Comment by droithomme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by droithomme | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tptacek I can always count on you to consistently promote anti-human rights, pro bank, pro totalitarian viewpoints here, and you will consistently lie and misrepresent reality to do so. You truly have no shame and you are a sociopath.

The story is being accurately reported, so your criticism of the source has no merit. Here is the exact same story from other sources.

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jun/2...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-californ...

http://www.10news.com/news/jeff-olson-man-who-used-chalk-to-...

This prosecution of an activist for writing slogans critical of a bank, on a public sidewalk, and using sidewalk chalk that disappears with a small amount of rain, or a light hosing, has absolutely no merit, and is an abomination to humanity, human rights, and sanity. Justifying it and claiming it is a reasonable prosecution and the judge is being fair as you are doing is absolutely inexcusable.

tptacek I can always count on you to consistently promote anti-human rights, pro bank, pro totalitarian viewpoints here, and you will consistently lie and misrepresent reality to do so. You truly have no shame and you are a sociopath.

And you're a misinformed fool. Quoting other sensationalist and equally inaccurate sources does not validate your point. The jury in a common law trial is a trier of fact, not of law. The proper place for defense counsel to make his first amendment argument is in the appeals court.

These procedural niceties, as much as you dislike them, are what underpin the rights of criminal defendants in the first place, by providing a mechanism for challenging the law itself.

The jury could also nullify here, which seems like a plausible outcome in this case. I can't see an outcome that doesn't make San Diego look ridiculous.

$10 says they don't, though - it wouldn't be that hard to find a jury of property-rights hawks in San Diego.

I'm not that hot on jury nullifaction, since it has the potential to systematically disenfranchise victims. Of course there's also the questions of victimless crimes, but like any good fence-sitter I can make an argument for the existence of a collective injury.

I can at least entertain the argument about being pro-bank, and pro-totalitarian; but tptacek has gone too far in believing that anti-humans should have rights!

Where does it end? If you recognize anti-human's rights, then they'll want to get anti-human married, and what happens if an anti-human wants to marry a human? A catastrophic release of kinetic energy, that's what.

We need to avoid this slippery slope! It's Protons and Electrons, not AntiProtons and Positrons! (I'll be Kickstarting bumper stickers for the cause later this week).

It's true. I believe that we should be ruled absolutely by an oligarchy of international banks controlled by HFT-coding porpoises. Ee! Ee! Clk! Ee! Down with humans!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com