is truly innocent he could say "fuck you, I'm innocent, I'm not admitting to something I did not do, and you're the one who belongs in prison for malicious prosecution"
Wait... does Reddit hate kids or not? Post a picture of your kid, and/or talk about being a parent. You get: "this isn't Facebook" or people crying about "overpopulation!" If you really believe that, go stand in front of an oncoming train. Don't worry I'll wait...
So who cares? This post is about all the kids, we don't really give a shit about one person's kid and what cute thing he did the other day. We do care to not leave them a shitty corrupted world.
I know nothing of his life except this incident. I know nothing of your life except these 3 comments on this page. If you killed yourself tomorrow I would not assume that it was because of this exchange. In the same way I do not assume his suicide was because of the one thing I know about him.
Very few people kill themselves when facing 6 months in a minimum security prison. There were probably other factors.
140 comments
49 The_Juggler17 2013-01-21
A world with less copyright infringement and more child molesters, I guess.
If copyright is what our society values most, then the punishment for violating that should be very steep. And apparently we value copyright more than we value keeping actual people from harm.
40 [deleted] 2013-01-21
Our society really doesn't; it's the rich entertainment execs that can buy politicians that do. It's all about how much money you can use to bribe your government.
16 DS450 2013-01-21
It goes beyond "rich entertainment execs" This involves interest groups who seek to control our consensus perception of reality.
1 SlimyRage 2013-01-21
Money is law when you think about it. You get in more hell for pirating a kids show than assaulting a kid. Worst part is it's partly our fault, every time we give the media money the higher the copyright punishment will get.
And now it's overpassing the law itself. Every generation is getting worse and it's our damn falt. Everyone pitches in for our humanity's fall from what used to raise us.
So to sum it up we need a new law plan or we're utterly fucked.
9 truelikelihood 2013-01-21
Copyright infringement discussions immediately makes me think of this
1 penisse 2013-01-21
Isn't this image copyrighted?
1 techz7 2013-01-21
True facts I knew someone who was molested my her, step father. He went to jail for 6 months and then was allowed to return to the house and father 3 children of his own. He had no probation or any other punishment
1 The_Juggler17 2013-01-21
I have a cousin who raped a 6 year old girl and he went to jail for 5 years and was on probation for several more. He's not allowed around kids and has to inform people in his neighborhood, sex offenders list, etc.
Still, 5 < 30
-14 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
Who said anything about child molesters or copyright infringement?
16 TheWiredWorld 2013-01-21
The nuance is weak with this one....
-7 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
Copyright is violated millions of times a day without punishment, so society obviously does not think it is that important. Child molesters on the other hand are put in prison and everyone just accepts that they will probably be raped or murdered there.
The post is talking about rapists not child molesters and, I assume, the activist Aaron Swarz who was not charged with copyright infringement, which is a tort, but with wire fraud, computer fraud, and unauthorized access.
9 SoundByte 2013-01-21
Your argument is totally vacuous and without merit. Our laws don't remotely reflect public sentiment, they reflect the agendas of a small ruling elite. People don't give a shit what happens to rapists and child molesters in prison, because they're scum and probably would have been killed outright in a simpler world.
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN IS A COMPLETE FARCE.
1 [deleted] 2013-01-21
Sniff sniff whats that? I smell a gov shrill here.
-3 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
lolwut?
37 danxmason 2013-01-21
You get less punishment for killing Michael Jackson than pirating his music.
3 [deleted] 2013-01-21
:(
0 SlimyRage 2013-01-21
Maybe because his IS dead... but im pretty sure if you stole his body you would still be in less of punishment than taking his songs.
12 juloxx 2013-01-21
People caught with (psychedelic) drugs also get harsher treatments than rapists.....
This shit is all backwards yo
10 ginfish 2013-01-21
When those heretic muslims still refuse to bow to our lord and we find ourselves still marching over middle east in our crusade, you have to wonder, what kind of world are we leaving for our kids ?
Note: This is just a joke to represent the fact that every generation faces it's troubles that the next generation will get to deal with. Don't worry, friend, the world will be fine.
26 amaefm 2013-01-21
Oh you were actually talking about the crusades? I really thought you were alluding to the last decade of US warmongering.
21 [deleted] 2013-01-21
[deleted]
14 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
Yep the crusades were successful
8 [deleted] 2013-01-21
Well, not really.
5 joedude 2013-01-21
..........................................in what way?
2 [deleted] 2013-01-21
Killing lots and lots of people. The crusades were really good at that.
-3 joedude 2013-01-21
oooh right i forgot the goal was for maximum death, well atleast us atheists come out ahead on both ends of the crusades :D.
3 everyoneknowsabanana 2013-01-21
....I apologize on your behalf
1 ginfish 2013-01-21
Hahaha good one man, good one!
5 [deleted] 2013-01-21
[deleted]
-2 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
To bechonest we are a lot of the problem....
3 Offtheheazy 2013-01-21
Probably a strict control of electronics since the government cannot control those who have mastered the skill.
-1 555wrx 2013-01-21
Cake
1 Offtheheazy 2013-01-21
Day
-2 555wrx 2013-01-21
love
2 ACapitalizedCursiveL 2013-01-21
Sure is getting shilly in here....
1 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
and real.... when the US can extradite people from anywhere from telling the truth....
0 SoundSalad 2013-01-21
Sure is Shane.
2 FongoBongo 2013-01-21
That's when you know the people issuing the sentencing terms are part of a larger conspiracy of shutting up people who are trying to wake up the masses.
2 GovernmentShill 2013-01-21
Where's the news?
Let's say society is a wheel. Internet activists threaten the rim that holds the wheel together, while rapists threaten a handful of spokes out of billions.
If the wheel were yours, what would you worry about more?
2 herbalbacon 2013-01-21
It's a culture of fear and an investment opportunity.
If rape gets classified as a psychological phenomenon and treated with therapy, drugs, time and community service, then yes the jail time will be lower. There's been research into the proliferation of free porn (yay!) and lower sexual abuse cases, but I'm not sure how long and how conclusive studies are. I'm just a paragraph of words and a silly username after all.
The other end of it is the Internet activists; a broad term. Some consider Kim Dotcom one, and some consider Brad Manning one and Julian Assange and the myriad of people in Russia, Belarus, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China and everyone else who is alone and scared and hungry losing time in some smelly prison. Dotcom as every tech blog fastidiously points out is wealthy, wraps his pierogi like body at night in sheets that cost more than your last five paychecks and has a PR team that'd make Andrew Bernaise's skull nod in approval from his grave.
These are intelligent people who made a choice to expose the inner machinery of the State. Other smart and not so smart people will reason it's safer to say nothing at all. The activists become outliers and one wonders why they even bothered when safety and comfort could have been had so easy. That is, if one remembers to think of them. Keeping the flame of their memories and deeds alive and more importantly WHY it's important is paramount.
In the post Arab Spring paranoia about the vulnerability of institutions to a well connected populace, more folks are going to be prosecuted. Copy right falls into this because once more get locked up for the crime, the reasoning is less will do it. It's not sound reasoning or even prudent, but I'm not a judge -- just words and a username.
2 PaxiSnack 2013-01-21
I'm not having kids. I'm worried about the world I live in.
1 JellyGlyde 2013-01-21
Start raping the companies and the sentences will increase.
There's no risk of companies losing money from rape.
1 DCHalter 2013-01-21
I just want to say that at least you have a grasp of what is going on around you. Most of the time this sub had just crazy nonsense on it.
Thank you for addressing something that actually matters in our future.
1 jonnytechno 2013-01-21
The financial cost to business determines the sentence these days, in the UK at least. When the tables are turned and you sue, you don't get a huge payout at all, only what you can prove you lost, where's they always claim potential loss of earnings
1 SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-21
Swartz was offered a plea deal that would have had him do only six months in prison.
6 DudeAsInCool 2013-01-21
With a Felony charge on his resume. I guess you think 6 months in jail is no big deal.
7 The_Juggler17 2013-01-21
In some ways, any jail sentence is a life sentence. That's a tangent we shouldn't get into so much here, but any felony charge will stay with you the rest of your life.
1 SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-21
It's certainly a lot better than what most rape convicts get.
2 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
And prevented from using the internet or any computer-like device akin to Mitnick's punishment upon release and would only "re-earn" it at the government's say so.
When your entire life has been the internet, weigh that in to the factor.
2 SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-21
That wasn't part of the plea deal.
2 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
You're an ignorant fuck that doesn't know what post-release agreements exist for charges related to computer crimes if you honestly believe that.
1 SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-21
You seem confused. Mitnick was only forbidden from using computers during his parole, i.e. his sentence was still ongoing at the time the restrictions were in place. Swartz was offered a six month sentence, so as long as he did his six months his sentence would be over.
2 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
When you're charged with a federal offense and serve time for it you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have supervised release and it's completely up to the discretion of the the court how long it will be.
There was an NPR interview that nailed down the indefinite internet restriction post-release but now I can't find it. I'll keep looking for it, though.
1 SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-21
lol no you don't. You always have the option of just serving your sentence in prison.
For that matter a large percentage of federal convicts are sentenced without possibility of parole, so it's not even option for them. Please inform Charles Manson and Bernie Madoff about how federal convicts ALWAYS get supervised release, because I'm sure they'd love to know how to make that happen.
1 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
For that matter a large percentage of federal convicts are sentenced without possibility of parole, so it's not even option for them. We're not talking about them, but feel free to pick nits.
1 SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-21
And by all means, feel free to commit suicide if you think you might be deprived of modern conveniences for a few years because you chose to do something you clearly knew was illegal.
1 mw44118 2013-01-21
Nietzsche made some remark in the genealogy of morals like the punishment of a crime has something to do with how threatening the crime is to the elites that run the show.
1 fishforbrains 2013-01-21
You have to understand that many of the 1% ARE rapists. Freedom of information and communication threatens the power structure. Rape is what they are into. The length of the sentences reflects their values.
1 perihelionX 2013-01-21
The same world our parents left us.
1 bstyledevi 2013-01-21
I dealt drugs and got sentenced to prison for 4 years.
One of my cellmates raped two kids and had 2 1/2 years.
How is this justice?
1 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
Yes I agree, the whole system is rotten
0 NotAtLunch 2013-01-21
So we're allowed to believe in kids again?! This is all very confusing! What will become of the world we are usually being Shanghaid into fighting for? Or abstinence in general? Except for drugs of course.
0 Brizzness 2013-01-21
I love how wide awake everyone is on this sub-reddit. I'm glad I found this place.
-1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
Swarz was not going to get 35 years. That was the maximum for the charges if he served them back to back. He was offered 6 months as a plea bargain.
22 eggrole 2013-01-21
What is the point in saying 35 years if "it was really only going to be 6 months"? Why not just have realistic sentences that match the crime? The legal system is too convoluted.
12 Alacritous 2013-01-21
it's what they threatened him with to get the plea bargain and a guilty verdict without a pesky trial.
-1 WeenisWrinkle 2013-01-21
Because then we can't give people 20 life sentences in one verdict.
12 ChaosMotor 2013-01-21
Do YOU want to be a felon?
16 deathsquaddesign 2013-01-21
It's so easy to shrug of 6 months of your life lost and a felony on your record when it isn't you.
-1 arealitychecker 2013-01-21
You obviously have never been to jail, or had any serious dealing with law enforcement. Also you do realize that a felony conviction results in the loss of civil rights correct (no voting, guns, etc)? I doubt you would be singing the same tune it was your ass on the chopping bloc.
1 deathsquaddesign 2013-01-21
I was implying that people don't take all the things you listed into account when it isn't them. Read it again.
1 arealitychecker 2013-01-21
I read it again, and it still sounds like you are attempting to shrug off the fact he was getting a felony charge for spreading information.
-4 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
The point is that he was not looking at anywhere near what a rapist would get which is what the post asserted. He was an activist and well aware of the possible penalties for his actions
9 ronintetsuro 2013-01-21
Apparently, you have no idea that being a felon makes you a second class citizen in the US.
2 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
Still not a worse sentence than a rapist.
0 hogey11 2013-01-21
not necessarily true. some rapists get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If you don't believe me, google 'Steubenville football team rape'
2 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
I'm talking about court convicted rapists, not alleged and tried on the internet rapists.
1 hogey11 2013-01-21
So you think those kids are innocent? Before the youtube went viral, what was the status of things?
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
I don't know, and neither do you.
0 hogey11 2013-01-21
Are the guys in that video holding a dummy? Is that not a young girl that's unconscious?
Remember, the point of the video being released was to make it clear that more people were involved than the two charged. If things are not reopened, it's probable (looking at the evidence available) that multiple people will get off without any charges at all. Is that not applicable?
Why do you require 'official channels' for all information? Can you not make a decision for yourself?
Why are you defending the people you do?
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
What does a picture of people carrying an unconscious girl prove? The rapists have been charged. What other charges do you think should be pressed? Making tasteless jokes about a crime after the fact is not a crime.
I am not defending anyone. Why are you defending the lynch mob that is anonymous?
0 hogey11 2013-01-21
If you were to take the joking teen as a witness to the event, he claimed it was far more than just two people who participated. Therefore, are the charges complete?
Have fun defending rapists tho. You're a gem. Peace out bro.
0 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
I listened to the entire video and only 2 people were mentioned as rapists. They have been charged. Who else should be charged?
Have fun joining in the lynch mob.
1 hogey11 2013-01-21
Because small town corruption and 'hero culture' surrounding high school sports doesn't exist, right? I participated all the same when I was young; It's not beyond reproach and you're silly for thinking these things are 'off limits' until the controllers tell us what is "true". At least the wool keeps your eyes warm.
Notice how neither of us are even talking about the point we started on tho? Keep trying to derail, this thread is too long by now anyways
It will be interesting to see what they are charged with. To bring it back to where we started, do you think they will see more jail time than what 'hacktivists' are receiving? we'll find out next month.
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
I didn't derail anything. You're the one who brought up the Steubenville case. All I was doing is disputing the statement made by OP that hacktivists get longer sentences than rapists. This certainly isn't the case generally but if you find the extreme on either end you might be able to find 2 cases where this is true.
Can you name any "hacktivists" who have ever received any jail time? If so, for what?
1 hogey11 2013-01-21
That depends on the definition of 'hacktivist'. Gary MacKinnon nearly got deported to the US despite never stepping foot in the country. Bradley Manning is in indefinite detention for releasing documents online. Are these 'hacktivists' or whistleblowers? What is the difference?
Besides them, there has been Sabu and other 'Anons' that have been caught. Often they are worth more as resources to the government than in a jail cell tho...
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
So, no?
1 hogey11 2013-01-21
That was never the point. The point is that often these activists are delivered trumped up charges to intimidate them, often being quoted longer jail times than those who do acts like rape or sexual assault.
Schwartz was being charged on downloading and releasing already free academic journals because the publishers were taking payment for the viewing of them instead of passing on those revenues to the author of the research itself. Does that call for a maximum 30+ year sentence? You keep shying away from this part of the argument....
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
No, it doesn't call for a maximum 30+ year sentence but some instances of the crime he committed do. Computer fraud covers a wide range of crimes. If someone committed computer fraud and cleaned out the retirement funds of thousands of retirees they would probably get the maximum. His crime caused much less damage so he would only get 6 months, maybe even less if it went to trial and he had a good lawyer and a technologically literate judge.
1 hogey11 2013-01-21
Yet that isn't what happened at all in the Schwarz case. He was delivered trumped up charges on top of more charges, because he wasn't willing to bend over and take the plea bargain. Is that how things should work? The government should be able to use trumped up charges to intimidate defendants into accepting plea bargains against their best interest?
Remember too, this Schwarz kid was a genius. He invented the RSS feed, among other things. Considering he was only sharing free academic articles to bypass a publisher's 'get rich quick' scheme, should he have been facing 30+ years in prison for his crimes? Should the prospect of such a sentence even have been broached considering the non-severity of his actions?
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
The case never went to trial, you don't know what sentence he would have gotten from a judge.
1 hogey11 2013-01-21
From how it's been presented to me, he was charged, refused the plea bargain, and then was hit with another dose of even more serious charges as an intimidation measure. In response, he took his life. Are we looking at the same thing here?
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
There were 2 indictments filed, both with the same charges, and both before the plea bargain was offered.
http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--11-cr-10260/USA_v_Swartz/53/
1 MyKillK 2013-01-21
They haven't even gone to trial yet idiot
0 hogey11 2013-01-21
They tried to suppress it until Anonymous came around and blew it up. Nothing would have happened had that youtube video not gone viral.
-1 ForAHamburgerToday 2013-01-21
Whatever happened with that?
1 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
I've seen rapists get two year commuted sentences and qualify for pre-trial diversion. What now?
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
[citation needed]
1 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
Yeah, we're not going to play that game.
Go to a courthouse and see for yourself.
EDIT: Oh, wait! We will play that game. Look what one fucking second of Googling brought up:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/30/tennessee-pretrial-diversion-felony-offenders-bill/
Asshole.
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
It was a statutory rape case where he said the girl misrepresented herself as being over 18 and the sex was consensual.
http://www.greenevillesun.com/Local_News/article/Limburg-Gets-Supervised-Rehabilitation-id-311690
Friendo.
1 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
Statutory rapist isn't a rapist? News to me!
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
When the "victim" lies about her age there are mitigating circumstances.
-4 rum_rum 2013-01-21
Actually, the point is the exact opposite of that. Is english your first language?
2 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
The point of my comment was to say that the title of this post was wrong in asserting that internet activists get longer sentences than rapists.
1 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
How is it the exact opposite?
0 rum_rum 2013-01-21
Assuming that your question is genuine, I shall attempt to enlighten you, Mr. PoopdickMcThroatFuck.
We shall being with the narrative intent of the articles presumed to be at hand and in question. To wit, the very notion that Aaron Swartz was not MERELY a Jewish scion of internet royalty, but was, IN FACT, the murderer of his own self in order to avoid a worse fate.
Now, Barbara Streisand up here, would have you believe that he knew FULL WELL the entire weight of the US government stacked against him was nothing but bluster and blather. Because, as we all know, the government of the United States is about as weighty as a gnat... just ask any Mexican, am I right?
However, Mr. Swartz did not seem to agree. In fact, he seemed to disagree enough to believe that being stone-cold dead was a preferable alternative.
Whether or not that decision was correct is outside the scope of this discussion. That it was made, is not.
Have I enlightened you in any fashion Mister PoopdickMcThroatFuck?
1 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
What Barbara was saying was that the statement made in the original post was incorrect because Mr. Swarz was offered a plea bargain down to 6 months in jail. Rapists do not receive such offers.
As to Mr Swarz's suicide, you do not know that he did this because of his legal travails.
-1 rum_rum 2013-01-21
Spoken with a lot of certainty.
First undeniably true thing you've said. I do NOT know that. I am entertaining a reasonable suspicion. I am willing to entertain others equally reasonable, that explain what drove a successful young man to suicide. Perhaps he chewed too much bubble gum? Apparently you would have some option that is not obvious to me, but better suited to the facts?
5 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
I know nothing of his life except this incident. I know nothing of your life except these 3 comments on this page. If you killed yourself tomorrow I would not assume that it was because of this exchange. In the same way I do not assume his suicide was because of the one thing I know about him.
Very few people kill themselves when facing 6 months in a minimum security prison. There were probably other factors.
2 rum_rum 2013-01-21
cogently stated, mister poopdickmcthroatfuck... you are not quite the person your nick would belie. I'm halfway near to liking you.
I concede your point. You are very obviously correct.
6 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
Just because someone enjoys throatfucking with poop on their dick does not mean they cannot also engage in intelligent discourse.
2 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
That's easy in the USA, be Black/Hispanic or just smoke some weed.......
4 [deleted] 2013-01-21
[deleted]
0 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
Even in a trial with a guilty verdict, he would probably not have been sentenced to anywhere near that given the minimal damage done. Those are maximum sentences for those crimes.
