[Linux-aus] Jacob Appelbaum

[ac]

I do not understand this thread at all, sorry, I am obviously not as
bright as you guys and gals, so please bear with me.

Is this person, Jacob Appelbaum, out on bail pending a trial for sexual crimes
and, are we saying that membership of something or speaking at somewhere
should be suspended pending the investigation and outcome of these
criminal charges? - If yes, I do agree with that so +1 for me 

Why is this discussion so convoluted and difficult to understand when
the the ethics, morals and philosophy is so very very easy?

==========
If the person has been convicted in a respected court of law (is guilty
of a crime or crimes) why are we even talking about this? 

If the person has not been found guilty, by any court at all, of any crime, why 
are we even talking about this?
===========


On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:37:53 +0000
Andri Effendi <fusionman133 at gmx.de> wrote:

> Simply saying "It's clear reports from people who are known to be
> trustworthy and reliable" does not prove anything.
> 
> Take the "Clear" reports to a court of law.
> 
> > You must prove guilt in court before sentencing them to jail.  We
> > are not
> > talking about sentencing him to jail, just declining to do business
> > with him.
> 
> It's not up to you (the persons who are purporting to be victims) to
> take the law in to your own hands.
> 
> Are you concerned that turning to the legal system may prove his
> innocence?
> 
> 
> > It's quite common for businesses to ban customers for a variety of
> > reasons.
> This is not about someone being banned from going into Walmart or the
> Local Pub.
> 
> Comparing what these defamatory accusations are doing to Jacob
> Appelbaum with banning customers from a business is just offensive
> and ridiculous.
> 
> > That's a Godwin violation right there.
> Why don't you use the word conspiracy theory or Tin foil hat instead?
> Because it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> Are you denying that you presume Jacob Appelbaum is guilty before
> proven innocent?
> 
> > You can permit him to attend any conferences you run.
> Your evasion of my initial question is clear.
> 
> > He is still alive, that price hasn't been paid.
> Jacob Appelbaum has been constantly putting his life on the line for
> everyone! Again you avoided the question.
> 
> Do you not think about the consequences of others wanting to take the
> law into their own hands and hurting Jacob Appelbaum because of these
> accusations they have been told?
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  He has already been expelled from many organisations
> > he >
> was a
> > member of.
> You mean to tell me that expelling someone from their livelihood
> shortly after RUMORS and Conjecture is a mere coincidence and not a
> prejudgment of him?
> 
> Put your self in his situation. (assuming that he is innocent)
> Some Blog, as well as other rumors of you committing an offense are
> made which are untrue , and you vehemently deny those accusations.
> 
> Yet because of the coordination of the attack on your reputation by
> these accusations, you loose your job, reputation, livelihood and even
> your life is put in danger.
> 
> The Legal System exists for a reason.
> If a Crime has been committed you take it to authorities.
> 
> You don't take the law into your own hands and make it your mission to
> destroy the persons life callously and carelessly otherwise you are
> committing crimes and are a perpetrator, NOT a Victim.
> 
> 
> > They could have got rid of him at any time by planting some drugs
> > in >
> his
> > luggage.  Why would they instead spend years coercing a variety of
> > well known
> > people into making false accusations?  Your claim just doesn't make
> > any sense.
> I can't pretend to know the answer for that, only some of the
> variables. Like they tried, but they were unable to.
> Or that if they did, the public wouldn't believe it.
> 
> However when more accusations of sexual misconduct are made the
> adversary knows or predicts that the public will TURN regardless of
> the Facts.
> 
> > I'm not aware of any Spanish Inquisition that banned people from
> > attending
> > conferences.  I am aware of a Spanish Inquisition that tortured and
> > murdered
> > people.  Can you provide a citation about that other Spanish
> > Inquisition that I have never heard of?
> 
> "The denunciations were anonymous, and the defendants had no way of
> knowing the identities of their accusers. This was one of the points
> most criticized by those who opposed the Inquisition (for example, the
> Cortes of Castile, in 1518). In practice, false denunciations were
> frequent. Denunciations were made for a variety of reasons, from
> genuine concern, to rivalries and personal jealousies." [1]
> 
> I am awaiting your next distorter word in the place of "Godwin
> Violation" for this other historical reference.
> In Conclusion to this email, I do not claim to have incontrovertible
> proof that the defamatory accusations are lies.
> 
> That does not change the fact that the burden of proof lies with the
> prosecution.
> 
> The damage that has been caused by the manner in which the alleged
> "victims" went about disclosing these accusations is irrefutable,
> dishonorable and in contradiction to the spirit of what our community
> believes in.
> 
> If Jacob is found guilty of committing crimes by a jury of his peers
> and all the preceding appellate court judgments, then let Jacob's
> future be decided that way.
> 
> That is how justice is made!
> Not by biasing public opinion with blogs of people purporting to be
> "victims" and then ruining Jacobs Life on a personal level.
> 
> And then Spray painting houses with "A rapist lives here" which could
> put the lives of those who live in those buildings in danger.
> 
> That is not justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Accusation
> 
> 
>