You can fight for a good cause and still break the law. A system of law that selectively enforces laws is inherently flawed. The laws need changing. It was lopsided power against him. The law was still broken.

I wish Aaron Swartz had not committed suicide ahead of his many charges. I wish he had had his day in court to argue the illegitimacy of those laws in these cases in the first place. It wouldn't be the first time that produces a change in laws. We will never know, and must change the laws asap.

> You can fight for a good cause and still break the law.

I have learned it is unproductive to confuse laws with ethics; laws are not inherently ethical.

In larger governments, laws are commonly created thru unethical means and for purposes misaligned with the common good.

> A system of law that selectively enforces laws is inherently flawed.

A system that seeks to inflict all the penalty it can is a system that is doing harm; it has fully lost site of it's original purpose to promote a specific good. Having lost it's way, it is fixating on fairness and outputting damage.

I easily assume that many laws were broken in what lead to his suicide. And equally for Assange. Law is a stretchable concept nowadays: Hunter's laptop turned out to be not "Russian disinfo" as some three letter agencies illegally made us believe. And the laptop is full of evidence of breaking the law, but he got a sweetheart deal.

Laws created+pushed by Joe that put many in jail for drugs, were violated by Hunter, and he walks.

Law is a fluid concept in this day and age. Same like this "rules based international order".

Please remember that hiding "undersireables" in WW2 Germany was against the law, or freeing slaves was against the law.