You are adopting a simplistic with-us-or-against-us view, and disrepesecting Aaron's free-speech absolutism in the process. You are also assigning me positions

You are adopting a simplistic with-us-or-against-us view, and disrepesecting Aaron's free-speech absolutism in the process. You are also assigning me positions I haven't taken. (I made an "absurd accusation"? Where?) Your should read more carefully. The 'manifesto' does not limit itself to out-of-copyright works. It mentions civil disobedience, which usually means breaking unjust laws with carefully-considered intent. He writes, "We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks." At bits.are.notabug.com, Aaron suggests laws against crypto export, patent infringement, copyright infringement, and even child porn sharing (but not production) are wrong in the age of bits. He slyly uses the imperative verb form in each header, which vaguely suggests without being explicit that he his advocates each of these actions. The footer has a similarly sly joke of wordplay. If you think he was saying "he supports the overthrow of the US government", read what he actually wrote again until you get it. These writings aren't hedged, mealy-mouthed expressions of support for a little more open access, of only out-of-copyright or academic-oriented or public-funded bits, within the lines of the law. They are brave and consistent arguments for total free speech in the digital domain, without any patent/copyright/export/obscenity restrictions. A person who wrote and believed them would redistribute in-copyright JSTOR articles; he might even believe it was his moral duty to do so if presented the opportunity. You're not doing Aaron's memory any favors by watering-down what he expressly advocated.