"Yes, Ms. Ortiz, you obviously can “only imagine.” Because if you felt it, as obviously as Reif did, it would move you first to listen, and then to think. You’re so keen to prove that you understand this case better than your press releases about Aaron’s “crime” (those issued when Aaron still drew breath) made it seem (“the prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain”). But if your prosecutors recognized this, then this is the question to answer:
Why was he being charged with 13 felonies?"
Swartz was being charged for what he did, not for why he did it. Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. I'll buy that this was a misguided attempt at civil disobedience, but the point of civil disobedience is to pay the price: that's where the protest truly begins, not when you do the deed.
Why was he being charged with 13 felonies?"
Swartz was being charged for what he did, not for why he did it. Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them. I'll buy that this was a misguided attempt at civil disobedience, but the point of civil disobedience is to pay the price: that's where the protest truly begins, not when you do the deed.