I also find it interesting that your account is 27 minutes old, and was created specifically for this discussion. Your concerns about "how un-objective this community is" seem self-serving...it seems pretty clear you aren't of this community, and exhibit few signs of understanding what makes this community tick. Also, as a nerd who values clear, concise, and accurate language, your misunderstanding of the word "objective" really bugs me. And that's my "personal objective opinion".
I agree the law is perhaps wrong, but who could have known he was being bullied past breaking point and would lead to suicide but himself? Do you believe that if someone disagrees with a law they can break it to cause reform, and if so which laws do you draw the line at? Is this the best way to act? Do you not think regardless of whether we agree with it or not, if we break it we should be punished? He clearly broke the current law, is 6 months imprisonment, a felon, and a highly likely suspended sentence really such a grave punishment? Do you honestly believe Aaron if convicted felon would struggle for work? Do you think he was emotionally sound and compos mentis at the time of taking his life? Do you believe this man did not show traits that he could possibly go on to further break other laws he didn't agree with in the name of his version of liberation?
I don't think Aaron went about his goal in an amicable way, and I don't think he believed he was either, he knew what he was doing, and unfortunately if you break laws, whether or not you agree with them, you ought to be punished. If you don't like the laws, cause reform without breaking them,there are other ways.
Whats the minimum requirements to be considered part of this community?
Civil disobedience is not the only, or often even the best, way to change oppressive laws...but, it has been a necessary component of most major cultural shifts. Civil rights, LGBTQ equality, etc. They all happened because a few people were brave enough to break the law, even in cases where the law was popular. However, it is very much worth pointing out that most prosecutors, when pursuing charges against participants in non-violent civil disobedience exercise restraint. They rarely pursue felony charges (though this has been changing; activists in Texas are alarmed by the new use of bizarre old laws to charge participants in the Tarsands Blockade with felonies; but this is the exception rather than the rule), and it is usually possible to continue your life without major impediment, perhaps after a short stint (a few days or weeks) in jail, and without the weight of a felony conviction following them around for life. A political act with no profit motive should be treated very differently by prosecutors, and judges, and the law, than an act committed for personal gain.
So, I disagree with your assessment that breaking the law is not a valid part of changing the law. Often, it is the only way change happens, and I have great admiration for the people willing to lay their own well-being on the line for something they believe in. In this case, an unjust law was broken, and I consider that an ethically sound decision.
Aaron Swartz was known to be a suicide risk. Prosecutors responded to this knowledge with, "We'll lock him up." Evil rarely looks like a James Bond villain...it's usually somebody just following orders. Evil was committed in this case, and it's part of a systemic problem in our culture and in our state. "Well, he broke the law!" is no justification for hounding a kid into bankruptcy and deep depression. It simply isn't. There is no justification for the behavior of the prosecutors in this case, and there is no justification for the way the law treats non-violent offenders in politicized cases like this.
Had Aaron hurt someone with his actions, I would have little sympathy. But, he didn't; he sought only to help people, to free the poorest people from an oppressive lack of access to information. When someone spends their entire life trying to help those least able to defend themselves, and the state responds with threats of decades in prison, the state is committing a great evil. I'm not even going to discuss the distraction of a six month sentence in a plea deal; this case damned near bankrupted him and that was used to back him into a corner where he had no options, and that's deeply unjust.
The requirement to be a part of this community is to respectfully discuss topics. Your approach has been to insult the intelligence, objectivity, and knowledge of anyone you engage with. In a community like this, which contains some extremely bright (famously so, in many cases) and curious people, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as not being objective, or being too emotional, or being biased, while staking out your own claim of being unfailingly objective, unemotional, and unbiased, is insulting. Shutting down conversations by way of insult is unproductive, and unwelcome here.
Many people here disagree with you; if you can't convince them by way of reason, you're going to have to deal with being in the minority. To suggest that disagreement with you is uninformed or unobjective, on issues that many of us have taken very seriously for decades (and have seen the force of the state used to oppress friends or acquaintances on a number of occasions in similarly unjust fashion), is not productive.
You are perfectly free to do that, however, know that as a well off IBM executive he is the last person in the world in need of sympathy right now.
In contrast given the facts of the case, I honestly believe this is a fair deal. From what I've read of Aaron, and the case, I would assume this wouldn't of been his last fight of freeing information, if prosecuting I would also have wanted to try and deter Aaron from taking steps further on his next conquest, which I think the above deal does without ruining his life.
How many people here would not employ Aaron once out of jail? It was no where near the end of the road, or his only option, it was far from it. The man was quite clearly mentally ill, that's the main thing being clouded here by trying to scapegoat everyone.
Regardless of your 30 mins old account, if you are not a troll I want to do business with you, I'm a prince and I need to transfer a large amount of money out of the country and would be happy to compensate you for your help a whopping 25% commission!
I'm from Europe and, honestly, I can something deeply rotten in the american legal system (not that the ones in Europe are perfect, far from it).
The person committed an act of civil disobedience. OK, fair enough. But was the law fair to qualify such an act as civil disobedience in the first place?
35 years or "recognize you're guilty and get 'only' 6-months" for a victimless crime?
And crazy high lawyers fee bringing you and potentially your family to bankruptcy.
Add to that a prosecutor obviously having long teeth and wanting to advance in her "career" and you have something which looks ugly.
There's one word in the dictionary to describe what this whole issue feels like.
UNJUST.
It's unjust because the whole point of the legal system should be to bring justice and, in this case, it brought death.
Death in the name of insane lawyer fees. Death in the name of careerism. Death in the name of unjust laws, created under pressure of powerful lobbies abusing the golden law (the one who has the gold makes the law) over and over again.
That's why this "community" --and many other communities-- are very very upset.
That's why the white house shall have to respond to tens of thousands of people who wants one thing: a legal system that is just.
Even within this submission, the comments here still talk and insinuate Aaron was facing life imprisonment, danger to being raped daily, and suicide was his only option.
The more I sift through the crap most of the community is posting, and actually find more objective facts (why is Orin Kerr's objective analysis of the law no where to be found after a day?! Does this not speak volumes of the community?).
I actually feel sorry the Tom Dolan, and his wife and everyone else involved (isn't it weird how you can empathise with multiple polarizing parties??).
I don't actually think from the facts I've observed that 6 months (his lawyer actually suspected a suspended sentence), is actually a bad deal in this case, given all the facts, but this is my personal objective opinion.
I would like to see people be more objective, and communicate with less emotion and more reason, but it's something I've observed happening over the past few years, and I think this just highlights what type of community it's mutated into.