Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Member Sentenced For Joining DDoS Attack For One Minute
jfruh writes "One of the most potent aspects of Anonymous is, well, its anonymity — but that isn't absolute. Eric Rosol was caught by federal authorities participating in a DDoS attack on a company owned by Koch Industry; for knocking a website offline for 15 minutes, Rosol got two years of probation and had to pay $183,000 in restitution (the amount Koch paid to a security consultant to protect its website ater the attack)."
The worst part? From the article: "Eric J. Rosol, 38, is said to have admitted that on Feb. 28, 2011, he took part in a denial of service attack for about a minute on a Web page of Koch Industries..."
no one trusts the "justice" system anymore. One minute of using an automated tool is apparently a worse offense than crashing the economy.
1 minute or 15, you were there, your guilty. Plain and simple. so for me thats not the worst part. It seems to be a fair part if you ask me
These people need to learn what actual violence against them and their property is, so that proportionate responses have value.
If your entire life is going to be ruined for any sort of protest, the natural incentive is to go in for intimidation, murder, arson, whatever to make their lives really hell instead.
Doesn't matter if it was for one minute, one hour or one day. You did the crime, you do the crime. If you rape a woman for one minute, you get sentenced for the same as if you raped her for ten minutes.
This is a stupid and dumb angle to take slashdot. You should be utterly and completely ashamed to even articulate this.
What about that curl-loader test I did that lasted for two hours?
Oh wait, that was at my job. Never mind, carry on...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Then wasn't his real crime admitting to being involved? After all, until that point, it could have been someone else using his internet, or spoofing his IP, or that his computer had been compromised and made part of a botnet, etc. And it would seem obvious that the effect on the site would have been no different had he done nothing whatsoever.
Knowingly trying to bring down web sites is a crime. Should we also not arrest people if they only throw one brick through a store window but do not take anything? Should we also not arrest people who kick someone only once when lying on the ground?
A crime is a crime, and the act of committing a crime takes only the moment you decide you are going to commit it. The duration of the actual crime hardly matters when compared to intent.
Also, consider the fact that the minute is only the point they could prove what he did, if he was willing to aid in DDOS attacks who knows how many other people he helped attack in the past?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
and the MPAA issues a successful DMCA takedown (automated) for something they do not own the rights to....nothing happens.
But your honor, I only pulled the trigger for 1 second, 2 tops! While the fine seems FREAKING large I can appreciate that it was tied directly too a purpose. i.e. the amount paid to hire someone to secure the site. But I feel attaching it to the actual value lost (5k) would have been more fair, maybe with a bit extra to be punitive? I imagine that if they caught more people the fine would have been spread out among them? But I don't understand why intent to do harm would in any way be lessened because "I only did the bad thing for a short period of time."
1. It is ineffective. The Koch brothers stance that there is some Liberal Conspiracy going on, hacking them and creating a DOS only proves their paranoia, and only makes them more resolved to continue.
2. It could hurt the wrong people. Are you hitting only their data center, or is that data center shared with other organizations as well. I had a job at a placed that hosted Electronic medical records. We had an external hosting site... They also hosted a big evil bank. They DOS the Bank but they also DOS thousands of doctors EMR systems. Granted we had a backup route, but that may not be the case.
3. You put your views on the moral low ground. Are your point so week and irrational that you need to jump into a technological bulling to get your point across.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
in another story, a hacker by the name "The Messiah" who claims to be part of Annoymous was denied bail in Singapore.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/court-denies-bail-for/909492.html
Now you can be convicted for owning a computer that joins in a botnet's DDoS attacks.
The rules of modern day America are pretty simple. You have liberty to do whatever you like, but DON'T FUCK WITH THE OWNERS.
... for offending our rich libertarian overlords.
Bow down before your masters, peon.
These people need to learn what actual violence against them and their property is
Then you get to learn what ACTUAL violence is, either buy police officer or prison inmate.
Let me know when you want off the not-so-merry-go-round.
If your entire life is going to be ruined for any sort of protest, the natural incentive is to go...
Except that property damage is not protest.
