Wasn't a not-insignificant part of the prosecution established to be him breaking and entering into a secured room and then proceeding to force access to a network port ?
MIT and JSTOR declined to press such charges.
The government's charges were fraud charges - more or less, they claimed that Swartz would later do something illegal with the data he had copied, and that warranted imprisonment now, before the fact.
"A" in your text is using violence to force access to documents, because he believed them to be public domain, and then republishing them.
That's not my text you're referring to.
No one has ever claimed there was any violence or force involved in any part of this.
No republishing actually occurred; the government is claiming that Swartz's prior writings prove that such republishing was his goal, and that he therefore belonged in federal prison - because of his intent to commit a civil offense.
None of this is correct. MIT didn't decline to prosecute. Also, the charge was not for "attempted copyright infringement." It was for illegally accessing a network in furtherance of a scheme to illegally distribute copyrighted documents. The prosecution wasn't arguing: "he should be punished because he intended to distribute copyrighted documents." They were arguing: "the CFAA charge should be bumped up from a misdemeanor to a felony because the illegal access was in the context of a plan to do something else illegal."
The key distinction between the two is that what you're suggesting is that he was being charged for intent alone. In reality, the intent was relevant to establishing the degree of the crime. That's pretty much how all crimes work--you can't be punished for intent without taking any action, but once you take action your intent determines what the severity of the crime is.
MIT and JSTOR declined to press such charges.
The government's charges were fraud charges - more or less, they claimed that Swartz would later do something illegal with the data he had copied, and that warranted imprisonment now, before the fact.
"A" in your text is using violence to force access to documents, because he believed them to be public domain, and then republishing them.
That's not my text you're referring to.
No one has ever claimed there was any violence or force involved in any part of this.
No republishing actually occurred; the government is claiming that Swartz's prior writings prove that such republishing was his goal, and that he therefore belonged in federal prison - because of his intent to commit a civil offense.