We have no problem directing our attention at bullying when we consider elevated teenage suicide statistics, but if those bullies happen to be in government they are suddenly off limits and deserve no blame?

Man, I don't want to make this point here, but comparing this to bullying is ridiculous.

There's a difference between a child who is victimized while growing socially and emotionally and an adult man who allegedly broke the law knowingly.

You're right, this isn't really comparable to bullying, the imbalance of power is much more extreme. It is comparable to an adult beating a child for using a profane word. A completely mindbogglingly disproportionate response; convicted rapists get less time on average than what he was looking at.

JSTOR didn't want him pursued like he was, but the justice department was trying to nail him to the wall anyway. They wanted blood, and unfortunately they got it.

I agree with you. The parallel to bullying is a good fit and the only reason it is not _really_ comparable is because of the imbalance of power. I would not be surprised to find myself and most others taking the same sort of action in a similar, unjust, situation. Would you rather die today or suffer more than you lived so far in prison for something like that ? Isn't just a matter of the law being unjust, I think this is pure evil and wrong interpretation of a wrong law. The law needs changing and the people pursing this case need changing too.

This is so absurd. While you may disagree with the punishment sought and the law, the government is enforcing the law, as written at the time the crime was committed.

They guy actively broke many laws over a long period of time. The government is neither acting without reason nor intimidating someone for lawful behavior.

Bullies don't enforce proscribed consequences based on written law. Bullies don't use courts with impartial judges, juries, and defense advocacy. Comparing this to bullying is insulting to anyone actually bullied.

Comparing this to beating a child? Seriously?

> They guy actively broke many laws over a long period of time. The government is neither acting without reason nor intimidating someone for lawful behavior.

I am arguing a massively disproportionate response occurred. Not that he was innocent, or that he deserved no punishment at all.

> Comparing this to beating a child? Seriously?

Decades of prison and 13 felony charges were in play. A man is dead. All for what? A little trespassing, a fake email, and a bunch of downloads? It is going to take more than your mock shock to convince me the comparison is anything other than generous. I am holding back here.

Exactly, I am right there with you.

I don't understand the people saying the DOJ was just doing their jobs either. Are none of the people involved in that process given any sort of power of discretion at all? Any person in this case who was in a position to use some discretion but chose not to should be doing some serious reflection and consideration right now.

Of course they have that discretion -- prosecutors decline cases or seek reduced sentences all the time. Given the overbearing nature of our legal system, it would be impractical to do otherwise. This was just pointlessly maximalist DOJ behavior. On the other hand, shame on us for allowing these laws to exist at all, and creating opportunities for selective enforcement and massively unreasonable sentences.

I'd also like to add here that while maybe the DOJ had no way to know that Aaron would kill himself, their general pattern of ruining people's lives over minor offenses will, it seems obvious to me, result in some number of suicides. Heat up a pot of water and some percentage of the molecules evaporate. So while we can't hold the DOJ responsible for Aaron's actions, we can certainly hold them accountable for the aggregate misery they've created for so many people. And we should.

And apparently the persecutor knew about the suicide risk: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/01/14/us-reddit...

Only in that it makes finger pointers feel better while getting their slab of meat. The difference between the two is arbitrary and simply made up.

Yeah, Turing was a total loser, right?

>Understandable emotion, but the country did not kill him. He did that.

This idea is quite an easy cop out, isn't it?