> If we are going to have a flawed system, I’m glad when folks like this guy take the brunt of it.
This is wrong on multiple levels.
1. It normalizes and makes it seem slightly more acceptable to have a flawed system;
2. This guy did not "take the brunt" of it. Plenty of other people — dangerous nut jobs and otherwise — have unjustly suffered similarly or worse at the hands of the US judicial system.
3. His conviction was later vacated and he was released.
If our system fails 1/100 times, I’d rather it fail on a pool of people who include neo-Nazi trolls than, you, for instance.
I’m glad the conviction was overturned as well.
However, I still hold a position that when a system fails, I’d rather it fail in the direction of Nazis.
But perhaps you are saying is that in a system with 1/100 failure, I might be less incentivized to fix the problem if the 1% end up being people I don’t like — that seems to be an incentive to be aware of.
I don’t think someone should go to jail for accessing public data (or for being stupid and having “neoNazi” beliefs). I’d vote for laws to correct such problems in the system.
However, as a human, when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis.
Perhaps I have room to mature or grow in this area, I’m open to it.
Neither cancer nor the US judicial system's unfairness discriminate towards Nazis. Your sentiment, "when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis", goes nowhere because when the system fails, it does not look for Nazis to fail in the direction of. There's just no connection between the two parts of your statement.