Does Ross Ulbricht deserve to be in jail?

Guns provide a product, a platform provides a place to speak. You can not compare the two. If people want to start talking about drugs here or on facebook, does that make the owners in charge of what was said? At the end of the day, nobody forced the people to use the website. It's not like Ross held them at gunpoint

>*intended* for illegal activity.
Drugs shouldn't be illegal you absolute chicken shit normy. Get woke.

yes. poisoning your people with drugs should be death penalty

Personally I am for cheap legal heroin (and all other drugs) for people of all ages, so the genetic scum purges itself from the gene pool.
Needlessly to say they should receive absolutely no government assistance for the damage they do to themselves.

Absolutely not.

So you are saying that if I bought the car legally and hit person, I'm responsible, but if I bought a stolen car from a thief and hit a person, then the thief is responsible for me hitting someone? Well that is logical indeed, but really not fair from thief perspective. Such logic isn't relied upon in other crimes, only in digital-crimes, so it's even more unfair from Ross perspective.

>a platform provides a place to speak
SR wasn't about speech, it was about transactions.
Speech can not cause real harm, only actions can.

SR provided a platform for ILLEGAL activity, they were fully aware AND their platform was intended to enable illegal activities which could put the lives of people into real danger.
The difference to amazon is that amazon fundamentally tries to be a LEGAL marketplace, where no illegal activity takes place.
There is a fundamental difference between these two things.

Amazon might also be a market place for illegal activities, but just because they do not have the ability to control their entire site, which makes them not responsible if illegal activity happens on their platform, SR on the other hand is INTENDED for illegal activity and to protect people who commit illegal activities, which means their intent is definitely NOT to be a legal marketplace.

By US law that may be the case. There's a case from Ohio I think, where a bunch of teenagers broke into a house and got shot by the landowner. The teen waiting in the car outside got sentenced for their murder.

>but if I bought a stolen car from a thief and hit a person, then the thief is responsible for me hitting someone?
Yes, if the thief didn't make sure that you were actually legally allowed to drive the car then it is his responsibility for allowing someone who shouldn't drive a car onto the road.
Obviously that does in no way absolve the person who actually drove.

>Such logic isn't relied upon in other crimes, only in digital-crimes
If a gun store owner is negligent or malicious and sells guns to convicted criminals I HIGHLY doubt that his activity is legal.

He didn't sell the drugs himself, though. Also this .