MIT President on Aaron Swartz

Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by unreal37 on Sunday January 13, 2013 @04:58PM (#5052039)

So from what I've read, he had the option to plead guilty to some charges and I'm sure spend very little time in jail, but he didn't want to plead guilty at all. He had options.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by nitrogen on Sunday January 13, 2013 @07:51PM (#5052648)

Being labeled as a felon, with the implications thereof regarding voting, employment, serving on a jury, etc. is hardly an option worth considering.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by unreal37 on Sunday January 13, 2013 @08:29PM (#5052786)

So the two options were: 1) Plead not guilty, case drags on for years, costs $millions to defend, get convicted, serve 2-3 years in jail, unable to fight for something you believe in during that time

2) Plead guilty, case is over quickly, not expensive to defend, get convicted, serve 2-3 months in jail, get on with fighting for something you believe in

I would say option #2 is "worth considering".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by graysnorf on Monday January 14, 2013 @12:50PM (#5055654)

He was facing potentially 35 years in jail, not 2-3 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by Evbn on Sunday January 13, 2013 @09:49PM (#5053044)

Different people have different standards. Maybe Aarons choice helped protect people who follow in his footsteps.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by SilasX on Monday January 14, 2013 @03:38AM (#5053832)

I'm pretty sure employment wouldn't be an issue for him.

Anyway, if you want to protest the law, you can let yourself be found guilty at trial, then challenge the law on appeal.

[ Parent | on HN ]