There's a difference between the word of the law and how it is enforced, especially in courts. Pick a topic and try to determine how what you see in the courts "naturally" flows from the constitution on down to whatever "decision."
If you begin asking the government where they claim their authority for activity XYZ comes from, curious and interesting things start to happen.
Aaron's case is all the more egregious, as the "injured party" was not interested in pursuing him for restitution. No injured party (with a valid complaint) = no case.
Prostitutors (as they are called in some circles) are waaay over the line in exceeding any legitimate authority. They say this is a "nation of laws," not of men... tell that to an up and coming federal judge looking to notch up any/every conviction imaginable.
Probably 80% of all "crimes" are imagined. Todays 'outrage of the day' is the grade school girl who made "terroristic threats" by pointing a pink Hello Kitty soap bubble gun at her classmates:
It's too late for Aaron, but I implore anyone facing similar to realize you don't 'go at them' head on. Prosecutors and their hired help (the judge) make it seem as though the game is Sumo; toe to toe and the bigger mass wins. In reality the game is Aikido, the mass of officious mumbo-jumbo coming at you can't stand against a few well placed questions.
The outcome may still go wrong for you, but at least you'll know for a fact that we are a nation of men, not laws.
EDIT: this just came through my inbox: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/did-the-government-drive-aaron-swartz-to-suicide/
To be fair, that's the first mention I've seen that MIT had not "declined to prosecute," but no mention of whether they did... it still looks like the prosecutor led the charge.
Keep Up with TechRepublic