Aaron Swartz sucide

What's in the "public domain" is quite subjective:

No it is not. The authors were payed by your tax dollar, therefore you have a right to see them.

They got no extra payment for writing the stuff, they would have got payed the same if they never produced any papers. Then this "publishing house" grabs the "rights" to the contents and do not pay the authors. If any theft has taken place it is by the publishers.

It is a totally different situation to someone distributing another persons music which I am dead against.

Be fair Grumpy_Mike, they did index them and setup a database for full text searches. However, it doesn't give them exclusive rights to the documents themselves since they are public, and that is what Swartz downloaded. He didn't use their search to find them, he searched the old fashioned way.

He did nothing illegal in my opinion, and the plaintiffs withdrew complaints after they had looked into it.

He did nothing illegal in my opinion,

That's why things like this should be decided by a court, not by you, or me, or Mr. Swartz.

and the plaintiffs withdrew complaints after they had looked into it.

The fact that the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints shouldn't be sufficient to prove one's innocence. Lots of domestic abuse cases should be sufficient in convincing anyone of that.

It wasn't suicide!

http://www.naturalnews.com/038650_Aaron_Swartz_suicide_assassination.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/038650_Aaron_Swartz_suicide_assassination.html

It shows you that for every right-wing nutjob, there is a left-wing nutjob.

He did nothing illegal in my opinion,

That's why things like this should be decided by a court, not by you, or me, or Mr. Swartz.

and the plaintiffs withdrew complaints after they had looked into it.

The fact that the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints shouldn't be sufficient to prove one's innocence. Lots of domestic abuse cases should be sufficient in convincing anyone of that.

Regarding courts, they cost a LOT of money. Prosecutors often ruin people and their entire extended family losing a case by simply running up the costs. The power of a prosecutor's office is incredible and has extremely deep pockets. When no one was hurt and the plaintiffs have removed their complaint, leave it the heck alone

dhenry, your second sentence should tell a whole lot of people how you think. Coffin v. United States way back in the late 19th century set the stage in the U.S. and it has been reinforced thousands of times. It's even explicitly stated in many country's constitutions.

When no one was hurt and the plaintiffs have removed their complaint, leave it the heck alone

Then it is upon Mr. Schwartz and his defense to prove that no one was hurt.

dhenry, your second sentence should tell a whole lot of people how you think. Coffin v. United States way back in the late 19th century set the stage in the U.S. and it has been reinforced thousands of times. It’s even explicitly stated in many country’s constitutions.

I am not really sure how Coffin vs. US is connected to your notion that the plaintiffs’ dropping the complaints proved one’s innocence.

You did it again, this time in the first sentence.

You did it again

I am not sure what "it" you are referring to.

I actually agree with your statement that if no one is hurt, we should leave it alone.

But to satisfy that condition (or assumption) that no one is hurt, Schwartz and his team will have to prove that no one is hurt. If he cannot, he will have to go to the court and let his peers judge his innocence (or lack of).

That, in case you didn't realize, has no thing to do with presumption of innocence.

It has everything to do with presumption of innocence; you probably don't understand what that actually means.

draythomp:
It has everything to do with presumption of innocence; you probably don’t understand what that actually means.

Good luck with that. Since the Police State took over, innocent until proven guilty doesn’t happen until you hit court and they’re working on fixing that too.

Get deep in tard-con country and you’ll hear gems like “He didn’t EARN his rights!”. That gets Amens. Yup, and they’re all patriots too. Here’s to the Evangelist States of America, everyone else Howdy Now Git!

Sadly, you're right. However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.

There is no correcting those people. None whatsoever. They live in fact-proof bubbles.

They live in fact-proof bubbles.

Brilliant quote, I may use it. +1 on the Kama

However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.

I consider more of a problem when the "elitists" couldn't think logically and insisted that others follow them off a logic cliff.

Swartz didn't like the laws and decided that he would be the final arbiter of what's right and wrong and executed the people's will, whether they liked it or not.

He probably didn't expected the potato to be so hot.

Neither did Ghandi. Oft times, the laws are bad, and the only way to change them and not hurt people is to simply disobey them. Get enough attention to the problem and will be addressed. Keep your mouth shut and hide behind the ‘law’ and you’re part of the problem again.

No, being so young and idealistic, he wasn’t prepared for an aggressive hound of a prosecutor playing games with virtually unlimited resources and ambition.

Swartz tweaked powerful noses. And who knows what he might do next?

Loose cannon and all that, threat to the comfort of his betters, someone get a hound on his tail, grumble-grumble where's my tea? And my oxy?

Neither did Ghandi.

Bad example.

No, being so young and idealistic

Yeah. He was such a genius that he failed to anticipate how the mortals would have reacted. Too bad for him.

Nice one GoForSmoke. dhenry, you're just a troll; totally ignorable from now on.

dhenry:

However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.

Swartz didn't like the laws and decided that he would be the final arbiter of what's right and wrong and executed the people's will, whether they liked it or not.

Sounds like he has achieved Stage 6 of Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Development.

"Moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

People keep asking why we are seeing a decline in brilliant people in America. Well, here they are. Diagnosed with mental conditions and driven to suicide, because brilliant people don't fit social norms.