Some rejoinders to myself: 1. Personal information isn't the kind of information Swartz was attempting to liberate. It was publicly funded academic research be

Some rejoinders to myself: 1. Personal information isn't the kind of information Swartz was attempting to liberate. It was publicly funded academic research behind paywalls. There is no principle of symmetry to appeal to. (If I am incorrect and the intent was that "information wants to be free," then symmetry holds: one cannot consistently be free with the information of others and prefer the exiguous disclosure of one's own.) 2. The government has systematically violated the laws it was accusing Swartz of violating many times over. (An inadmissible legal argument, I understand, but historically valid.) 3. His assets may have been frozen. 4. The disproportionate legal action against Swartz is an indication of the government's cyberspace vulnerability. It is also an indication of the imprecision of the law as it is written.