Actions that will ruin my entire life do not "incent" me to act worse, they in fact very much incent me not to ruin my life. It is possible to protest without damaging anyone or anything, a fact that seems lost on many groups these days.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The length of time spent doing something illegal shouldn't absolve guilt that it was illegal in the first place. In my mind it's the same as the mob mentality that overtakes people during riots. Just because everyone else was looting more expensive goods doesn't excuse stealing something cheap.
And he wasn't just sending some traffic to a website. He was participating in a DDoS attack and full well knew what he was doing and what the group was trying to accomplish.
If you're going to break the law to try to accomplish some 'noble'* goal, you have to be prepared for the repercussions of your own actions.
* I'm not saying that his goal was or wasn't noble, but everyone considers their own goals to be noble.
"free speech zones"
;-p
documented government use of provocateurs
documented government infiltration of dissent groups
CCTV drones recording everything happening in public.
NSA illegal collection of data (LOVEINT).
NSA illegal blackmail using illegally collected data (SEXINT).
NSA sharing illegally collected information with preferred partners. (UK, AUS, Israel today. Equifax, debt collection agencies and your employer tomorrow).
You've got nothing to fear if you're doing nothing wrong.
and they are part owners of private prisons so they even make bank off of the prison time as well.
We DDOS web sites all the time here and it's usually for more than 1 minute.
First of all, you'll note I am mainly referring to the comment that the 'worst part" is that he only participated for a minute. You seem to be arguing the worst part is the fine.
I partly agree, however I would also say that computers allow us to magnify actions beyond what we can do physically - just as we can send a message to millions via computer, we can also easily do millions of dollars in damage via computer to. I can't say what the right fine would be but it's probably not proportional to what someone would think one persons fine should be...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can drop my wallet in public. That doesn't mean someone can run up and take it and run away before I can even bend over.
While being held financially responsible for the whole amount is questionable -- or maybe not -- that he participated in this fun, cool kids game, and is thus partly responsible, is not.
Talk to your congressmen, who write the laws allowing full financial responsibility to be ladeled atop the poor sucker who got caught in a group crime. Good luck with that.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"An law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
It is an old clip and I've never been to sure about the UK use of this information regarding the Silence gives consent maxim of common law.
But I thought Republicans are stupid. How could they possible bring down a website created by the genius Democrats, who are so much smarter than everyone else, and know best how we should all live our lives?
Remember when people burned the books and pamphlets of their political opponents? How well did that work?
If you're annoyed at someone, please don't (D)DOS their site - it just strengthens their point and conviction.
Absolutely! Crime is crime! There's not an iota of difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your kid and driving a lawnmower over an acre of puppies.
My, what a lovely little crop of fascist twerps we're growing around here lately.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Yeah, Washington needs to be torn down brick by brick.
Congress approval rating: 6% - You're on notice.
Cut, fire, repeal, repeat......
It is just the tip, it doesn't count!
I think one misdemeanor count of accessing a computer without authorization is defensible for downloading a DDoS attack tool and deliberately participating in a DDoS attack.
However, the $183000 in restitution seems excessive; a reasonable person wouldn't run out and spend $183000 on a consultant for a 15 minute DDoS attack (how do you even do that?), so that loss is really the fault of the site owner.
Sure, it's a crime. It's not a $183,000 crime. Proportionality matters.
My goals are Ig Nobel.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Fine.
Charging vandals for the cost of replacing windows is bogus, because the restaurant owner should have installed shatter proof glass in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack.
Seems you don't understand criminal behavior as bad.
Slashdot's burgeoning pro-exploit crowd loves cheering these guys on, so how about cheering on his honorable sacrifice of $183K for the cause?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
> So it's okay to participate for only one minute in a hate crime?
Who said ok? Are you really saying there is no difference between someone who starts committing a crime and thinks better of it and stops on their own, before doing anything of consequence, and confesses to it later; and someone who does it, continues doing it, and doesn't confess later?
If he had acted alone, it would have been nothing. His 1 minute would not have even been noticed. Its only his action in concert with others, and really, the actions of those others since his was so small and ineffectual, that caused the damage.
Its not about right, its about the fact that the award is ridiculous, it assigns more culpability for the damage to him than is deserved, and it makes him pay for services that clearly went beyond dealing with the actual issue that he was a very small part of.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
A DDoS is a virtual sit in.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sit+in+civil+rights&tbm=isch
I suppose you would have been in favor of imprisoning and fining people who sat on the Whites Only stools at lunch counters in the 60s. That makes you a fucking asshole.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Was his (second) biggest mistake admitting that he downloaded and used the software, rather than deny and let them try to prove it wasn't a hacker who tapped into his home network?
