Playdevil's advocate by providing logical arguments that oppose the below post:

In the United States of America v. Aaron Swartz, Aaron Swartz an American computer programmer, writer, political organizer, and internet activist, was prosecuted for multiple violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The MIT's action was inappropriate in the Aaron Swartz case. Until his arrest, MIT's main concern was about who was responsible for the download and how to stop unknown access of the network and network resources like downloading large numbers of articles from the JSTOR database which was against the license agreement between MIT and JSTOR. MIT intentions were never to prosecute Aaron Swartz but at the same time MIT was natural during the whole process, they were never here or there about the situation, never inform the prosecution that they want any punishment for Aaron or the defense team that they were in support of Aaron, they never issued a public statement about the situation or in support of Aaron Swartz (Abelson, Diamond, Grosso, & Pfeiffer, 2021). All the efforts made by Aaron's father to MIT arrange a meeting with MIT were unsuccessful. Robert Swartz the father of Aaron was able to meet MIT's Chancellor with OGC's attorney but MIT Chancellor still played the neutral role stating that MIT is not pressing charges, stating they are just neutral and they just providing information as required for the legal process. Kettlewell called MIT on numerous occasions outside counsel requestion for a meeting with MIT but MIT response was with MIT deny that they were slow in response .

MIT paid no attention to the case, they did not review if Aaron Swartz gained unauthorized access to the MIT network or exceed the amount of unauthorized access to the MIT network and resources. Aaron never made any comment on the reason behind the download or what he intended to do with the download. The federal conclusion was that Aaron Swartz's reason for download was intended to distribute. It was concluded that he intends to upload the files on the internet to be available for free to the public. After Arron Swartz, he was charged by Cambridge District Court with two felonies of breaking and entry on two occasions of January 4th and January 6th, 2011. After his first arrest two years after, he was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment where he died by suicide on January 11, 2013 . If the MIT initially had simply said and also made it public that they did not want the case to go on just as JSTOR was not in agreement with the prosecution since Aaron Swartz had returned all the stolen material then Swartz would have been alive today. The federal prosecutors would then not have a case to go on with. They did not do enough as regards the federal case against Aaron. Also, he was not a student but a guest which indicates there was no legal relationship.

My conclusion regarding this case is that no one was aware of Aaron Swartz broke MIT gained unauthorized access to the MIT network or exceed the amount of unauthorized access to the MIT network and resources because MIT did not even speak about or concerned about that, their major goal was to stop that from occurring again. The only issue with JSTOR was that MIT violates their JSTOR license agreement. If MIT would have supported Aaron Swartz the case would have been dropped but they decided to play the neutral game, neither here nor there, Aaron Swart's reason for committing suicide is unknown, to me he would have just face the charges and call it a day. I can't conclude if he is guilty or not because I am not aware of MIT internet usage policies.