The following post by Th3M0rn1ng5h0w is being replicated because the post has been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/r/ Bitcoin/comments/e524a3
The original post's content was as follows:
Below is part of the court transcript from UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ROGER VER. Thought it was an interesting read. Wanted to share for historical reference of the event, not to bash the man involved.
THE COURT: Thank you. Well, I've given this case a lot of thought. I'm very troubled by it. And when I say that I'm troubled by it I'm troubled by it in several ways. Not only am I troubled by the underlying conduct, which is quite serious, but I don't want to overreact either and I think that's what makes it hard. I think if you have a case which strikes you as being particularly severe, in a way that's kind of an easy thing to just say all right, we'll throw the book at the defendant and that will satisfy that impulse. But I don't think judges ought to sentence anybody impulsively. You have to look at the offense and you have to look at the person who committed it. There are elements in the probation report and in Dr. Missett's report which concern me a great deal. One has to be very careful. Mr. Ver, you're a young man and you've led a law-abiding life for the last two years and you've by all accounts performed well on pretrial release. I did note in your letter that you accepted that your conduct was illegal, and I appreciate that. I also don't in any way want to confuse your political beliefs, which you are absolutely entitled to have, with your criminal conduct.
There's a long and honorable tradition of libertarian politics in our country and I don't mean to in any way hold that against you. It's something that you're entitled to have. The problem, though, is that the law is a representation of authority in a certain way. People can disagree and they can disagree very vigorously and very reasonably about what ought to be legal and what ought not to be legal and how much the Government ought to do or ought not to do. But there is a point at which we start talking about public safety and I think even the most die hard libertarian would agree that one function of government, if there is to be a government, is to protect public safety. So then it's just a question of how you do it, how you do it in a way that's least invasive of individual liberties. Selling explosives over the Internet doesn't cut it in any society that I can imagine and I think it's -- the conduct here is simply not tolerable conduct and it's not -- I don't think one has to be a big government person or believe in government regulation of every aspect of human life to suggest that people should not be selling explosives over the Internet. The other thing that concerns me is that in looking at your social history it seems to me you've got some reasons for not trusting authority, and that's okay. I mean, those are feelings that are a product of your life experience. Nonetheless, those feelings don't give you the right to be above the same social constraints that bind all of us.
And I'm not saying this as well as I'd like to, but I think there's a difference between saying I believe that the government which governs best governs least and saying that I'm above the law totally, that I'm so smart, I'm so able, I'm so perceptive that I don't have to follow the rules that apply to other human beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment