Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

No, but I don't see how that's relevant to my point.. which was merely that it's possible for a person to commit a crime without harming anyone or doing damage.



Were you making that point in the abstract, or were you, I don't know, in a thread of comments on an article about Aaron Swartz?

-----


He was responding to a comment making the argument that something cannot be a crime if no damage is done and no one is hurt. He even quoted the as much of the comment he was replying to.

Please, please, please, pay attention to context before accusing someone of ignoring context. It makes it very difficult for people to have nuanced debates about complex events if nobody is allowed to isolate a part of the problem independent of others.

-----


> It makes it very difficult for people to have nuanced debates about complex events

Yes! Thank you, I was trying to put in words why the initial downvote wave on my comment really bothered me, and this is exactly it.

-----


> cannot be a crime

I don't think I said that! I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank. But if you extended the list to include misdemeanour or somesuch I guess I could see that.

-----


> I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank.

Sure, but that's a false dichotomy. The author was under no such constraint, so it was sensationalist and misleading for him to keep referring to it as a prank.

And when I say that, I'm not casting judgement here. The Boston Tea Party and the Rosa Parks protest weren't pranks either.

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: