Re:Jonathan James
by thosegivenmuch on Sunday January 13, 2013 @03:05AM
(#5050275)
and I hate to say, especially since I just created a new account to rebut this, but David Gregory's holding a magazine has zero basis for reference in this discussion. None. Its a bit of rightwing talking point at the moment, but it has nothing to do with aarons trial. So, no, not relevant. I don't care how much karma you have, or how long you've been on this site. I've been here for four years, maybe commented a dozen times at most. You're using a blatant talking point of the right wing to what? Make some grandiose statement about "where we're headed"? As if David Gregory getting prosecuted for making a point about magazine capacity would have some how made aarons situation more.....fair? Really? This is kind of despicable.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Jonathan James
by InclinedPlane on Sunday January 13, 2013 @04:08AM
(#5050361)
This has nothing to do with the debate about guns and everything to do with prosecutorial and judicial discretion and the abuse there of.
Does the law matter? Does the law apply equally to everyone?
It certainly doesn't seem so. And if you look at the other examples I gave, this is all of a piece, irrespective of gun regulation. If you are wealthy and connected then many laws don't apply to you, or there is always a way around them. The prosecutors or judges will look the other way or go easy on you when you violate firearms law. Or, as with Rush Limbaugh, when you abuse prescription drugs. It's not a partisan issue, it's about class and status.
In the case of Aaron Swartz we have just such an example of being on the wrong end of prosecutorial discretion. JSTOR didn't go after Aaron, but the government decided to. They treated him like a terrorist.