Public research should be free...right?

Aaron Swartz, a young computer genius was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment after committing suicide. Swartz stood accused of fraud and hacking charges after taking documents from JSTOR and releases them freely online. Two of the larger entities that were allegedly wronged from Swartz' actions were MIT and JSTOR both of which took a neutral stance and defended him respectively. Elliot Peters, Swartz' attorney disagreed with the charges against his client and I agree very much so. Peters said "obviously was not committing fraud" because "it was public research that should be freely available;" and that Swartz had the right to download from JSTOR, so he could not have gained unauthorized access. (Elliot Peters to the Associated press)

It is my personal believe that Swartz was not in the wrong at all. Public research done should be has free public access. He was an advocate not for copy right infringement but for the freedom of information which is a subject that has outrun the current legal system. I think that the government in this case overstepped their boundaries giving trumped up charges to Swartz that made little sense when his only supposed crime had no personal gain to himself. Swartz goal was to give knowledge to the public in an attempt to help people. I think its a noble cause and while his death was tragic what he has done already to stop policies like SOPA and to fight for public knowledge should be carried forth and the fight should continue.

If you wanna read up on the article and start finding more information this is a good place to start. http://news.yahoo.com/swartz-death-fuels-debate-over-computer-crime-012813164--finance.html