It is a way of saying that when the end goal is “good” (for whatever value of “good ” used here. Sometimes, that includes evil. Point of view matters a lot here), if you have to use less than forthright means to get there, so be it.

It does NOT mean “BUT I WAS RIGHT, SO YOU CAN’T TOUCH ME”. That is what I call “8-year-old logic”, because that’s about the age you stop putting up with it. Using MLK as an example is particularly stupid, because MLK was always operating under the assumption he could be jailed or killed. (both ended up happening) He never expected to dodge the consequences of his (at the time illegal) means. He knew the ends were worth jail time or even his life, and in that manner, justified the means. Same think with Malcom X, and the rest of the civil rights folks.

They knew the penalties were real, and paid them, even when those penalties included their lives. They knew ahead of time what could happen. They watched it happen to friends and family, and still they did what they felt had to be done.

Aaron Swartz never seriously considered the penalties for his actions, and, in what can only be called immaturity, was shocked when his assumption that because he and others felt what he was doing was right, that he should pay no penalty at all.

People can call Aaron a genius all day long, but if that is how he actually viewed the world, then he was not a genius, he was a savant at best. This reminds me of the reply during the SOPA/PIPA kerfuffle, to the “Congress needs to learn how the internet works” meme: “The internet needs to learn how congress works”. I agree with tom that the prosecutors were being especially egregious in their behavior with regard to swartz, but that is always a potential outcome.

He spent more time researching “supertaster” than he did “the laws I’m about to break”. It’s pretty clear he didn’t consider the latter that important, and just like the horse thief about to be hung, he felt little remorse for his actions, but he was terribly, terribly sorry he’d been caught. As Sammy Davis Jr. once sang, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”

I also agree with tom that Aaron’s goals were noble, but his methods were flawed on many levels, most of all by his overweening arrogance in assuming he was somehow untouchable. Once that was shattered, it was obvious he had no idea how to function in the world outside of the internet, and for that, I feel equal parts sympathy and indifference.

[I've edited out approximately 250 words of self-satisfied, twee, precious self-justification and attack, including both Latin and Shakespeare. No, you don't get to fling poo and run on my blog. I was planning on ending his participation today anyway. -- TN]

I say this with compassion, for you, for Aaron’s friends and family, and for Tom and Dori. When someone reacts to a suicide in the way that Tom did, your first thought should have been, “There must be something behind this I don’t know…”

[It's apparent your reading comprehension is flawed. The assertion is not mine; it's from his partner's public blog post, linked above. She had a better, more recent view of Swartz's mental state than anyone else, including the quoted lawyer, and I believe her. -- TN]

2. The plea deal was “plead guilty to 13 counts and you’ll only get 6 months in jail.” In other words, don’t defend yourself and go to jail for 6 months. Considering that JSTOR and MIT didn’t want to press charges, why would he consider pleading guilty to all 13 counts?

[I am uninterested in that sort of speculation. In this comment, I've merely pointed to factual reports and tried to puncture a false talking point. -- TN]

[I've repeatedly said I have no interest in measuring my life against other people's. And I don't need any justification (or your permission) to say anything I wish on my own blog. -- TN]

If I owe Tom an apology, then he owes one to all the people who are mourning Aaron these days for he has decided to belittle their pain with this post.

[I've belittled nobody's pain. Suicide is horrible for the survivors, and they have my sympathy and compassion (I expressed that for his partner in my original post). But the facts that a man kills himself and others mourn does not mean the man must be considered a saint. You, on the other hand, came to my blog and started trying to insult me. I'm sure that you are above reproach, however. --TN]

My view is that when one walks into a funeral and tries to bully those left behind, someone has to stand up to that person. A corollary to that view is that if the person has a legitimate reason for their action, the person should be above reproach.

[This is stupid analysis on several different levels. I've written a blog post, on my personal blog. I've made no attempt to shove my opinions in the face of those who mourned Swartz's death. I've walked nowhere. Anyone who read this post came here of their own volition and read it, or other folks chose to copy and paste it elsewhere. I did exactly as much publicity for this blog post as I do for every other post: I wrote it, then tweeted I wrote a post, with a link. All my tweets flow through to Facebook. The stuff about how I have to be above reproach to have an unpopular opinion is your fantasy. -- TN]

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

As someone who knows and loves both you and Tom, I have to say this publicly. You owe Tom a massive apology.

Of course, you’re welcome to whatever political, legal, or technical arguments you wish to disprove Tom’s post. But the personal, “what have you done?” challenge is always tacky. And in Tom’s case, it’s more wrong on more levels than you can imagine.

Because the answer, which I state publicly only with Tom and his wife Dori’s permission, is this:

What Tom has done with his life is raise another man’s child to manhood, after the child’s father committed suicide.