Ah yes, his one page letter where he says "We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive." That's being awfully selective. He also sa

Ah yes, his one page letter where he says "We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive." That's being awfully selective. He also says "We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world." and "We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks." Is it absurd to draw conclusions about someone's intentions based on what sorts of actions they deem to be "a moral imperative"?[1] You might as well accuse him of distributing child porn and being a terrorist, because decriminalizing child porn and overthrowing the government were also things he advocated in his writings. You've got the argument precisely backwards. Aaron wasn't being charged for his writings. He was being charged for his observed actions. His prior statements are only being used to show that the government's interpretation of his intent is not (as you said) "completely without merit". [1] http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamju...