If a great injustice really was being committed, the EFF and the ACLU would have fallen over themselves to represent Aaron pro bnono (for free). The fact they did not suggests otherwise.
So, EFF and ACLU defend you if you're not guilty and if they don't defend you you're guilty?
Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they didn't that would have said nothing about Aarons guilt or lack thereof?
Swartz's trial was scheduled, approaching rapidly, and he had already apparently spent an enormous amount of money on at least two different firms. The trial was not something hovering nebulously in the future; Swartz's need for assistance was immediate.
I don't believe EFF's involvement or lack thereof speaks in any way to Swartz's guilt. I would say that this is the kind of thing you'd hope EFF would be right in the middle of. Were they?
Not openly afaik, which probably translates into not at all. Maybe someone should go and ask them if they were and if not why not.
I offered to contribute to Aarons defense a while ago but he declined. That may have been because he knew that any help he needed was outside of my ability to render.
Be careful, you're associating yourself with a 'known troll'.
"Legal defense fund" is a fairly standard thing to have. And lawyers usually are happy to extend credit to people like Aaron and wait to be repaid later.
This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.
Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they didn't that would have said nothing about Aarons guilt or lack thereof?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz