PM5692: Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz did nothing wrong under heavenly law. He was persecuted by the false and worthless law of the usurpers, who are evil and who love every form of evil - may their names be accursed. Those who prosecuted him were evil people, who in the depths of their hearts delighted in evil, and the blood of innocents stains their hands - we can be sure he is not the only one to have been destroyed by their wicked delight in destruction.

To quote his own family:
Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims.
His family spoke the truth. The "US Attorney's office" is full of evil people, who delight in all manner of evil, and hate the truly good, the truly beautiful, and the truly true; myriad wicked demons infest their hearts.

The criminal justice system as currently constituted is gravely immoral. Anyone who participates in it in a non-defensive capacity is guilty of grave immorality.

There can be no doubt that some people are so dangerous to the safety of others that they must be imprisoned for instance, some people who are guilty of violent acts against others, such as battery or rape or murder. However, imprisonment must be reserved for the most serious cases only, when society clearly has no other choice. In lesser cases, the infringement of individual rights inherent in imprisonment cannot be morally justified; therefore, to imprison or seek to imprison someone in any of those lesser cases is to commit a gravely immoral act. Imprisonment for mere property damage, without any violence or risk of physical danger to human beings, is in general morally unjustifiable, although it might be justified in the most extreme cases; however, whatever you think of what Aaron Swartz did, what he did is not one of the most extreme cases.

Therefore, seeking to have Aaron Swartz imprisoned was gravely immoral, far more immoral than anything that Aaron Swartz did could possibly be. Regardless of the status of their acts under positive law (which does not have any inherent moral significance), under moral law, Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann are guilty of crimes far more serious than anything that Aaron Swartz ever did not just for what they have done to him, but for what they have done, and sought to do, to countless others. Since Ortiz and Heymann attempted to commit a gravely immoral act against Aaron Swartz, and their doing so was a major causative factor in his suicide, it follows that Ortiz and Heymann are morally responsible for his death.

Immoral acts do not become moral simply because a majority of people approve of them; therefore, the alleged democratic backing for the crimes of Ortiz and Heymann has no moral relevance. A positive law that conflicts with moral law is morally null and void; so claims that they were "just obeying the law" are also morally irrelevant.
Comments