> With a goal of "increasing freedom," there is no line to be drawn, and the confrontations you predict are a signal of decreased freedom.
Agreed. But you should never lift more than your back can handle.
> One can call it a perverse incentive, but to the point he had reached, the confrontation was way out of proportion to the acts.
We're fully in agreement here. But there are many examples of such extreme overreaches, recall the music sharing verdict and a bunch of other examples in the hacking / media sphere. This is not an isolated case at all. The differentiating factors are: (1) the defendant was for a change an exceptionally nice person, (2) the defendant knew a lot of people and was known by a lot of people and (3) he was clearly acting in what he thought was the best interest of all of us.
> You can call this unsustainable, but what other choice is there?
Unsustainable for Aaron in particular.
> "Welp, the interests of less-freedom don't want this, so I guess I shouldn't do it."
No, that's definitely not where I'm heading. I do want this and it is worth something, maybe even worth a lot.
> However, that the hammer was brought down so heavily tells me that on the part of the status quo there is a real weakness and a real fear that people might go in the directions he did.
Yes, I agree, and this overreach has exposed another weakness all by itself. A just justice system doesn't need scare tactics.
> Like the Boston Massacre, we will soon find ourselves in a propaganda battle. Ortiz' husband's mockery of Aaron Swartz's supporters, and her hardening of her stance (while parrying responsibility) is just the first step in circling the wagons.
Consider the battle joined. I will not forget about this and it will shape my actions for a long time to come.
> Sen. John Cornyn is now asking questions of the Attorney General about all this, so now we know the people at the top have heard the call. Prepare for additions to this story.
Agreed. But you should never lift more than your back can handle.
> One can call it a perverse incentive, but to the point he had reached, the confrontation was way out of proportion to the acts.
We're fully in agreement here. But there are many examples of such extreme overreaches, recall the music sharing verdict and a bunch of other examples in the hacking / media sphere. This is not an isolated case at all. The differentiating factors are: (1) the defendant was for a change an exceptionally nice person, (2) the defendant knew a lot of people and was known by a lot of people and (3) he was clearly acting in what he thought was the best interest of all of us.
> You can call this unsustainable, but what other choice is there?
Unsustainable for Aaron in particular.
> "Welp, the interests of less-freedom don't want this, so I guess I shouldn't do it."
No, that's definitely not where I'm heading. I do want this and it is worth something, maybe even worth a lot.
> However, that the hammer was brought down so heavily tells me that on the part of the status quo there is a real weakness and a real fear that people might go in the directions he did.
Yes, I agree, and this overreach has exposed another weakness all by itself. A just justice system doesn't need scare tactics.
> Like the Boston Massacre, we will soon find ourselves in a propaganda battle. Ortiz' husband's mockery of Aaron Swartz's supporters, and her hardening of her stance (while parrying responsibility) is just the first step in circling the wagons.
Consider the battle joined. I will not forget about this and it will shape my actions for a long time to come.
> Sen. John Cornyn is now asking questions of the Attorney General about all this, so now we know the people at the top have heard the call. Prepare for additions to this story.
I guarantee it.