Aaron Swartz Commits Suicide at 26

[corpgator]

While it might not have been the only cause, the catalyst seems to be the pending case of his theft of and plan to publish the Jstor database openly on the internet.

It's just sad since we the public are the ones who have paid for those articles to be written, but we don't have access to them. Hopefully a thousand more advocates step up to take his place.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/aaron_swartz_dead_reddit_rss_pioneer_commits_suici de_at_26.html

[bluelang]

Why would you post this without a link to the conspiracy theories?

[cocodrilo]

Can someone hack for us the 1,100 JFK assassination-related documents still being withheld by the CIA on grounds (50 years later) of "national security"?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Can someone hack for us the 1,100 JFK assassination-related documents still being withheld by the CIA on grounds (50 years later) of "national security"?

Good luck with that. The U.S. government still classifies a mountain of documents going all the way back to WW2 and further.

What could they possibly be hiding?

[cocodrilo]

What could they possibly be hiding?

Who knows? As far as JFK is concerned, we all know that Oswald did it.

[Juggernautz]

rip

[philnotfil]

Relevant. (https://twitter.com/devillesylvain/status/288746793842393092)

we didn't read half of the papers we cite because they are behind a paywall #overlyhonestmethods

[ncbullgator]

Good luck with that. The U.S. government still classifies a mountain of documents going all the way back to WW2 and further.

What could they possibly be hiding?

Our Alien forefathers.

[philnotfil]

Curious, JSTOR was actually opposed to the federal prosecution of Swartz. They settled their grievances with him in 2011. We probably won't ever know the full story behind the government's continued persecution of Swartz, but it would be interesting to know.

[DanseRusse]

Good luck with that. The U.S. government still classifies a mountain of documents going all the way back to WW2 and further.

What could they possibly be hiding?

The government hides nothing. They are transparent a reveal all to its people..... Baaaah baaaaahhh.

What I really meant to say is....

[corpgator]

They were using the Jstor charges to go after him for the PACER theft.

[oaklandroadie]

Whenever I hear of a young person committing suicide by hanging, I instantly question whether it was accidental due to auto-erotic asphyxia. Was he clothed when found? Were his pants around his ankles? What was in the DVD player?

[cocodrilo]

Whenever I hear of a young person committing suicide by hanging, I instantly question whether it was accidental due to auto-erotic asphyxia.

That's basically the same as suicide. Death by stupidity.

I don't know how you can learn about this method of sexual gratification without knowing or being told about the risks. I mean, aren't they spelled out in the manual?

[corpgator]

He had a history of depression and was extremely intelligent. I doubt it was an accident one way or the other.

[PIMking]

so how can we blame this on guns?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

While I am sympathetic to the young man's plight and think the laws are too draconian, I am also of the opinion that Anne Althouse sums this up pretty well.

He knew what he was doing was criminal, and he was a very intelligent man who chose to do it anyway and conceived of what he was doing as actively virtuous. Wouldn't a public trial serve his purposes in critiquing the laws he opposed and arguing for the liberation of the data files he tried to set free? It's civil disobedience, which — in classic form — demands that you take the law's punishment. That's part of the acted-out argument that the law is immoral.

He knowingly and willingly committed numerous felonies, did he not? I'm not hearing the lawyer say that Swartz didn't do what the prosecutors said he did. The argument was that the law ought to be different. If you break the laws as a way to make that argument, how is the prosecutor supposed to respond? Your argument is to the public and to the legislators.

To say he didn't want to be a felon is to express a wish about the past. And it's a wish that wasn't even true. Swartz wanted to be a felon who eludes prosecution. Who gets that wish in a system of law? The intelligent, educated, nice-looking, good guy with lovely friends and family? The person who credibly threatens self-murder? The activist capable of articulating why the crime he committed should not be a crime?

---Anne Althouse, Law Professor at UW

[Lawdog88]

Curious, JSTOR was actually opposed to the federal prosecution of Swartz. They settled their grievances with him in 2011. We probably won't ever know the full story behind the government's continued persecution of Swartz, but it would be interesting to know.


Could it have been because he committed crimes ?

Or is it always persecution when we have a cuddly-looking (to some people) defendant ?

[corpgator]

Alex Stamos, an expert who was going to testify on Swart's behalf, said he didn't do much wrong at all comparing it to being inconsiderate like writing a check at the supermarket when there's a long line.

http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/

[philnotfil]

Conspiracy theorists, get to work.

Aaron Swartz prosecutor 'drove another hacker to suicide in 2008 after he named him in a cyber crime case' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262831/Revealed-Aaron-Swartz-prosecutor-drove-hacker-suicide-2008-named-cyber-crime-case.html)

Assistant United States Attorney Stephen Heymann had reportedly been insisting on jail time for Swartz and was refusing to negotiate a plea deal on the 30 years in jail he faced for stealing academic papers.

In 2008, another young hacker also committed suicide after being named in a case Heymann was leading.

James said he had nothing to do with the retail hack but believed that the feds would try to pin it on him, according to Buzz Feed. In his suicide note, James said he had no faith in the justice system, which he believed were trying to tie him to a crime he did not commit.

'I have no faith in the "justice" system. Perhaps my actions today, and this letter, will send a stronger message to the public. Either way, I have lost control over this situation, and this is my only way to regain control. Remember, it's not whether you win or lose, it's whether I win or lose, and sitting in jail for 20, ten, or even five years for a crime I didn't commit is not me winning. I die free.'

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

No one is responsible for their own behavior, I guess. Including following the law and after getting caught, committing suicide.

[KelticGator]

Overzealous prosecutor?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Could it have been because he committed crimes ?

Or is it always persecution when we have a cuddly-looking (to some people) defendant ?

Yeah, downloading academic journals is a serious "crime"!

He should have been beheaded before he was allowed to off himself!

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Yeah, downloading academic journals is a serious "crime"!


They might well be a very stupid laws. And the prosecutors might have been much too overzealous. But he intentionally broke those laws. And not just misdemeanors either. He was accused of committing 13 different felonies.

We live in a society that has way too many laws and we still yet make more. Look at the new laws on gun control.

Yet once a law is on the books, prosecutors and police have a duty to prosecute people after they are arrested. If the police and prosecutors cheery pick which laws they will enforce and which ones they will not, then we have tyranny.

The answer is to eliminate stupid laws and regulations which will reduce governmental intrusions on our lives.

Yet many of the people that decry this incident are all for increase regulation on a constitutional protected right. You can't have it both ways, folks.

[ChartsandGrafs]

They might well be a very stupid laws. And the prosecutors might have been much too overzealous. But he intentionally broke those laws. And not just misdemeanors either. He was accused of committing 13 different felonies.

So what? It's not a real crime to break stupid laws.

if the government made it a crime to eat cantaloupe, it wouldn't truly be a crime.

Yet once a law is on the books, prosecutors and police have a duty to prosecute people after they are arrested. If the police and prosecutors cheery pick which laws they will enforce and which ones they will not, then we have tyranny.

It's interesting that you would say this, because it's basically the same defense the Nazis used at Nuremberg. "We were just following orders, it was the law".

It's not cherry picking the enforcement of laws that makes tyranny, it's the laws themselves.

The answer is to eliminate stupid laws and regulations which will reduce governmental intrusions on our lives.

There you go. Now you're on the right track.

[DeanMeadGator]

Can someone hack for us the 1,100 JFK assassination-related documents still being withheld by the CIA on grounds (50 years later) of "national security"?

They all show that there was another shooter on the grassy knoll! :laugh:

I wonder how many times the words "John Kennedy" and "conspiracy" have been used in the same sentence since 1965 [plus or minus one year]. If Deep Throat has been identified, what are the chances that a plot to successfully kill the President could and would be held secret for the past 48 years [plus or minus one year]?

I've heard that there is a conspiracy to cover up the capture of little green men at Area 51. :laugh:

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So what? It's not a real crime to break stupid laws.

Damn, how many people have been arrested for breaking stupid laws? Pot laws are stupid. Lots of people in jail for that.

if the government made it a crime to eat cantaloupe, it wouldn't truly be a crime.

And now you begin to understand why we limited government people get so concerned about the increasing number of laws, regulations and intrusions into our lives. Because a lot of stuff going on for a long time are just as stupid as what you write.

It's interesting that you would say this, because it's basically the same defense the Nazis used at Nuremberg. "We were just following orders, it was the law".

Indeed

It's not cherry picking the enforcement of laws that makes tyranny, it's the laws themselves.

You are wrong. Let's use a real life example. David Gregory possessed a high capacity magazine to illustrate why he thought restrictions to high capacity magazines need to be part of federal law. The problem, the location in which he possessed that clip fr illustrative purposes had a law against possessing that clip FOR ANY REASON. He was breaking the law.

He was neither arrested or prosecuted for doing it, for the very reason you articulate. As others point out he was not being intentionally dangerous.

However, other people in the same area have been arrested and prosecuted for the same violation. And many of them intended no harm either. For example, there was one fellow going to a legally sanctioned gun training course in the same local as Gregory. He was in training to become a US Marshall and needed to pass that course. He lived in another state where high capacity magazines were legal. He was told to bring his own equipment. He was pulled over for a traffic ticket. His car was searched and he was arrested. THE MAN WAS A POLICEMAN IN TRAINING. Yet he was arrested and prosecuted for an innocent possession of the magazine.


Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/the-agitator)is a pretty good website that talks about many different forms of government overreach.

[DeanMeadGator]

No one is responsible for their own behavior, I guess. Including following the law and after getting caught, committing suicide.

As the survivor of the suicide of a very close family member, I can tell you that there are many reasons why someone decides to take their own life.

Suicide is horrible, and should not be discussed lightly. The fact is that even children commit suicide, and that is no doubt a living hell for the parents.

[Lawdog88]

Yeah, downloading academic journals is a serious "crime"!

He should have been beheaded before he was allowed to off himself!


Theft is a crime, and everything is relative. People who own creative works, whether scholars, photographers, artists, movie directors, entertainers, etc., try to protect their product. To steal it (download it without paying for it) is prosecuted these days, just like any other form of theft.

I always have clients who rationalize the (non)gravity of their offenses, by saying things like, (drug traffickers): "hey, I know murderers who didn't get this much time;" or, (murderers): "hey, I know child rapers who didn't get this much time;" or (white-collar guys), "hey, I got more time than murderers, traffickers, and baby rapers, what gives ?"; etc., etc., etc.

Don't like laws, try another country where a man can be truly free. And be sure to write when you find work.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Theft is a crime, and everything is relative. People who own creative works, whether scholars, photographers, artists, movie directors, entertainers, etc., try to protect their product. To steal it (download it without paying for it) is prosecuted these days, just like any other form of theft.

I always have clients who rationalize the (non)gravity of their offenses, by saying things like, (drug traffickers): "hey, I know murderers who didn't get this much time;" or, (murderers): "hey, I know child rapers who didn't get this much time;" or (white-collar guys), "hey, I got more time than murderers, traffickers, and baby rapers, what gives ?"; etc., etc., etc.

Don't like laws, try another country where a man can be truly free. And be sure to write when you find work.

Downloading information from the internet, or the copying of intellectual property, isn't theft, since intellectual property isn't truly property. And just because it's prosecuted doesn't mean it's theft.

If you don't like me expressing my views, try a country where people can't speak freely. I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Damn, how many people have been arrested for breaking stupid laws? Pot laws are stupid. Lots of people in jail for that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a crime is anything the government says it is. In other words, if the government says eating cantaloupe is a crime, and I eat cantaloupe anyway, that means I've committed a crime.

Is this what you believe?

And now you begin to understand why we limited government people get so concerned about the increasing number of laws, regulations and intrusions into our lives. Because a lot of stuff going on for a long time are just as stupid as what you write.

LOL, "limited government". There's no such thing and there never has been.

Government represents a monopoly on force. If a group of people have control of that monopoly while another group of people doesn't, who's going to limit the former group from using their monopoly to exploit the latter group? You think they are going to limit themselves? Of course not. It's fantasy.

You "limited government' people are frustrated because you've been living a delusion and can't figure out why the delusion doesn't produce the desired real-life results.

You are wrong. Let's use a real life example. David Gregory possessed a high capacity magazine to illustrate why he thought restrictions to high capacity magazines need to be part of federal law. The problem, the location in which he possessed that clip fr illustrative purposes had a law against possessing that clip FOR ANY REASON. He was breaking the law.

Irrelevant, as the law shouldn't even exist in the first place. It's a tyrannical, stupid law, and his supposed crime was nothing but political.

Political crimes aren't real crimes.

He was neither arrested or prosecuted for doing it, for the very reason you articulate. As others point out he was not being intentionally dangerous.

Excellent. I don't see a problem here.

However, other people in the same area have been arrested and prosecuted for the same violation. And many of them intended no harm either. For example, there was one fellow going to a legally sanctioned gun training course in the same local as Gregory. He was in training to become a US Marshall and needed to pass that course. He lived in another state where high capacity magazines were legal. He was told to bring his own equipment. He was pulled over for a traffic ticket. His car was searched and he was arrested. THE MAN WAS A POLICEMAN IN TRAINING. Yet he was arrested and prosecuted for an innocent possession of the magazine.

What are you saying here? That as long as stupid, tyrannical laws are enforced uniformly and consistently across society that you don't have as much of a problem with it? To focus on selective enforcement of stupid laws instead of the imposition of the stupid laws themselves is to miss the whole point, man.

So what am I wrong about, exactly?

[Lawdog88]

Downloading information from the internet, or the copying of intellectual property, isn't theft, since intellectual property isn't truly property. And just because it's prosecuted doesn't mean it's theft.

If you don't like me expressing my views, try a country where people can't speak freely. I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.


I hear bizzarro world might be a nice selection for those who think that intellectual property is not protected by law.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I hear bizzarro world might be a nice selection for those who think that intellectual property is not protected by law.

Nice straw man, captain.

[Lawdog88]

Nice debate shifting, private.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Nice debate shifting, private.

So says the guy arguing fallaciously.

Kettle, pot, pot, kettle.

[Lawdog88]

If you don't like me expressing my views,


Fallaciously.

[corpgator]

An expert on the subject said he only broke a few minor laws and nothing that even remotely warranted 30 years in jail. He was being railroaded by the prosecutor. JStor itself said they didn't want to prosecute.

Not to mention that the writers have to pay themselves to get their work published on these databases and not the other way around.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Fallaciously.

Not really.

What's good for the goose...

Don't like laws, try another country where a man can be truly free. And be sure to write when you find work.

[Gatorrick22]

Our Alien forefathers.

Been watching "Ancient Aliens" lately? :laugh:


....great entertainment value.

[92gator]

Why would you post this without a link to the conspiracy theories?

Probably because there aren't any....in turn, probably because no one's moved to outlaw rope...

(yet).

:nervous smile:

[Lawdog88]

Not really.

What's good for the goose...


Right.

And did you happen to notice that you invented out of whole cloth and interjected: "If you don't like me expressing my views . . . ."

Which I had said nothing about (you expressing views).

But do carry on, and do write some more about the alternate reality. People on this side would love to hear more.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a crime is anything the government says it is. In other words, if the government says eating cantaloupe is a crime, and I eat cantaloupe anyway, that means I've committed a crime.


You are conflating moral behavior with crime. A crime is what legislators of a particular country say it is, no matter if they are elected, appointed or take that mantle by force.

Moral behavior can be and often is a different animal than a crime. I think original intent was for the two to be the same.

LOL, "limited government". There's no such thing and there never has been.

Perhaps. But government is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It is something we humans have created. As such, we can change the definitions of its existence, if we have the will. Just like the founders of our country did.

Government represents a monopoly on force. If a group of people have control of that monopoly while another group of people doesn't, who's going to limit the former group from using their monopoly to exploit the latter group? You think they are going to limit themselves? Of course not. It's fantasy.

Agreed. You describe the fundamental danger of government. Our forefathers tried to limit its powers. And by in large did a decent job. And where they could not limit powers, they separated the powers.

They also gave us codified rights.

All that said, they recognized that people in government have a tendency to want to do nothing more than grow the size, scope and power of the government. In fact, they almost recognized it was inevitable that would happen..

"What kind of government have you given us?"

was asked to Ben Franklin. To which he replied;


"A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

You "limited government' people are frustrated because you've been living a delusion and can't figure out why the delusion doesn't produce the desired real-life results.

I find it funny I am being lectured on "delusion" by a guy that for all intents and purposes is a real life conspiracy theorists.

What are you saying here? That as long as stupid, tyrannical laws are enforced uniformly and consistently across society that you don't have as much of a problem with it? To focus on selective enforcement of stupid laws instead of the imposition of the stupid laws themselves is to miss the whole point, man.

So what am I wrong about, exactly?

When there are a lot of stupid laws on the books, then government officials seem to be wont to pick and choose which ones they will enforce and which ones they will not enforce.

In a very, very limited sense, that *might* work as long as EVERYONE agrees which laws are stupid and which ones are not. All citizens and especially all law enforcement. And then everyone acts accordingly.

However, if you are a guy that has a stupid law enforced against you and the next guys does not, perhaps because he is connected, then that is tyranny.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Right.

And did you happen to notice that you invented out of whole cloth and interjected: "If you don't like me expressing my views . . . ."

Only after you invented out of whole cloth and interjected:

Don't like laws, try another country where a man can be truly free. And be sure to write when you find work.

Stupid suggestions will receive stupid responses.

Which I had said nothing about (you expressing views).

Sure you did, you suggested that I leave the country, based on the viewpoint expressed in my post.

Are you really incapable of following this exchange?

But do carry on, and do write some more about the alternate reality. People on this side would love to hear more.

LOL, "alternate reality".

The irony!

[ChartsandGrafs]

You are conflating moral behavior with crime. A crime is what legislators of a particular country say it is, no matter if they are elected, appointed or take that mantle by force.

So you think legislators and bureaucrats dictate reality? That they can declare anything they want a crime and it automatically becomes true?

Can they also dictate that the color blue is actually green?

Moral behavior can be and often is a different animal than a crime. I think original intent was for the two to be the same.

It doesn't matter what the original intent was. If the government says that eating cantaloupe is a crime, it doesn't automatically become true. They can punish you for it, but you haven't really committed a crime, as there would be no victim and no harm done to any other party.

We don't all become criminals just because a bunch of legislators and bureaucrats say so.

Perhaps. But government is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It is something we humans have created. As such, we can change the definitions of its existence, if we have the will. Just like the founders of our country did.

Replace the word 'government' with the word 'Mafia' and read your response again.

You can't really change the "definitions of its existence". You can replace it and tweak it a bit, but it's still just a mechanism by which one group of people dominate and exploit another group of people.

Agreed. You describe the fundamental danger of government. Our forefathers tried to limit its powers. And by in large did a decent job. And where they could not limit powers, they separated the powers.

How are you able to so easily ignore reality? How can you call the behemoth we have in Washington a "decent job"? Look at it. Be honest with yourself. We're up against a nightmare, and it didn't just spring into being. The Constitution was written in such a way that this outcome was inevitable. I don't care if the Founders were hoping for a better outcome than this. This is what they created.

They also gave us codified rights.

Correction: Governments don't give rights, codified or not.

All that said, they recognized that people in government have a tendency to want to do nothing more than grow the size, scope and power of the government. In fact, they almost recognized it was inevitable that would happen..

"What kind of government have you given us?"

was asked to Ben Franklin. To which he replied;

"A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

Right, they knew what would happen. They knew they were creating a monster. But what did they care? Most of the Founders were quite wealthy and owned much land. They knew they would be dead before the whole scam unraveled.

I find it funny I am being lectured on "delusion" by a guy that for all intents and purposes is a real life conspiracy theorists.

Of course, there's no such thing as government conspiracy. The government always tells us the truth. According to you, government also dictates reality.

Yes, the word 'delusion' is apt here.

When there are a lot of stupid laws on the books, then government officials seem to be wont to pick and choose which ones they will enforce and which ones they will not enforce.

In a very, very limited sense, that *might* work as long as EVERYONE agrees which laws are stupid and which ones are not. All citizens and especially all law enforcement. And then everyone acts accordingly.

However, if you are a guy that has a stupid law enforced against you and the next guys does not, perhaps because he is connected, then that is tyranny.

You're still somehow missing the point.

We have two problems here:

1. The unjust imposition of ubiquitous stupid, tyrannical laws.
2. Selective enforcement of ubiquitous stupid, tyrannical laws.

Why are you focused on the second problem and not the first? After all, even if you manage to solve the second problem, you still have the first to contend with.

You're essentially chasing a shadow.

[Lawdog88]

Only after you invented out of whole cloth and interjected:

Stupid suggestions will receive stupid responses.

Sure you did, you suggested that I leave the country, based on the viewpoint expressed in my post.

Are you really incapable of following this exchange?

LOL, "alternate reality".

The irony!


I had no intention to - and really did not suggest earlier - that you physically leave the country, and certainly not based on your viewpoint about anything.

That took some creative construction on your part, which was based on your predisposition to take offense with anyone who disagrees with your view . . . obviously.

Thus, what I said was really just a figure of speech commonly used in an message-board academic discussion, i.e., to "try another country;" but your fertile imagination was able to ferret out a literal meaning to something that was neither there, nor intended.

But I am now.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Damn, discussing something with chart is like trying to capture smoke.

I step back from our discussion chart. Certainly not because I think you are are right, but that your underlying premises seems to shift and change too much.

[ChartsandGrafs]

But I am now.

Good. Maybe next time you'll think twice before tossing out the intellectually lazy equivalent of, "if you don't like it leave".

But considering the source, I won't get my hopes up.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I step back from our discussion chart. Certainly not because I think you are are right, but that your underlying premises seems to shift and change too much.

Very well, but let's not kid each other about what took place in this thread.

The old Grid wouldn't have waved the white flag as quickly as you did here.

[Lawdog88]

Good. Maybe next time you'll think twice before tossing out the intellectually lazy equivalent of, "if you don't like it leave".

But considering the source, I won't get my hopes up.


Maybe next time, you can keep your paranoia in check.

But I won't count on that, either.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Maybe next time, you can keep your paranoia in check.

But I won't count on that, either.

LOL, says the guy who's paranoid over another guy's alleged paranoia.

Time to take a chill pill, or twenty, and relax. It's just the internet, man.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Back to the topic at hand, I thought this blog bit was a pretty interesting take on the apparent Aaron Swartz suicide:

PACER and JSTOR are offensive. US court decisions are public domain decisions, but PACER charges for electronic access. Academic research is paid with taxpayer money, but JSTOR charges for access. JSTOR even charges for access to old public domain research, where the copyright has expired. These are examples of a State-granted monopoly, charging for access to information that should be free. Aaron Swartz was offended, and wanted to liberate the documents. With everyone having computers and the Internet, court documents and tax-funded research should be freely available to everyone.

The US Attorney was being unreasonable during plea bargain negotiations, insisting on a guilty plea on all counts and prison time. It was a politically-motivated prosecution, so the US Attorney had to make an example of Aaron Swartz. Aaron Swartz refused to settle, insisting he had done nothing wrong.

It is a farce that the US Attorney took a hard line prosecution with Aaron Swartz, but banksters who stole trillions of dollars were not prosecuted. Why prosecute insiders who will put up a fight, when you can go after someone defenseless?

As part of his “bail” arrangement, Aaron Swartz was not allowed to tell his side of the story on the Internet. He was not allowed to ask for donations to support his legal case. That’s an amusing legal trick. If you are charged with a politically-motivated prosecution, you are barred from publicly discussing your side of the case, while the US Attorney and State media issue press releases announcing your guilt.

http://www.realfreemarket.org/blog/2013/01/17/aaron-swartz-suicide-was-he-murdered/

[Lawdog88]

LOL, says the guy who's paranoid over another guy's alleged paranoia.

Time to take a chill pill, or twenty, and relax. It's just the internet, man.


Nerve. Was. Struck.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Nerve. Was. Struck.

OK. You can have the last word. There it was. It's all yours.

Moving on now...

[Lawdog88]

OK. You can have the last word. There it was. It's all yours.

Moving on now...


Overseas ?

Word. Finis. :laugh:

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

More from Althouse;


Swartz "was deeply committed to civil disobedience and to the moral imperative of breaking unjust laws."
"On the other hand, he seems to have had his soul crushed by the prospect that he would spend time in jail. This is an unusual combination. Usually the decision to engage in civil disobedience comes along with a willingness to take the punishment that the law imposes. But despite Swartz’s apparent interest in legal questions, he seems to have made his decision with a blind spot to the penalties that would actually follow. It’s a strange situation: Swartz was really interested in the law, and he knew he was violating the law. He knew a lot of lawyers who would have told him that this would likely happen if he went ahead with his plan. But there was some apparent blind spot that led him to act anyway."

Seems like the guy was immature in the ways of the world.