News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on MIT President on Aaron Swartz. Parent comment

Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by jacquesm on Sunday January 13, 2013 @08:37PM (#5052827)
I think Lawrence Lessig knows a bit more about this, one line in his piece stuck out for me, it reads:

"yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense".

I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you curious.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by Evbn on Sunday January 13, 2013 @10:00PM (#5053076)
That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post.

We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by tptacek on Sunday January 13, 2013 @10:17PM (#5053112)
If it was that simple, would Lessig have said so after the case became moot?

I'm confused about this too.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:MIT President on Aaron Swartz by danielweber on Monday January 14, 2013 @09:55AM (#5054825)
Either of "Aaron's lawyers were required to bill upfront" or "Aaron was not permitted to set up a legal defense fund" would be huge civil rights issues. A lot huger than the narrative of a out-of-control prosecutor out for Aaron's head.

Lessig really really needs to explain that sentence.

[ Parent | on HN ]