Citizens of a thriving democracy need room for civil disobedience – even when we are 100% wrong*.

What principle or value would any of us be willing to serve 35 years and pay $1M in fines for? Shit, it seems like I would get less time in jail for getting hammered, driving home, and plowing into and killing a teenager on a mountain bike than I would if I would have tested the limits of copyright and intellectual property the way Aaron did.

What I am saying is give room for the Aaron Swartzes in this world to try and fail. If Swartz believed strongly enough in what he was doing to serve 6-12 months in prison, let it play out in the courts! There is good reason why non-lawyers like myself know legal cases like Plessy, Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Goodrich – it’s because citizens who could not find remedies through representative government found relief in our other co-equal branch of government. That is just as much part of our democracy as voting, folks.

I know that we can’t just have unfettered access to the limited resources of the courts, but we can’t allow the government to just throw insane charges at non-violent, non-dangerous citizens just to coerce the citizen to take jail time and prevent a judge or jury from deciding who is in the right.

I mean if I was in one of those fantastic movie scenarios where I was 100% innocent and my options were going to trial and the penalty was losing was 35 years and $1M, or I could plea out for a 6 month sentence, I could probably be coerced into serving jail time as an innocent man.

If democracy literally means power/rule of the common people, then we can’t allow this unfettered prosecutorial power to squash non-violent civil disobedience.

__________________________________________
*For this argument, I am not taking the position that Swartz was right or wrong – it’s irrelevant here. I am saying that Swartz should have the chance to be 100% wrong with out ruining his life, because if he was right, or democracy and perhaps our society could benefit.

Happy to be shown where I was in error, but just saying that my statement is “not exactly truthful” doesn’t cut it. The only way Ortiz could have guaranteed a lesser sentence would have been to drop the felony charges in exchange for a plea. But she was not willing to do that.

And while we’re here, it’s important to note that the “deal” Ortiz reportedly offered Swartz – pleading guilty to felony charges in exchange for a recommendation of a 6-month prison sentence – was no guarantee of a 6-month sentence. As Ortiz acknowledged in her first statement on the matter, “[u]ltimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge.” So even if Swartz took the deal, he was still potentially looking at a very long time in prison.

Yes, using “potentially” is accurate but it’s not exactly truthful, you even quoted a judge expressing concerns on the charges. From that you pushed the idea of a lengthy prison sentence which in all likely would not have happened.

I feel for the family and what Aaron Swartz was going through. I’m not the only one, but I’m close to someone with depression and while I can never completely understand what they are going through I understand how it should not be taken lightly.

Turning Carmen Ortiz into a boogeyman is not the answer.