http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre
However, that the hammer was brought down so heavily tells me that on the part of the status quo there is a real weakness and a real fear that people might go in the directions he did.
Like the Boston Massacre, we will soon find ourselves in a propaganda battle. Ortiz' husband's mockery of Aaron Swartz's supporters, and her hardening of her stance (while parrying responsibility) is just the first step in circling the wagons.
Sen. John Cornyn is now asking questions of the Attorney General about all this, so now we know the people at the top have heard the call. Prepare for additions to this story.
Agreed. But you should never lift more than your back can handle.
> One can call it a perverse incentive, but to the point he had reached, the confrontation was way out of proportion to the acts.
We're fully in agreement here. But there are many examples of such extreme overreaches, recall the music sharing verdict and a bunch of other examples in the hacking / media sphere. This is not an isolated case at all. The differentiating factors are: (1) the defendant was for a change an exceptionally nice person, (2) the defendant knew a lot of people and was known by a lot of people and (3) he was clearly acting in what he thought was the best interest of all of us.
> You can call this unsustainable, but what other choice is there?
Unsustainable for Aaron in particular.
> "Welp, the interests of less-freedom don't want this, so I guess I shouldn't do it."
No, that's definitely not where I'm heading. I do want this and it is worth something, maybe even worth a lot.
> However, that the hammer was brought down so heavily tells me that on the part of the status quo there is a real weakness and a real fear that people might go in the directions he did.
Yes, I agree, and this overreach has exposed another weakness all by itself. A just justice system doesn't need scare tactics.
> Like the Boston Massacre, we will soon find ourselves in a propaganda battle. Ortiz' husband's mockery of Aaron Swartz's supporters, and her hardening of her stance (while parrying responsibility) is just the first step in circling the wagons.
Consider the battle joined. I will not forget about this and it will shape my actions for a long time to come.
> Sen. John Cornyn is now asking questions of the Attorney General about all this, so now we know the people at the top have heard the call. Prepare for additions to this story.
I guarantee it.
"Lifting more that your back can handle" is the very definition for fighting for freedom.
If everybody played it safe, and only went as far as they could comfortably tolerate, they would have been no freedom.
Probably. But, and this is a very big but: Aaron was encouraged by every victory (and the coverage of those victories) to shoot for an even bigger target.
In spite of being very sympathetic to Aaron, the goals he fought for and what he stood for, sooner or later that was going to lead to a confrontation. And he was encouraged by the public response to his deeds as well.
So even if everything in this particular case is as bad as it looks Aaron definitely was not one to say 'that one is in the bag' and call it quits. If he had stopped after the PACER incident it would have been a very worthy achievement. Serially taking on entrenched interests of this magnitude will sooner or later have consequences, it is as far as I can see unavoidable. The fact that he did that makes me admire him even more but I fear that for someone of his self evidenced emotional make-up this was not a long term sustainable recipe.