Hacker News Reader

Comment by cheald | Hacker News Reader

What he did was certainly illegal. It's highly debatable as to whether or not it was wrong.

I would not overstate the certainty of the illegality. I've heard many people state this like it is a fact. It is much grayer legal territory. There is a substantial ways to go to determine if it would be found illegal.

The average american commits illegal acts daily, but I doubt you were referring to that.

I'm curious as to why you think so - the fact that he improperly removed and published information belonging to the NSA isn't disputed by anyone. I don't have the title and chapter on hand, but I'm just nearly certain that this is about as cut-and-dry illegal as it comes.

If you can give me a hint as to why it might not have been illegal, I would love to be enlightened.

If he was tried, couldn't he (at least theoretically) be acquitted by the jury? Honest question; I don't know that much about the U.S. judicial system, but I'm aware of the concept of jury nullification.

(Not that I'm too keen on the possibility that the U.S. government would grant him the chance of a fair trial...)

Yes, juries in the USA can render any verdict they choose in criminal trials. Jurors cannot legally be punished for their verdicts, judges cannot direct verdicts in criminal trials, and acquittals cannot be appealed.

Jury nullification is possible, but it's unusual for any jury members who have heard of it to make the cut.

I think courts should be legally obliged to make jurors aware of that fact. Overall, I'm not a huge fan of trial by jury, but the idea that an unjust law (as felt by the general public) can be defeated like that certainly appeals to me.

(I'm not trying to make a point about Snowden's particular case, just speaking in general.)

It's in fact the opposite: the jury is explicitly told to judge the case, not the law, and mentioning nullification as a juror will certainly get you thrown out during the selection process, and I've even heard of cases which were sent to mistrial when the jury's intent was revealed. The best way to successfully nullify is to pretend that you've never heard of such a thing.

I do hope there's a demographic shift here. Facing heavy-handed laws regarding drugs and such, web-savvy young people seem to be slowly catching on about tactics like nullification, not talking to police, etc.

There has been some movement on this, New Hampshire passed a law requiring the court to allow the defense to inform the jury about nullification: http://www.policymic.com/articles/10603/jury-nullification-i...

It seems that he may have been exposing illegal acts. Isn't it illegal _not_ to do that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com