We Stand With Deric Lostutter: Support the Steubenville Whistleblower Now!

[VanessaofBC]

The Steubenville rape case helped spark a national conversation about victim-blaming and rape culture.

But the victim only got justice because Anonymous leaked significant social media evidence implicating the assailants — and for distributing those tweets, photos, and video, 26-year-old Deric Lostutter faces more prison time than the rapists got themselves.

Lostutter faces up to ten years behind bars if he's convicted of hacking-relating crimes. Now he's gearing up for a costly legal battle — and as he calls for donations, we call on you to give him the nationwide support he needs to win his trial.

The Ohio U.S. Attorney's office and the DOJ are sending a dangerous message to men who stand up : Don't get involved, or else. Let them know we still stand with Deric: Sign your support for his actions and oppose sending him to prison, now!

MESSAGE FOR U.S. ATTORNEY AND DOJ: We support Deric's whisleblowing at Steubenville, and urge you to note our nationwide support when deciding whether to charge him for his act of courage.

SIGN PETITION HERE: http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/3270?l=lVUeYVmuMH8

 

[normisanas]

Those "little" jerks should have never been tried as juveniles, and that's why their sentences are so light. A kid that age knows what rape is, and they should have gotten 10 years as adults. As for the hacker, yes, he was motivated by conscience. People who break the law for a good cause should never be charged to begin with. The US is f**ked when it comes to many things, and the application of the law is definitely one of them.

 

[Ratbert_2008]

People who break the law for a good cause should never be charged to begin with.

Who decides what a "good cause" is?

 

[VanessaofBC]

Who decides what a "good cause" is?

Abusing minors. I think that is who Anonymous plan their attack against.

 

[normisanas]

Who decides what a "good cause" is?

The judge presiding over the case. That's who has always done it on similar matters, like deciding whether to throw out charges because he deems it "frivolous".

Unfortunately judges are often tasked with interpreting the law like a robot and then interpreting events like a robot and saying, "well he technically crossed the line and the law says you can't cross the line, therefore he broke the law". Well so what. Judges need to be given greater room to decide what the spirit of the law is and whether or not the motivation was to do something against society or for the greater good. Should Robin Hood go to jail for decades if he never profits by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Should a father who not only stops a rape of his daughter by an evil man, but kills him, be charged with murder? If Robert Pickton was out on parole and was killed by an enraged citizen, did that citizen do society some good by getting rid of him?