his main point, it seems to me, is that when compared with other rights protesters, swartz fought going to jail.
i don't know if that's true (and would black rights protesters have defended themselves legally if they had the means?), but it's an interesting point about tactics.
more generally, even though it wasn't the most informed article, i thought it was interesting - a smart person trying to understand a complex situation, not afraid to point out problems, and not afraid to acknowledge the lack of clear answers.
Firstly, civil rights protesters were charged with numerous crimes - not just related to the Jim Crow laws, but as part of an active campaign to silence them (Martin Luther King, for example, was charged with tax fraud by Alabama, which he was found innocent of).
Secondly, I don't see the relevance of the number of felonies being charged at any one time. Many in the civil rights movement were repeatedly arrested, charged, and tried over many, many years. And many faced length sentences off only one or two charges.
I'm not totally sure of the point you were trying to make, but if you're trying to equate Aaron Swartz's persecution with that of those in the civil rights movement then you're treading onto extremely shaky ground.
his main point, it seems to me, is that when compared with other rights protesters, swartz fought going to jail.
i don't know if that's true (and would black rights protesters have defended themselves legally if they had the means?), but it's an interesting point about tactics.
more generally, even though it wasn't the most informed article, i thought it was interesting - a smart person trying to understand a complex situation, not afraid to point out problems, and not afraid to acknowledge the lack of clear answers.