Libre culture is all about empowering people. While the general philosophy stems greatly from the free software movement, libre culture is much broader and encompasses other aspects of culture such as music, movies, food, technology, etc.
Some beliefs include but aren't limited to:
Check out this link for more.
I've looked into the ways other forums handle rules, and I've distilled their policies down into two simple ideas.
Please show common courtesy: Let's make this community one that people want to be a part of.
Please keep posts generally on topic
No NSFW content
When sharing a Libre project, please include the name of its license in the title. For example: “Project name and summary (GPL-3.0)”
Libre culture is a very very broad topic, and while it's perfectly okay for a conversation to stray, I do ask that we keep things generally on topic.
Community icon is from Wikimedia Commons and is public domain.
As far as I can recall he didn't share any articles. Authorities could only guess what he was going to do with them based on a manifesto he wrote about how knowledge should be more accessible but that is technically not a crime. So the feds and MIT killed him for basically nothing. I think they wanted to make an example out of him.
This tweet has some serious inaccuracies. He was offered a six month plea deal, which he turned down. The charges he faced carried a maximum time of 35 years, but that assumes they were served consecutively and to their maximum extent. Even without the plea deal, a first time non-violent offender with little chance of reoffending would have gotten a quite lenient sentence. However, he was never sentenced because he committed suicide before it went to trial.
I remember how sad I was when he died. He was a talented young man who had already made a name for himself in Internet culture. He's also very close to me in age, so I saw some of myself in him. But it doesn't serve his memory well to surround his death with falsehoods.
His death was caused by that very revolutionary thing he made a name about. He was against locking of big chunk of humanity's knowledge behind paywalls making it effectively inaccessible for everyone and mostly from third world countries.
You certainly are demeaning his sacrifice by insinuating his suicide didn't had any thing to do with going against JSTOR and hence US capitalism.
Also, the feds were involved in this from the very beginning, and hid their involvement, suggesting they had other reasons to go after swartz, possibly his correspondence with Assange. This was a time when the Obama admin was ruthlessly going after whistleblowers and open information activists.
Swartz was the second computer-person from the same prosecutor that resulted in suicide, the first being Jonathan James, and wikileaks claimed after swartz's death that he had been in contact with Assange, and was possibly a source.
You certainly are demeaning his sacrifice by insinuating his suicide didn’t had any thing to do with going against JSTOR and hence US capitalism.
I didn't say anything of the sort. This tweet is simply stuffed full of oft repeated lies.
Well thanks for setting things straight I guess. Not sure what you were trying to achieve but good job.
I saw a misconception that's been floating around for a decade. I corrected it. Simple as that.
Why do you always feel the need to carry water for your regime?
Why do you always assume that I am either acting in bad faith or stupid? I saw something that is objectively false and corrected it. Simple. As. That.
It's because you're incapable of acknowledging basic facts about the nature of the empire. The tweet is objectively correct. You could argue it's not nuanced, but it's simply a fact that Swartz committed suicide as a result of being prosecuted by the US regime.
I'm not nitpicking. It's simply objectively incorrect to say he was sentenced (he wasn't) or that it was 35 years (off by 70x compared to the plea deal). Could you argue that a six month plea deal was itself too much? Absolutely, and I would agree with that, especially given that MIT never asked for charges. But you can argue that plenty well with the facts and not resort to repeating lies.
Sure, he likely wouldn't have got the maximum sentence, but that's just distracting from the point that prosecution by the regime was what led to his suicide.
Okay, so where am I wrong? And I've been avoiding saying this so far because it feels disrespectful towards the dead, but his suicide was not a foreseeable consequence of being prosecuted. Most people don't react to the prospect of time behind bars by killing themselves. So saying that his prosecution led to his suicide is a stretch at best. It would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
You're not wrong that he wasn't convicted when he committed suicide. I'm just saying I don't see why you think that's the relevant part of the story. We don't know what the details were or why he chose to commit suicide as a result of this prosecution. Saying most people don't react that way just serves to deflect the blame from the state. He reacted that way, and if the state did not choose to attack him then he would've very likely been alive today. This man is a victim of the US regime plain and simple.
I’m just saying I don’t see why you think that’s the relevant part of the story.
I'm not talking about the story as a whole. I'm talking about this particular tweet. And this particular tweet has a substantial piece of it that is outright false.