1 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
"not anywhere near" can still be 20+ years.
Consider that.
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
He was offered a 6 month sentence as a plea bargain. There are no mandatory minimums for these charges and given the minimal damage done and the fact that both aggrieved parties dropped their charges, any sane judge would not give him a harsh sentence.
1 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
You don't take a plea bargain when you've not committed a crime.
Well, you can. But it just makes you the idiotic little sheep that the system depends on the general populace to be.
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
If you haven't committed a crime then you go to court and prove it.
0 HopeStillFlies 2013-01-21
If that were true then we'd have appropriate punishments for the crime.
Instead prosecutors have turned into a game of chicken. "You face death, but if you admit wrongdoing we may give you what you should've gotten with a conviction."
1 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
He probably would have gotten around the same with a conviction. A plea bargain is not a game of chicken. It is to save both sides the expense of a trial. The plea bargain is usually similar to what a trial judge would have sentenced.
edit: or if he is truly innocent he could say "fuck you, I'm innocent, I'm not admitting to something I did not do, and you're the one who belongs in prison for malicious prosecution"
2 McManus42 2013-01-21
Yeah I dont get it either. 6 months is nothing compared to life. Cant believe he killed himself for that. He mustve been suicided.
6 CB05201 2013-01-21
Makes me think there is more going on than someone killing them self over 6 months in club fed.
-1 ronintetsuro 2013-01-21
The point is the guilty plea.
2 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
The point is that he wasn't going to get a harsher sentence than a rapist.
-1 bobqjones 2013-01-21
nothing wrong with the World. it's the People that suck.
-1 [deleted] 2013-01-21
We obviously admire shiftiness & liars (or at least the 'rewards' it brings.) But, hey let's keep typing away hoping for 'change'!!!
-1 [deleted] 2013-01-21
Sad, I think we should castrate those bastards or hang them. Bring back Medieval laws!
1 Psychedalic 2013-01-21
I know how we all feel about them but this does seem alittle harsh. Internet activism really that bad? ;)
-4 [deleted] 2013-01-21
[deleted]
5 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
Errr I don't understand?
-4 beanfart 2013-01-21
Because we all know who is behind most of rapes in USA
3 nunsrevil 2013-01-21
I'm sorry but at least proofread that shit.
-6 haveyouconsideredthe 2013-01-21
Hey I read that quote from the pirate bay yesterday too!
0 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
Cool spread the word...
-6 hoss7071 2013-01-21
Wait... does Reddit hate kids or not? Post a picture of your kid, and/or talk about being a parent. You get: "this isn't Facebook" or people crying about "overpopulation!" If you really believe that, go stand in front of an oncoming train. Don't worry I'll wait...
Still here? That's exactly what I thought.
1 [deleted] 2013-01-21
[deleted]
-2 hoss7071 2013-01-21
Seems like it is with certain topics. Nice throwaway.
1 nunsrevil 2013-01-21
So who cares? This post is about all the kids, we don't really give a shit about one person's kid and what cute thing he did the other day. We do care to not leave them a shitty corrupted world.
-8 alllie 2013-01-21
Costing the wealthy money or power is a much more serious crime than hurting someone who is not wealthy.
1 YouthInRevolt 2013-01-21
Exhibit A: Bernie Madoff
1 alllie 2013-01-21
Yes. Madoff stole from the wealthy. If he had limited his stealing to the working class he'd still be walking around free.
16 deathsquaddesign 2013-01-21
It's so easy to shrug of 6 months of your life lost and a felony on your record when it isn't you.
2 StreisandDefect 2013-01-21
Still not a worse sentence than a rapist.
2 paula_sutton 2013-01-21
That's easy in the USA, be Black/Hispanic or just smoke some weed.......
5 PoopdickMcThroatFuck 2013-01-21
I know nothing of his life except this incident. I know nothing of your life except these 3 comments on this page. If you killed yourself tomorrow I would not assume that it was because of this exchange. In the same way I do not assume his suicide was because of the one thing I know about him.
Very few people kill themselves when facing 6 months in a minimum security prison. There were probably other factors.