My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved
quinnnorton.com> When he was 20, he carried me through my divorce. We promised each other a year. I apologized so many times: that I was better than what he was getting, that he got me destroyed. Still, what a year. Later, I tried to take care of him while he was being destroyed, from inside and out. I struggled so hard, but not as hard as he did. I told him, time and again, that this was his 20s. It would be better in his 30s. Just wait. Please, just hold on.
I think all of us who've transitioned from 20 to 30 can agree with her. I still can't get over how much he could've impacted civics and technology as a wiser man.
Then go tell that to the murder. I hope the prosecutor burns in hell. Fuck that monkey and all she has ever done.
Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist, and I think you might want to take a minute or two and think about why you said that.
From http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis :
"Looking at ourselves objectively isn’t easy. But it’s essential if we ever want to get better. And if we don’t do it, we leave ourselves open to con artists and ethical compromisers who prey on our desire to believe we’re perfect."
> Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist
How so?
To many people to call someone a monkey is to say that the race they belong to is less evolved; biologically closer to monkeys.
Sure, but what indication is there that the comment is referring to her race?
Absolutely none.
Indeed, to accuse an insulter of racism for deriding someone as belonging to another species is to conflate the concepts of race and species. At best that's ignorant; at worst it's racist!
As to the prosecutor's species, isn't the saga of Aaron Swartz sufficient evidence? As to her race, have a look at her picture and judge for yourself:
Yes, because people who call out racism are the REAL racists.
Google it
It is certainly insulting and inappropriate, but I am surprised that the racist connotation has managed to endure eight years of "Bush is a chimp" jokes.
(Yes, I know chimps are apes and not monkeys.)
No it is not racist. I called her a monkey because her actions show that she can't be a higher developed primate.
I don't know her race.
Yeah, about that "higher development" thing - that's not the way evolution works (every organism on the planet is the result of the same 4.5 billion years of adaptation), but it is the way racism works. Let's keep this kind of sentiment away from HNN, OK?
Maybe she was told to do it from higher-ups, and was fighting for the right thing piece by piece but it just wasn't achievable in this instance without maybe a resignation--which in her estimation would only lead to replacement by someone who would follow orders and not even give her own level of push-back.
It is perhaps even more likely that that isn't the case, but don't assume things.
If you're ordered to destroy someone's life from higher-ups for the wrong reasons, and your option is to resign, you resign or you are still responsible.
That is likely, everyone deserves a second chance. But the system needs mending.
"There are no words to can contain love, to cloth it in words is to kill it, to mummify it and hope that somewhere in the heart of a reader, they have the strength and the magic to resurrect it."
This is perhaps the most profound statement about love I've ever come across.
http://ia601205.us.archive.org/25/items/UsaV.AaronSwartz-Cri...
"Promises, rewards, or inducements have been given to witness Erin Quinn Norton. Copies of the letter agreement with her and order of immunity with respect to her grand jury testimony are disclosed on Disk 3."
Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt.
If this sounds shady, that's because it is.
The immunity grant needed to compel testimony is also fairly limited. All they have to grant is immunity from the specific compelled statements (and evidence derived from them) being used against the witness in court; that was decided in a 1972 case [1]. The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning was that, since the 5th amendment only protects withholding statements that might be incriminating, a grant of immunity relating only to those specific statements is sufficient to make compelling them constitutional, because they then can no longer function to legally incriminate. The government can still prosecute the compelled witness in the same case, if they have other evidence.
[1] An old law-review article on the case: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...
Compelling testimony isn't "shady". Besides, the defense has the power to compel testimony as well. It's in the Constitution.
Call it what you like--this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment seems about as much in line with what the framers intended as the supposed right of every man, woman and child in our well regulated militia to own an AR15.
I was talking about Sixth Amendment, which explicitly gives the defense the power to compel witnesses:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
The subpoena ad testificandum, the process by which the prosecution may compel witnesses, is a feature of the English common law that was well familiar to the founders. Its use in the United States comes directly from English precedent.
If anybody ever decide to do that to you, just play dumb and arrogant. The jury won't believe you and your enemy will lose.
Also, it's really nice to have a bad memory. Conveniently, bad memory, scared, defensive/arrogant, and combative is pretty much how I'd feel in front of a federal court anyway, so it wouldn't be "playing".
I'm not really a fan of Norton's journalism, but the insinuation you've made here is execrable. You're a typical American, criticizing a victim of our judicial process rather than the evil prosecutors who distort it for their own gain.
So... you're responding to an attack against the character of a single individual, with an attack against the character of all Americans. Smooth.
This is a tragedy, and how people view this will vary widely, there is no need kneejerk hate-filled ignorance, even if it does make you feel better.
I'm an American myself. Unlike you, I've been paying attention.
I just read that entire indictment. I do not find the quote about Norton that you just posted anywhere in the document. There is, in fact, no mention of Norton whatsoever. Do you have some other source for that quote? Because it very much appears that you just created a throwaway account to post this.
I don't really understand the quote. What does it mean/imply?
It would imply that she was called in front of a grand jury to testify against Aaron Swartz. I presume she initially refused to do so on the grounds that it might incriminate her - as is her right under the Fifth Amendment. Therefore the government gave her a letter of immunity, something they can do without her permission. Once she was immune to prosecution, the government could compel her testimony.
I assume she didn't want to go to jail (she does have a daughter, after all), so she testified. I can't say I'd hold that against her. You have very little rights in front of a grand jury.
This is the only thing I've found, thus far: https://twitter.com/textfiles/statuses/137387291617394688
A google for that exact phrase shows this: http://gnusha.org/logs/2012-09-15.log
I don't know enough about the case to dig further.
I originally found that in one of the legal docs, here:
http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Aaron+Swart...
Beautiful, sad story.
There's something in my eye.
I honestly dont know what to make of Quinn Norton.
She likes to call herself a journalist but it seems to me that she always puts herself in the story. I am seeing some of that here as well.
I'm also uncomfortable with her "claiming" him as a "lover." I'd be rather uncomfortable with one of my ex's writing articles about me after my death.
Then again, maybe I'm missing something here.
Yes, you seem to miss the fact that it's an obituary written by someone who loved the person who has died.
Complaining that she "puts herself in the story"? On her personal blog? When someone she loved has just died? Seriously? Are you really that callous?
(And if my ex wrote about me like that after my death, then I'd be perfectly fine with it.)
I'll admit to a fair share of kneejerk annoyance to her writing and her attitudes in general.
But my sense of her article is that she's maybe a bit insensitive to the person who was his current partner, Taren. Some feelings aren't meant to be written down and shared with all the world to see.