So did Rosa Parks, and so did Edward Snowden. That does not mean they automatically deserve what they got.
Indeed, and I said the same about Aaron.
Snowden's a different case as he didn't break the law to show up the law.
But it's critical to history that Rosa Parks broke the law. If she had just annoyed a racist bus driver then there's no shining a light on the system. And crucially, that's what Aaron was attempting to do too.
What I quoted says nothing more. And what I replied to was "if you can't do the time", implying "the time" was appropriate to the crime.
> to suggest he was just a naughty schoolboy
What in what I quoted suggests that? Can you quote the bits you consider "a load of nonsense"?
The article attempts to defend Swartz by essentially claiming that what he did was unimpressive... So what? Same goes for SQL injection. In fact, most crimes are quite unimpressive.
It's indisputable that both JSTOR and MIT actively tried to block Swartz, and that he actively circumvented those blocks.
The article also makes the completely bullshit claim that Swartz could've realistically received a 35 year sentence.
He wilfully, deliberately and with substantial premeditation broke the law. Having pretty much stated publicly he was going to and been caught and let off for a similar crime previously. He was bang to rights guilty.
However, he was then persecuted mercilessly and threatened with a sentence way out of proportion to the crime. He was hounded to his death for political brownie points and that's unforgivable.
But to suggest he was just a naughty schoolboy is inaccurate and unhelpful.