Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

Oddly enough, I'm initially leaning towards siding with Corbett, although like everything else internet, we only have a very small piece of the story. (disclaimer: I know nothing of PA politics, which party this guy is, what his views are, etc. This is just a thought experiment)

The question: are the tweeters using Twitter as a tool for political speech? If so, they rock. More power to them. Get out of their way.

Or are they using Twitter as a political hack-job tool, spewing out purposeful disinformation just to muddy the waters? More to the point, are they being paid by some political entity to do this? Is there damage to Corbett's life being caused by these purposeful lies?

You have maximum freedom of speech for political purposes. But if you have malice towards a person for political reasons, and are saying things you know to be inaccurate in order to hurt them, and you have hurt them in some way (perhaps instigating an investigation you know to be spurious) you've crossed the line and should be subject to civil action from the person you are purposely harming. That's not a criminal thing, but a civil thing.

EDIT: So yes, as a matter of free speech I have the right to make a bunch of things up and call you a pedophile and convicted felon on Twitter the day you apply for the job as CPA at a daycare, but if you lose the job because of it you have the right to make me pay for that damage that I purposely caused. This is no different than the freedom to have a gun doesn't give you the freedom to go around shooting people. (key concept: real measurable harm is done in a purposeful manner)

"You have maximum freedom of speech for political purposes. But if you have malice towards a person for political reasons, and are saying things you know to be inaccurate in order to hurt them, and you have hurt them in some way (perhaps instigating an investigation you know to be spurious) you've crossed the line and should be subject to civil action from the person you are purposely harming. That's not a criminal thing, but a civil thing."

I agree, but the US doesn't hold political figures to this standard. Two wrongs don't make a right, but the principle you outline isn't universally applied in the US.

> if ... you've crossed the line and should be subject to civil action from the person you are purposely harming. That's not a criminal thing, but a civil thing.

That doesn't seem to be what's going on here, though. I agree Corbett has the right to sue for libel or defamation. But the linked article is talking about a grand jury, which is only involved when criminal cases are brought by the state, i.e. brought by Corbett in his official capacity as Attorney General.

I see you've edited your initial comment to read differently. Ah, the joys of HN :)

Like most things internet, "need more data" seems like a reasonable position to take. Is there a legit criminal case? If the purpose was to impede his job as AG then probably yes.

The wider point was that this article was propping up good guys and bad guys and expecting us to come along and respond in a knee-jerk fashion. There are cases where the AG may be acting entirely correctly. Perhaps this is not one of them. Don't know.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I had initially phrased it as suspecting it was a criminal prosecution but being unsure from the article, but then realized that it must be a criminal case, given the grand jury PDF, since grand juries don't happen in civil cases. You must've gotten to my original post within the 3 or 4 minutes before I edited it. ;-)

When a guy running for one office uses the power of his current office to smack down critics, then it gives off a bad smell.

Think about this: if the AG was somebody other than Candidate Corbett, would he have started this inquisition? Highly unlikely, imho.

I'm happy not knowing. Perhaps you have already passed judgment.

Let's assume that the guy responsible for enforcing laws at the state level is doing a good job. Should he refuse to prosecute people that have committed a crime against him simply because it might look bad on the internet? If so, he's not doing his job and should be fired.

I think people are responding to this based on a preconceived pattern in their heads -- big guy with lots of power tries to use his power to silence critics. If that's what happened, then lets all call him out for it. He might even be breaking the law himself and deserve to go to jail. Do you have proof that this is the case? Or is this just a witch hunt? Because I haven't seen proof yet, and the default position when not seeing proof is agnosticism -- I don't know. Something wrong with not knowing? Or is this the internet, where any kind of story must be commented on by people taking on an air of expertise, no matter how flimsy the data or preliminary the information?

I'm not taking you to task personally. Hell, I offered an opinion myself. But my opinion ends in "Beats me", as it should at this point in the game. My opinion was also offered in hopes of persuading people that there are usually two sides to every story. Or put another way -- I am naturally drawn to condemn this man and be outraged. Because I am naturally drawn to this response, I make very, very sure that I make a devil's advocate case and see how it sounds. Once I did this, I'm thinking there is much to be learned, and in those cases I try to default to giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Isn't this just common sense?

(There is another question about ethics -- if it looks bad it is bad. I'm considering that out-of-scope. My intent was to think about this in terms of legality. This was a thought experiment, after all)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com