Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Yet what they do is the internet equivalent of vandalism and protest. For these reasons I think it's important that the message is sent that you're not untouchable on the Internet and you are committing crimes.
On the other hand I wonder about the need to send him to a prison. Surely there is a better way to punish a violentless crime from a first offender than that? A suspended sentence and community service maybe?
|
Protesting isn't a crime although it seems to be getting that way. If you want to make even a small gathering to protest you have to run it via the police and have their say so in London.
Intent and damage to business may have played a part in his sentence although when compared to the community service people get for serious assualt and other nasty crimes, the sentence is shocking. A guy in America just a sentence of 3.5 years for putting some camcorder films online. You could kill someone by drink driving and get less time in jail than both cases above.
I spoke with the guy who got 18 months well before the court case started and he is an intelligent guy. The prison sentence is going to change his life in a big way. You can argue he went too far or that he was very passionate at what he believed in. This was all down to Paypal stopping donations to Wikileaks via its service due to political pressure in the US. How else does one show their unhappiness that financial control of an organisation can be strangled by one american company that has a monopoly on online payments?
I think many feel powerless as they watch things happens. They are different people to those that just don't care and get on with their life. It is the protester types which do make a difference. Women would not be able to vote for example without these kind of people making a noise.
Just as there is a fine line between genius and madness, there is a fine line between legitimate protester and criminal protester. Who decides where the line is? Usually some judge somewhere.