I'll make a couple of points. 1) If you don't think the prosecution was a combination of payback and a convenient "example" for the purpose of intimidation, y

I'll make a couple of points. 1) If you don't think the prosecution was a combination of payback and a convenient "example" for the purpose of intimidation, you haven't been paying attention. 2) Yes. Prosecutorial and other forms of government (e.g. police, etc.) injustice are widespread and often hit the disadvantaged hardest. It's not fair, and perhaps it is not fair that Swartz's case is receiving so much more attention. But, it is receiving attention. Including amongst people with the power (perhaps not always conventional or "blue chip" power) and influence to change things. Maybe it can stand and serve for a call to action. Even as the need is much deeper and much broader than this "technology" case of itself might indicate. 3) The prosecutor, just this past week, was apparently unwilling to budge from a plea agreement targeting at least 6 or 7 years in jail. Again, for a plea agreement, presumably with enough softening of terms over an expected judicial outcome to provide some compulsion for acceptance by the defense. It appears that the prospect of several years of jail time, along with a lifelong, serious limiting label of "felon", was real. [SUBSEQUENT EDIT: Apparently, I read an incorrect description of the terms of the proffered plea agreement, or I mis-read an accurate description. The Wall Street Journal describes ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324581504578238692048200404.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732458150457823... ) a discussion of a prosecution target of 7 years with the proffered plea agreement offering 6 - 8 months. The felony conviction, however, would have apparently remained.] 4) The SOPA/PIPA debacle, in which Swartz played a critical role, was a topic for widespread, public debate. Regarding this, see again my point 1), above. (The government also was effectively slapped down fairly well in the PACER fiasco, including by "insiders" within the judicial and academic systems who were using the PACER system out of necessity but with great resentment and its attendant financial burden.) 5) I think you've misread (or failed to put adequate effort into reading) Mr. Swartz and perhaps also the community you describe. Swartz appears to have been much more direct in and motivated by his stated interests than in any seeking of fame, particularly "for fame's sake". And the community -- at least, the part I've seen -- has been fairly openly, honestly, inquisitively, and in a cautionary fashion been discussing suicide. (Admittedly, I'm no expert in this either, and I'm not familiar with more than a sampling of Swartz's works (e.g. his posts and essages), so perhaps I'm wrong in this.) -- As I've said elsewhere, Swartz's case gains much -- perhaps outsized -- attention through his prominence. But then, so did Steve Jobs' case including his cancer and his abrasive but apparently effective personality. As did Postel's, some years ago, when his death brought retrospective attention to his quiet but extremely efficient and effective, seemingly single-handed management of the early Internet's address space. Thousands of others go through similar circumstances. But a few seem fated to draw particular attention to them. And at such times, society may perhaps be brought to enough attention for more widespread knowledge and, perhaps, some productive change.