4 ms·

Yes, Swartz likely knew it was nowhere near as bad as 35 years. Still, you are not addressing what a felony conviction would mean. After spending millions (ac

Yes, Swartz likely knew it was nowhere near as bad as 35 years. Still, you are not addressing what a felony conviction would mean. After spending millions (according to his father on the documentary) on defense, say he is convicted, sentenced to a best case of some community service, probation, and no jail time. He's now spent all his money, his name is sullied in the public mind, he may be barred from voting, he may be restricted by the terms of probation, he may have difficulty finding a job and housing[0], and hopes of a political career are pretty much demolished. On the documentary, Quinn Norton says, "He just didn't believe that he could continue in his life, with a felony, you know. He said to me one day-- We were walking by the White House, and he said to me, 'They don't let felons work there.' ... He really wanted that to be his life." (around 52:00) So, you can say "he should have known what he was getting into" if you want, but "he didn't face much prison time" really rings hollow to me. The prison time was probably one of the last concerns on his mind, especially if he was "only" expecting a few months of prison. It would have been followed by several years of parole/probation and the rest of life as a felon. And if a 35-year sentence was actually possible, then yes, the DoJ wasn't lying, but it only reinforces the arguments of everyone talking about how disgusting is the threat of 35 years for downloading articles. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States

pdabbadabba 12y ago
You wrote this: >As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this, why shouldn't it be fair to factor [the purported 35-year maximum sentence] in when trying to get an idea of how Swartz felt? . . .They lie to the public and exaggerate to the accused, in order to instill fear, prop up careers, and coerce the accused. That's what I am responding to. Beyond that, it sounds like we're not disagreeing much, except for this small point: it is true, as you say, that being convicted of any felony at all is a huge deal. And probably even more so for Aaron Swartz. But that doesn't mean that the difference between a six-month sentence and a 35-year sentence is not also incredibly significant! I sympathize with those who think that this debate over the length of Aaron's potential and likely sentences misses the point. But I think that is just another criticism that ought to be leveled at media outlets and activists who continue to repeat the 35-year number without explanation or qualification. Those people repeat the 35-year figure precisely because they do regard it as significant and, often, reiterate it as a way of inflaming people's passions. I think this is a dishonest way of framing and spurring the debate. I, like you it seems, think that we would be better off reevaluating what is criminalized in the first place than flailing about, speculating about how long Aaron's sentence would have been, what the government "threatened him" with, etc. In short: I take issue with the 35-year number not because I think that, in reality, the sentence was so short that Aaron had nothing to worry about, but because it is a misleading (because it is misinformed) starting point for any meaningful discussion.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

You wrote this: >As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this, why shouldn't it be fair to factor [the purported 35-year maximum sentence] in when trying to get an idea of how Swartz felt? . . .They lie to the public and exaggerate to the accused, in order to instill fear, prop up careers, and coerce the accused. That's what I am responding to. Beyond that, it sounds like we're not disagreeing much, except for this small point: it is true, as you say, that being convicted of any felony at all is a huge deal. And probably even more so for Aaron Swartz. But that doesn't mean that the difference between a six-month sentence and a 35-year sentence is not also incredibly significant! I sympathize with those who think that this debate over the length of Aaron's potential and likely sentences misses the point. But I think that is just another criticism that ought to be leveled at media outlets and activists who continue to repeat the 35-year number without explanation or qualification. Those people repeat the 35-year figure precisely because they do regard it as significant and, often, reiterate it as a way of inflaming people's passions. I think this is a dishonest way of framing and spurring the debate. I, like you it seems, think that we would be better off reevaluating what is criminalized in the first place than flailing about, speculating about how long Aaron's sentence would have been, what the government "threatened him" with, etc. In short: I take issue with the 35-year number not because I think that, in reality, the sentence was so short that Aaron had nothing to worry about, but because it is a misleading (because it is misinformed) starting point for any meaningful discussion.