Interesting corollary is to those who use bittorrent for illegal purposes.. at some point a lawyer and judge can come in and garnish years of your earned wages.
How is DOS'ing a site anything like assault and what permanent damage did he cause? I am not saying he did no harm, but I question the amount of harm he caused being anything linked with his punishment. Joining a DOS for one minute and getting his punishment is like someone calling someone a racial slur, walking away, then getting charged with a "hate crime". OMG, he said something mean, once!
Charging the vandals for first grade shatter proof glass replacement is bogus though. Charging that guy for what was broken (perhaps a part of the tarnished reputation ??) would have been the equivalent.
Since IANAL, I'm just wondering if the various defenses that go along with "mob mentality" could be applied to a DDOS. The concept being that "getting caught up" with the drive and goals of a group has a sort of "group will" that supersedes your own, or something like that. As such, you aren't "fully accountable" for your actions at that time. It probably varies by jurisdiction, but I'm pretty sure there's precedent, and I would think it would be a lot easier to explain in court than "you can't prove that was my IP" or "my computer was hijacked".
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
Ahhh but what if there is no destruction? DDOS does not actually damage anything.
How about if I run up to a protester with a blank board and keep it in front of his sign. Same effect, not illegal. That is much closer to a DDOS attack. Its more like getting out a bull horn and messing up the protester's chant.
However, even so. We are talking about a crime committed by many people, of which he was entirely minor; participated for a very short portion of time compared to others. Yet, he bears the full brunt of punishment himself? He pays the whole restitution even though he was possibly the most minor of all contributors?
So what happens if someone else in the group gets caught? Does he pay full restitution too?
This isn't even close to fair. He should have received a slap on the wrist.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Today it is $183,000 for participating in a DDOS, covering the costs of a security firm hired previous to the DDOS to protect from the DDOS. Not long ago, it was millions of dollars for supposedly damaging the network of San Francisco, by not giving up the passwords for a week. Add to that Swartz having thirty-years in jail threatened, millions in legal feeds. The computer abuse and fraud laws are the problem. I could kill or rape someone and get off for less. But, apparently, threatening the plutocracy is the worst offense according to the plutocracy.
"DDOS does not actually damage anything."
Yes it does. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
"We are talking about a crime committed by many people, of which he was entirely minor; participated for a very short portion of time compared to others."
Not relevant.
"So what happens if someone else in the group gets caught? Does he pay full restitution too?"
Hopefully.
"He should have received a slap on the wrist."
Because he's a geek? No.
"But officer! My knife was only in his kidney for one second!"
As analogies go, that's both stupidly contrived (*) and downright misleading- possibly by intent? (**)
:-)
You've chosen to compare a case where the length of time of the offence has little bearing on the effect and compared it to one where it obviously does.
Sorry, but you go out in the first round of the "Attempting to Win an Argument by Cod-Intellectual Smartassery 2013" contest. Feel free to enter again next year!
(*) Not that contrived analogies are uncommon on Slashdot, but two wrongs^w halfwits don't make a right^w genius...
(**) This criticism refers specifically to the stupidity of your analogy, and does not imply support for or against the situation described in the article. Just in case you were thinking of saying "OMG!!! you suport hackers doing what they like in every case!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111"
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
He admitted it? Jail is full of innocent people too. Just ask them.
Charging the vandals for first grade shatter proof glass replacement is bogus though. Charging that guy for what was broken (perhaps a part of the tarnished reputation ??) would have been the equivalent.
Actually, you want to take into account what percentage of perpetrators are caught. If a gang of ten causes $10,000 worth of damage, and you catch only one, it is only justified that the one should pay for your total damage - much fairer to put the risk onto the perpetrator (who had the choice of joining in or not) than on the victim.
Just as you have to replace a window, and possibly install a security system with a brick through a window - after a DDOS they had to pay to fix the web server and also to improve security in case they were attacked again.
The enhanced security was not needed until someone decided to DDOS them, so begin the first to do so means they are the ones who bear the extra costs of security of the business.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
plea bargaining is a corruption of our justice system
it railroads innocent people into admitting guilt for things they didnt do for fear of wrongful convictions
it allows guilty people to get away with less punishment than they deserve
plea bargaining also requires perjury by both the prosecutor and the suspect, the suspect has to confess to a crime they didn't commit, the procesutor has to charge for a crime they have no evidence for
The problem with your analogy is that in the case of murder, if a second person gets caught, he'll face murder charges too. There is no restitution - it's punitive.
But in this case, where the only person who got caught was faced with the entire charge, a second person who gets caught won't have to pay anything because it's already paid. It destroys equality in front of the law.
Either that, or you make the second person pay the same amount, and then you have a victim or court system that profits from him being caught. Which both are even worse alternatives.
The damage he should pay is what damage he caused. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are you also against counter-protests, like the guys who rev their Harleys over the Westboro retards?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm American, so I speak from experience. The US legal system allows punitive damages. Eric Rosol didn't have to actually go to jail - that was the fair part of the sentence. But US verdicts with insane monetary awards are not unusual. There's the infamous "McDonald's coffee" case which eventually got settled out of court for a never disclosed amount after a jury awarded what almost everybody in the US considered an unreasonable and probably insane amount of money in punitive damages. Jammie Thomas, the last person you'd ever want to fight the RIAA, has gotten a series of shocking judgements against her, far in excess of any real damage that was done by her. I served on a jury once that awarded punitive damages and they're meant to send a lesson to the guilty party and others (this part is key) that there are very real financial costs to certain actions. In this case, the message is clear that people should not do DOS activities or they too may be facing ruinous financial penalties. I haven't followed this case at all, so for all I know like Jammie Thomas, Rosol may be his own worst enemy and perhaps his demeanor in court led to this outcome. Juries really don't like arrogant defendants who insist that they did nothing wrong when the jury feels otherwise. I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of jurors are non-techies and some are actually tech hostile. These kinds of people also get easily swayed by prosecutor arguments that some great evil just happened that must be prevented in the future because they don't really understand what happened. Juries also sometimes get this subgroup of people (roughly 10% of the population by my estimation) who see the entire world in black and white and are obsessed with punishing rule breakers as they see them. These are the people who want draconian punishments for trivial offenses (ie. they'd support the death penalty for people who let a parking meter expire as "That will teach them not do that again!"). Sometimes on juries they are adamant that the "evil doer" has to get a very harsh sentence and if the other jurors really don't care, want to go home, and agree at least that the defendant really is guilty, the other jurors will just agree to large punitive damages so they can get on with their lives. It's difficult to get punitive damages reduced and there's no incentive in the US system for juries to really find a fair verdict. The system just wants them to all agree on the verdict and if 11 people give in to 1 stubborn crazy person, the US system accepts this as the cost for how the system works. The prevailing dogma that gets drilled into all law students and the American public in general is that the US jury system is the greatest of all possible systems and is the cornerstone of our democracy, so nobody on the legal side dares to question whether it really works as it is supposed to or not.
So:
"I was only driving without insurance for a minute."
"I was only over the speed limit for a minute."
"I was only throwing bricks through people's windows for a minute."
"I was only obstructing the police officer for a minute".
"I only tweeted the name of the guy, that the courts ordered to be kept secret until after the trial, for a minute."
Are all valid excuses to get off?
No. He did it. He admits it. And with DDoS, it's perfectly possible to have several million people "only do it for a minute" and still take any site you can point to down through sheer overwhelming of traffic.
The size of his fine - that's up to his legal team to prove the damages caused by his actions were less than he is being required to pay and that it's disproportionate. You can argue that in appeal if you want.
But, fact is, you did it. You meant to do it. You verifiably did it. You admit you did it. And it was illegal to do it. Argue over your punishment but the headline just has me saying "Er, yes, and?"
So we must either live in a world where anyone who does anything illegal from jaywalking to genocide is crushed by the "justice" system with the force of a thousand suns, or Somalia? Have you ever heard of a "false dichotomy?"
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So bank robbers must also be on the hook for all security guards, surveillance, and the cost of the vault?
Actually it doesn't. If they catch the 2nd person, then the 1st person would have standing to sue the 2nd for their portion. Why should the ultimate victim bear the costs?
