Robert Morris created the first worm on the Internet and was the first person prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was convicted and sentenced to probation. He's now a tenured MIT professor and was a co-founder of Y Combinator.

For someone of Aaron's talent and reputation there is no reason that he could not have gotten past a felony conviction and lived a successful life.

I can only interpret Lessig's post:

"...the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept..."

I don't know what the government actually offered, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that Aaron would have been able to get a deal with a relatively light sentence, maybe just probation. It sounds from Lessig's post like his hangup was that he wasn't willing to accept a felony conviction. I hope that's not the case because even with a felony record he most likely would have lived a long and successful life.

> but it doesn't seem unreasonable that Aaron would have been able to get a deal with a relatively light sentence

Being sentenced and getting a record for doing something you feel is right is not something everybody takes equally lightly. Personally I couldn't care less but I can see how someone with stronger principles would react much stronger to this.

Aaron sounds like an idealist in an extreme sense. He probably did not feel that what he did was wrong, and that accepting the label of 'felon' was an affront to the truth.

People handle adversity differently. It seems Aaron had internal pressures and this trial had definitely increased these pressures.

That was a very, very long time ago. Do you really think that with the way that the U.S. is now that Aaron would have won?

In some jurisdictions (most I believe) felons aren't allowed to vote. If someone believes in democracy and the freedom to vote and have a voice, how do you think they would feel about being so marginalized?