In a rebuke to a legion of online supporters and what the journalist and one-time member of Anonymous called a “dangerous precedent”, Barrett Brown was sentenced to 63 months in prison by a federal judge in Dallas on Thursday.

 

Brown’s backers from across the web had hoped he would be able to walk free with his 31 months of time served for what they insist was “merely linking to hacked material”. But the 33-year-old, who was once considered something of a spokesman for the Anonymous movement, will face more than twice that sentence. The judge also ordered him to pay more than $890,000 in restitution and fines.

 

In a statement released after his sentencing, Brown was sarcastically upbeat: “Good news!” he wrote. “The US government decided today that because I did such a good job investigating the cyber-industrial complex, they’re now going to send me to investigate the prison-industrial complex.”

 

 

Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months for 'merely linking to hacked material' | Technology | The Guardian

So what is your problem with the sentence and why. I kind of see both sides.

 

You want to be able to keep a check on government. At the same time if the items were stolen and you are promoting stolen items I understand why it's a crime.

While he is guilty, the impending cyber rules are scary. It gives the gov't a lot of latitude in who they jail. Selective enforcement similar to IRS.

While he is guilty, the impending cyber rules are scary. It gives the gov't a lot of latitude in who they jail. Selective enforcement similar to IRS.

 

Again maybe I don't understand it. Tell me what is selective about this ruling ?

Not this ruling, as I said guilty. My commentary is on the impending rules on even talking of hacking, linking to articles, etc. Discussions and links will be plenty so gov't decides to go after. Can be very arbitrary, retaliatory, etc.

Not this ruling, as I said guilty. My commentary is on the impending rules on even talking of hacking, linking to articles, etc. Discussions and links will be plenty so gov't decides to go after. Can be very arbitrary, retaliatory, etc.

 

Aren't most laws enforced at the governments discretion?

True, but given the IRS attacks on right wing non-profits, this can't be good.

Aren't most laws enforced at the governments discretion?

 

Like ACA?

Its the threatening charge that was the main driver to the sentence. Seems a bit of miss statement on the real reason for the sentence.