He reacted that way, and if the state did not choose to attack him then he would’ve very likely been alive today.
Maybe, but that was not foreseeable. He likely had an underlying condition that they did not know of. I don't see grounds to blame the state for his death when they had no idea that he would commit suicide in response. There are obviously greater systemic problems with the US's prison system and treatment of people post-prison, but millions of people go through that ordeal without committing suicide.
You're correct that the tweet gets the part about him having already being sentenced wrong, but as I've explained I don't see that as the key point.
Meanwhile, victim blaming is a really low tactic. Your state has a history of aggressively prosecuting and harassing people to make examples of them. Two examples are Assange and Manning being tortured with solitary confinement. It's almost certain that Swartz was put under psychological duress that led to his suicide. US is particularly sadistic when it comes to political dissidents.
You’re correct that the tweet gets the part about him having already being sentenced wrong, but as I’ve explained I don’t see that as the key point.
I feel like saying he had already been sentenced and overstating that sentence by 70 times is a major factual error, but maybe that's just me.
Meanwhile, victim blaming is a really low tactic.
I'm not victim blaming. I'm pointing out that prosecutorial decisions shouldn't be criticized based on factors that are unknowable. I'll put it this way. Put yourself in the prosecutor's shoes, deciding whether to prosecute. Would you have ever consider possible suicide as a top factor? And if you say yes, when should anyone ever be prosecuted?
The fact that the regime went after Swartz even though the university did not want to press charges clearly demonstrates this was a malicious prosecution. Furthermore, as somebody else in the thread notes, this isn't the first time a person being prosecuted by the regime ended up committing suicide. Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim that two random people just happened to have predisposition to suicide.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the legal system in US is fair and equal. This is clearly contradicted by mountains of evidence to the contrary. Apply the same logic you would apply if this case happened in China.
The fact that the regime went after Swartz even though the university did not want to press charges clearly demonstrates this was a malicious prosecution.
Why? To be clear, MIT adopted a neutral stance.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim that two random people just happened to have predisposition to suicide.
Doesn't seem like a stretch to me. It's not like people who are susceptible to suicide are unheard particularly rare. They get confronted by the prospect of a prison sentence. Maybe they're not thinking so clearly. They then kill themselves. I'm perfectly willing to take the system to task when it hands out absurd punishments, but how is that the fault of the justice system?
Your argument is based on the assumption that the legal system in US is fair and equal.
The system isn't equal, but Aaron Swartz was not the type of person that the system is biased against.
Why? To be clear, MIT adopted a neutral stance.
What was the goal of the prosecution?
Doesn’t seem like a stretch to me. It’s not like people who are susceptible to suicide are unheard particularly rare.
You were literally just telling me this is rare in a previous comment:
There are obviously greater systemic problems with the US’s prison system and treatment of people post-prison, but millions of people go through that ordeal without committing suicide.
So which is it?
The system isn’t equal, but Aaron Swartz was not the type of person that the system is biased against.
Seems to me that political activists like Swartz are precisely the demographic that the system is biased against.
What was the goal of the prosecution?
From what I understand, Aaron planted a laptop in an MIT networking closet and had it slurping down journal content. That's just not okay. Presumably they didn't want to let him off without some consequences.
So which is it?
Given the number of people going through the justice system, some are going to be suicidal. Now could you answer the questions I posed: "how is that the fault of the justice system?" and "Would you have ever consider possible suicide as a top factor?"
Seems to me that political activists like Swartz are precisely the demographic that the system is biased against.
It's mostly biased against people who live in poverty. They are often unable to mount an effective legal defense. Technically the state is supposed to supply a public defense lawyer if the accused cannot afford one, but public defenders are notoriously overworked. This has led to a situation where public defenders often push the accused to take plea deals regardless of guilt simply because they lack the time to put together an effective defense. Aaron Swartz would have been able to raise an effective legal defense.
That’s just not okay. Presumably they didn’t want to let him off without some consequences.
Seems like the university, who would presumably be the victim here, seemed ok with it. What message in particular do you think the regime was trying to send by going after such activity?
Given the number of people going through the justice system, some are going to be suicidal.
And they just happen to be political activists.
It’s mostly biased against people who live in poverty.
People in poverty are exploited as slave labor. US drug laws in particular are designed specifically to round up poor minorities so that they can be enslaved. This is a pretty well documented fact by the way. However, that's far from the only demographic that the regime goes after. People like Swartz are prosecuted because of their ideas, and it's absurd to claim they can mount an effective legal defence against the power of the regime.
So he knowingly committed a political crime with zero monetary benefit and when he was caught the secret service got involved and he immediately killed himself? for the digital equivalent of stealing library books?
TIL pirating some scientific papers from JSTOR (read: not the CIA or anything) is a political crime.
Also, he was caught by the MIT police and regular police. Where the hell did you get secret service from?
you misunderstood me, I'm saying it sounds like he got killed by James Bond...... It says on his wiki page the secret service got involved which is super weird for such a low level crime, I know they get involved in counterfeiting sometimes but wtf?.... and hell yeah its political JSTOR basically middleman's students and makes huge fees charging students for copies of scientific papers that most of their authors would give out for free, and if you call most of the authors they will actually send you for free, whatever places like JSTOR are trying to charge you for, out of protest of this shitty system. This was hacktivism.
This would be like if one of those guys who threw soup on the paintings were threatened with 35 years it's just silly, any freshman law school student will tell you thats bullshit and would never hold up in court, it's just a tactic to scare people into plea bargaining. So again he was committing a political crime, meaning he wasn't doing this to get millions of dollars or revenge. It's highly unlikely any normal person would commit suicide over this tactic. Much less someone who was going out of his way to commit a political crime in protest. He knew he might go to jail for this, that's the whole point, if you're so afraid of jail the thought makes you want to kill yourself, you dont do things like hacktivism.
He knew he might go to jail for this, that's the whole point, if you're so afraid of jail the thought makes you want to kill yourself, you dont do things like hacktivism.
Way to victim blame someone who was clearly suffering from a collapsing mental health at the hands of the US empire.
okay well now you're just purposefully twisting my words around, may I ask why or is that a secret?
Were you not implying that because he knew he could go to jail, he's somehow foolish for killing himself when that possibility surfaced? A la he should have seen it coming and if he couldn't deal with it it's his own fault?
Again, your exact words were:
if you're so afraid of jail the thought makes you want to kill yourself, you dont do things like hacktivism.
Implying that his literal death was his own fault.
Because that's victim blaming. It's not that different logically from "she wore skimpy clothing in a dark alley so it's her own fault she was assaulted!"
did you just edit your comment and a bunch of extra shit after I replied to make it look like I was dodging your questions?
No, I was providing more information on why I thought you were victim blaming. I didn't ask any extra questions, I copied and pasted a quote from you.
okay?
literally the first sentence is me saying I think he was assassinated, did you even read it, or are you just like on a tear?
you misunderstood me, I'm saying it sounds like he got killed by James Bond......
I literally thought this was sarcasm. Like, genuinely didn't connect that line to a serious statement of "I think he was assassinated". Maybe don't reference a movie franchise when expressing that you think a real person was really killed by a real regime? Even if people realize that's what you're saying, IMO it's still in poor taste.
But yes, if your intended context was that you think he was murdered and did not commit suicide, then no it wasn't victim blaming what you said. My mistake.
so you genuinely mistook that for some "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" conservative mumbo jumbo about laws being important? you're not just fucking with me?
No. I don't fuck with people on this kind of subject matter ever. I'm also not great at reading implications sometimes.
its alright dont worry about it... but look at this shit does this sound like a suicide case to you?
“He was brilliant and funny,” Lessig wrote in a blog post Saturday. “A kid genius. A soul, a conscience, the source of a question I have asked myself a million times: What would Aaron think?”
He didn't immediately kill himself. He was hounded for many years by authorities to point that he and his family could not afford the legal fees.
Despite what the image says, Aaron Swartz was actually never convicted of a crime in a court of law, and hence never sentenced. He was harassed by prosecutors, who posthumously dismissed the charges against him they were hounding him with (possibly because they were annoyed by earlier legal conduct of his that got prosecutors reprimanded by judges for inappropriate inclusion of private data in unsealed filings).
Sounds like the prosecution only dropped it because people were blaming them for his suicide and there was a public outcry. More cowardly than generous for them to drop the charges TBH. I doubt they did it because they actually realized how asinine the charges were.
