dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
26
share rss forum feed


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

1 edit
reply to Badonkadonk

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Because Harris exercised free speech in providing information only to his customers through books, online tutorials, and forum posts.

He did not commit any of the acts (or even charged with that).
I also dont think they even prosecuted those that actually committed the acts, they went for the 1 guy who was not doing anything.

If this ruling is not overturned then every gun manufacture is screwed, any manufacture that makes something that could be used for illegal activity, and anyone that writes a book or forum post that could help someone do something illegal is screwed.
This ruling violates the guys right to free speech.

They literally based justification of the wire fraud law on twisting interpretation of previous rulings as the law just does not apply.
The previous rulings are not in the same context as what Harris did, especially if you know what a computer is.
Unfortunately this is one of those cases where you have a computer illiterate jury convicted a person of something that was not true.

In the US you dont actually have to commit a crime, you only need to a prosecutor to convince a jury you did.
The prosecutor knows when he has real evidence and knows when he is bullshitting. The sad part is a lot of dick hole prosecutors have no conscience as they could care less of getting someone convicted with bullshit evidence like in this case.

If it is not overturned on appeal, then the supreme court will overturn the application of wire fraud to a situation of someone just selling things in accordance with free speech.
I dont think the prosecutors or courts will want this to go to the supreme court as they know they will lose which will instantly stop them for misinterpreting the wire fraud laws in the future.
So they will reduce the sentence at the appeal to "no jail time" to get Harris to not appeal again to the supreme court.

--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network
So that's how it works, huh?

I don't want to debate this to be honest. But you do realize that freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to time, place and manner restrictions. And that there are many things that can be used for illegal purposes but can also be used for legal purposes. In those cases the harms and benefits are weighed.

This is not a Supreme court type case. They don't just take any silly old case. This will never be granted cert.
--
So it is a tax! Now what do you say, you lying sack of crap? Or would you prefer I just hand over my entire paycheck, jackass?


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
A vague law that infringes on free speech, IS the kind of cases they hear. This argument says "supreme court" all over it.

The supreme court won't rule directly on the case, but they will rule on the argument of the case that the application of wire fraud to a situation of someone just selling things in accordance with free speech, but that person is not committing the illegal acts.

The courts and prosecutor will do everything to avoid going to the supreme court to ruin future use of a vague law, so on appeal I see him getting no jail time to shut him up.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5

1 recommendation

As you wish. Debating this stuff with non-lawyers doesn't lead to anything good. I'm out.


pog4
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

Because Harris exercised free speech in providing information only to his customers through books, online tutorials, and forum posts.

All the news articles I've read so far say that he also sold hacked modems. Are you saying this isn't true?

In the US you dont actually have to commit a crime, you only need to a prosecutor to convince a jury you did.

So what is your solution? Only prosecute people who commit crimes? If we did that, why would we need judges or juries? Who gets to decide guilt then... police? prosecutors?
--
My Site


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by pog4:

So what is your solution? Only prosecute people who commit crimes? If we did that, why would we need judges or juries? Who gets to decide guilt then... police? prosecutors?

Joseph Dredd!!!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum