Joan Vennochi may have found a law professor who thinks the charges “were pretty much what any good federal prosecutor would have charged” (“Swartz case is sad, but not an overreach,” Op-ed, Jan. 17), but we agree with the outpouring of comments by law professors with an opposing view.
In a legalistically senseless assertion, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s declaration that “stealing is stealing” declines to differentiate between cases where personal gain is the motive and cases such as Aaron Swartz’s, where there was no profit motive and where the alleged victim did not want charges pursued. By her reasoning, we guess Ortiz would also wipe away first, second, and third degrees of murder in favor of a similar one-murder-category-fits-all philosophy.
Comments
Amen.
The "profit motive" DID exist in this case as is always the case with theft. Aaron Swartz felt that money should not be charged for information that was subsidized with taxpayer's money. He successfyully demonstrated that this information could and should be freely accessed. And that was his profit.
That is not what 'profit' means in this context.