All you people comparing this to breaking a window and saying how the "fine should be the replacement cost of the window" don't know the first damn thing about the law. If one throw a brick through a window, one might have to pay restitution of the replacement cost of the window, but onewill also face possible jail time and a fine.
Let's say someone throws a brick through a $300.00 window:
That is on top of any restitution the court orders. And, if you don't believe me, look it up your damn self.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I'm pretty sure the consequences of what he "began" to participate in were known to him before he started. That makes his choice blatant and well deserved of the punishment awarded. Period.
FTG
in a rape, how many years would he get?
in a robbery, how many years would he get?
in a road rage, how many years would he get?
in a kidnapping, how many years would he get?
in a smash and grab, how many years would he get?
He participated in a felony and got a felony conviction.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Crushed? I'm pretty sure he is still alive and kicking. If I don't like your attitude, it's possible I could come over and kick your face in. Should I be charged or let off with a warning? After all, from my viewpoint, I could be doing society a favor. So maybe just a warning, eh? Interesting how easy it is to justify criminal activity.
There's nothing to be gained from a DDoS.
If you want to destroy the Koch brothers (I do), reduce your oil and coal consumption as much as possible, go green.
Convince others to do the same.
You can do a lot more damage to them by getting 10000 people to lay off oil and coal than any DDoS will do.
If I organized a mass call-in to a government number to protest a policy - causing the number to be 'busy' for the rest of the general public - should all of the participants have their lives destroyed? Of course not.
There is no way one minute of participating in a DDOS protest caused $183,000 of damage. The punishment is life-destroying and completely out of line. Juries are stupid and easily manipulated. I can just see their eyes glazing over when the technical terms started flying.
Fuck your fake best-justice-money-can-buy system, America. You're giving the dickweed politicians in my country ideas that they're too dumb to come up with on their own.
Kicking me in the face would actually cause physical harm, you've shown again that you think all crimes are fungible and cause equal offense. You can't tell 1 minute of DDoSing from a murder, heist, hate crime...or kick in the head. You think all deserve a punishment so severe that you can't say much of what's left of the victim's life than "still alive and kicking."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If they visit your website because they want to see what is there, you cannot charge them.
If they know that visiting your site will cause it to crash and thereby do you harm, then yes un theory you could charge them (although probably not taking reasonable precautions would get that thrown out).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As was said before, what if you later catch guys 2-9?
What if it is 180,000 people?
Does the first guy who is caught owe 180,000 times his own contribution?
>A DDoS should be punished with community service; its no different from protesting a store you dislike and making it hard for customers to get in.
Its involves a computer and the internet there for its a much greater crime and must be punished as so and a very important person (corporation) was hurt so its a different level of crime.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
That and the placing of full responsibility upon those you caught tends to give them more reason to rat out their friends (they usually know at least one of the other perpetrators).
They can spread the restitution costs if they implicate others, and possibly get a more lenient jail sentence. Going easy on them will just give them all the more reason to keep their stupid mouth shut.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
> Yes it does. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
No it doesn't. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
> Not relevant.
Is too.
> Hopefully.
Nuh uh.
> Because he's a geek? No.
If that is your takeaway then sure why not?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
How draconian. He used his hand to tell the computer to start the DDOS, maybe they should cut his hand off too? I guess he should have just said "in for a dime in for a dollar" and stuck with the DDOS, afterall, once started its all the same right?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
From Wikipedia:
Under joint and several liability or all sums, a claimant may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of liability and payment. This means that if the claimant pursues one defendant and receives payment, that defendant must then pursue the other obligors for a contribution to their share of the liability.
Joint and several liability is most relevant in tort claims, whereby a plaintiff may recover all the damages from any of the defendants regardless of their individual share of the liability. The rule is often applied in negligence cases, though it is sometimes invoked in other areas of law.
>>You think all deserve a punishment so severe No - I think the consequence should be whatever the law says it is. If you don't like laws, we have a system for changing them.
So, does that mean the Federal Government can collect $183K from all those people who crashed healthcare.gov?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It was an amount they should have already paid to secure their website. I don't condone the attack, but proper security is not a cost you only pay when attacked. I don't only attach a lock to my door after I have been the victim of a burglary.
