3 ms·

But that's a load of nonsense and I don't think it diminishes Aaron's memory to say so. He wilfully, deliberately and with substantial premeditation broke the

But that's a load of nonsense and I don't think it diminishes Aaron's memory to say so. He wilfully, deliberately and with substantial premeditation broke the law. Having pretty much stated publicly he was going to and been caught and let off for a similar crime previously. He was bang to rights guilty. However, he was then persecuted mercilessly and threatened with a sentence way out of proportion to the crime. He was hounded to his death for political brownie points and that's unforgivable. But to suggest he was just a naughty schoolboy is inaccurate and unhelpful.

tremon 8y ago
He wilfully, deliberately and with substantial premeditation broke the law. So did Rosa Parks, and so did Edward Snowden. That does not mean they automatically deserve what they got.
- lucozade 8y ago
  > That does not mean they automatically deserved what they got Indeed, and I said the same about Aaron. Snowden's a different case as he didn't break the law to show up the law. But it's critical to history that Rosa Parks broke the law. If she had just annoyed a racist bus driver then there's no shining a light on the system. And crucially, that's what Aaron was attempting to do too.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> and threatened with a sentence way out of proportion to the crime What I quoted says nothing more. And what I replied to was "if you can't do the time", implying "the time" was appropriate to the crime. > to suggest he was just a naughty schoolboy What in what I quoted suggests that? Can you quote the bits you consider "a load of nonsense"?
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >Can you quote the bits you consider "a load of nonsense"? The article attempts to defend Swartz by essentially claiming that what he did was unimpressive... So what? Same goes for SQL injection. In fact, most crimes are quite unimpressive. It's indisputable that both JSTOR and MIT actively tried to block Swartz, and that he actively circumvented those blocks. The article also makes the completely bullshit claim that Swartz could've realistically received a 35 year sentence.

tremon 8y ago

He wilfully, deliberately and with substantial premeditation broke the law. So did Rosa Parks, and so did Edward Snowden. That does not mean they automatically deserve what they got.

lucozade 8y ago
> That does not mean they automatically deserved what they got Indeed, and I said the same about Aaron. Snowden's a different case as he didn't break the law to show up the law. But it's critical to history that Rosa Parks broke the law. If she had just annoyed a racist bus driver then there's no shining a light on the system. And crucially, that's what Aaron was attempting to do too.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> and threatened with a sentence way out of proportion to the crime What I quoted says nothing more. And what I replied to was "if you can't do the time", implying "the time" was appropriate to the crime. > to suggest he was just a naughty schoolboy What in what I quoted suggests that? Can you quote the bits you consider "a load of nonsense"?

ryanlol 8y ago
>Can you quote the bits you consider "a load of nonsense"? The article attempts to defend Swartz by essentially claiming that what he did was unimpressive... So what? Same goes for SQL injection. In fact, most crimes are quite unimpressive. It's indisputable that both JSTOR and MIT actively tried to block Swartz, and that he actively circumvented those blocks. The article also makes the completely bullshit claim that Swartz could've realistically received a 35 year sentence.