DoJ Admits Aaron Swartz's Prosecution Was Political

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from a blog post by Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, founder of corporate watchdog SumOfUs.org and partner of the late Aaron Swartz: "The DOJ has told Congressional investigators that Aaron's prosecution was motivated by his political views on copyright. I was going to start that last paragraph with 'In a stunning turn of events,' but I realized that would be inaccurate — because it's really not that surprising. Many people speculated throughout the whole ordeal that this was a political prosecution, motivated by anything/everything from Aaron's effective campaigning against SOPA to his run-ins with the FBI over the PACER database. But Aaron actually didn't believe it was — he thought it was overreach by some local prosecutors who didn't really understand the internet and just saw him as a high-profile scalp they could claim, facilitated by a criminal justice system and computer crime laws specifically designed to give prosecutors, however incompetent or malicious, all the wrong incentives and all the power they could ever want. But this HuffPo article, and what I’m hearing from sources on the Hill, suggest that that’s not true. That Ortiz and Heymann knew exactly what they were doing: Shutting up, and hopefully locking up, an extremely effective activist whose political views, including those on copyright, threatened the Powers That Be."

Comments

I Don't Get It

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a stark contrast in this article between someone who is defiant and righteous and effective in his fight against THE MAN. Yet at the first sign of adversity he rolls over like a stuck pig. Two completely different pictures. If you shove someone in power, prepare to be shoved back and stand up for yourself. He really should have rode this court case out, it sounded like he had very competent lawyers who would get it busted down to only the crimes he did commit.

Re:I Don't Get It

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's hear it. What did the big evil copyright fat cats do to him before this case?

I mean, it's so incredibly confusing. This article uses words like "civil disobedience" yet when he gets his chance to challenge the very laws that he is disobeying and thinks are wrong he commits suicide before the opening statements? So confusing.

I don't think you have made yourself even remotely familiar with the case, whatsoever, by that statement alone.

Come on, man. We're all adults here. Leave your shitty rhetoric at the door and cite your sources.

Re:I Don't Get It

[pla]

Such a statement bears no relation to a modern understanding of depression and suicide.

Sometimes, the "modern understanding" has more to do with fluffy feelgood BS than reality. No one wants to admit that little Billy, or Dad, or Aunt Thelma hated life so much they would want out of it - And no one wants to admit they care more because "how dare that asshole deprive me of his continued presence" than out of any sincere concern for why someone might have wanted out so desperately.

For some reason, we have this bizarre obsession that no one in our society has any responsibility for their actions or the general course of their life. You choose not to eat? You have a disease. You eat too much? You have a disease. You can't stand living here anymore? You have a disease. You choose to rob someone and get shot in the process? How dare that bastard not respect your traumatic childhood! You get lung cancer? Damn those tobacco companies! You can't make ends meet? Tax those 1%er bastards more! I sound like a caustic uncaring bastard for daring to post this? I must have some sort of empathy deficiency disorder.

So... You want to die? We have more than enough people on the planet, see ya. If it takes drugs to numb you into sticking around on this ball of mud, perhaps you shouldn't stick around?