Not really in a courtroom, but Winston Moseley, killer of Kitty Genovese, rapist of another unnamed woman during an unsuccessful prison attempt had this to say about his sentence:
"For a victim outside, it's a one-time or one-hour or one-minute affair, but for the person who's caught, it's forever."
Well, there's one DDOS attack that's perfectly legal. Boycott Koch Industries and all their products. Of course it'd take some hunting to find out just what Koch does besides drill for oil, foul the environment and inject tons of money to corrupt the political system to their ends.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
They didn't even knock it over. They all crowded around it and pretended to be looking at the cards.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Actually it doesn't. If they catch the 2nd person, then the 1st person would have standing to sue the 2nd for their portion.
So the onus is on the first person caught to monitor whether anyone else gets caught, and then sue them? What if the first person isn't even alive anymore - does this obligation then fall on the estate?
Why should the ultimate victim bear the costs?
He shouldn't - the court should award justified compensation from the public, less any amount insurance has paid out, and then the public gets recompensated from the perpetrators according to the damage that each individual caused.
It is a far more fair system than one where the victim gets nothing if no-one is caught, and the perpetrator gets different punishment depending on how well the police did their job in catching others.
Yes, this means a publicly funded compensation fund for use by courts to award compensation in criminal cases, but if you want the ultimate victim to not be punished regardless of who gets caught, I don't see how you can get around that.
From the article: "Eric J. Rosol, 38, is said to have admitted that on Feb. 28, 2011, he took part in a denial of service attack for about a minute on a Web page of Koch Industries..."
You are headed into court and things are looking pretty bleak .
The government is willing to accept a deal on the lesser --- misdemeanor charge --- ending in probation and a fine you won't soon forget and can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
But in return you must admit to the core elements of the offense, which will come back to haunt you later should you ever choose to repeat it.
He admitted to guilt, but it's not fair to hold him completely financially responsible simply because he was the only person they were able to catch and was honest enough to confess.
So it's instead fair to let the victim be uncompensated for the harm done to them if some of the guilty parties are too crafty?
What you call justice for the liable party is injustice for the injured party. We have rules for joint and several liability (used here) and related doctrines like respondeat superior because our civil justice system focuses largely on the principle that the victim must be made whole. If perfect justice cannot be achieved for both, then let the one who has caused the harm bear the pain and not the one he has done harm to.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Double-standard: if it is done against abortion, then it is fundamentalist bigotry and we need stricter bubble zones, even if it is peaceful and non-coercive. If it is done in support to a trendy, politically correct cause such as animal rights then it is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, even if it is coercive.
Would you support direct action against abortion clinics? Or it is only "freedom of assembly" if it is politically correct and trendy?
So if they cought and prosecuted one person for the LA riots, they should charge him with $2 billion in damages, and as other people are convicted, he sues the second person for $1 billion, and the third for $666 million, and the second again for another $333 million? Sounds like a silly system.
Learn to love Alaska
If there's an example of what wrath is, this case should be one of the textbook examples.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The length of time spent doing something illegal shouldn't absolve guilt that it was illegal in the first place.
No, it doesn't, but no one was saying it did. Read the comments. They're saying the punishment was too harsh.
The length of time may contribute to the amount of damage done (if any), and so should be considered in cases like this.
My OC may be modded "Flamebait", but it really isn't. I'm not interested in arguing with conservatives that support what the Kochs are doing. Nor am I interested in "getting a rise out of them" I consider them as unethical, immoral, and anti-social as I do the Kochs, and the only way I want to engage them is as witness against, or prosecutor.
Anyone who advocates driving governance to benefit business and profit, to game the judicial system to enrich themselves and their friends, is in my opinion, a threat to the country and its people.
As for you, AC, the "Nation of Laws" is broken. When you have organizations like ALEC manipulating the law, then the law cannot be just.
I may have failed at reading comprehension.
Your original post said:
I interpreted it as meaning that blocking entrance to a store is an acceptable way to protest. I strongly disagree with that and it opened a can of worms in my head. I then mentioned abortion and animal rights as examples of double standard. I just wanted people to be as gentle in their own protests as they demand from protesters they disagree with.
But reading your post again, it does not say that coercion is acceptable expression. Community service is not necessarily trivial.