The Volokh Conspiracy

You really should be ashamed of having anything to do with defending those scum, whether or not they are technically "guilty" of anything.

Please, let's give them a fair trial first, and then convict them.

You really should be ashamed of having anything to do with defending those scum, whether or not they are technically "guilty" of anything.

I beg to differ. The prosecution's theory -- and I am not joking -- is that violation of the "terms of service" of a website is a federal crime.

I am thankful that people like Prof. Kerr are involved.

I agree entirely with the sentiment expressed by John Jenkins. Bad laws badly used do no justice, but voluntary social ostracism does.

Could they( and should they) have been charged with aiding a suicide?

Bravo, Prof. Kerr. What doofus approved bringing this prosecution? I thought the DOJ was better than this. Hopefully this will end in embarrassment for the people involved in pushing such an absurd prosecution theory in criminal court.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of John Jenkins, above. I think it would be an injustice if the defendant were convicted. I also think it would be an injustice if she were ever again permitted to show her face in polite society.

I for one am quite interested in this case. It is this kind of creative application of the Federal computer crime law that I feared when I opposed the original Ribicoff Computer Crime Bill almost 30 years ago.

I agree entirely with Prof. Kerr and the defense lawyers that if this case is not dismissed this over-reaching will make Federal criminals indicted or unindicted of many internet users for violation of an ISP's terms of service.

In the original version of the bill, according to its proponents (mostly Senate staff and DoJ prosecutors), a judge could well read broad application as the intent of Congress.

"Unauthorized access of a computer" indeed! I objected then and object now to this vague language. Proponents in 1979 argued that we should trust the prosecutors not to over-reach.

I argued then that one could murder somebody by dropping a filing cabinet on the victim's head from an upper story window, but the crime is murder, not the unauthorized use of a filing cabinet.

I most sincerely hope for all our sakes that this over-reaching is squashed.

You really should be ashamed of having anything to do with defending those scum, whether or not they are technically "guilty" of anything.

I vehemently disagree with this, and I do so even though (1) these people may very well be guilty of horrendous conduct, and (2) I might not take their case.

Even the most unpopular among us are entitled to a vigorous defense. Indeed, that defense is often the only thing that stands against our justice system simply becoming a popularity contest.

Prof. Kerr has every right to stand up for whatever principles he feels are or should be applicable here

If this case succeeds I'm going to create a website with some incredibly byzantine ToS that can't help but be violated and then press for charges against everyone who visits.

And don't forget EULAs. Violation of a program's EULA would make your access of your own computer a Federal crime. See Wikipedia for criticisms of Incredimail's EULA for example.

EULAs afford more opportunity for byzantine terms than ToS's. Why, we could jail almost everybody.