[GHFigs]

got a bunch of snivelly equivocating about "intent" as a reply

As somebody that took time out of his evening to address your prior comment with what I felt was sincerity and (I hoped) clarity, I'm sorry it came across to you as "snivelly equivocating".

that is just invalid here

It may help you to understand the relevance of intent better if you look at what Taren writes in the footnote: "His lawyers instructed him very strictly that he should never talk about motive with anyone before the trial, as it could play a key role in the defense and they didn’t want the prosecution to get any hint of what line of argument might be used."

As I said in my prior comment: In law, intent (if it can be proven) can make an enormous difference in what you get charged with or convicted of. Far from being invalid here, the importance of someone's intentions in a case like this is exactly why prosecutors would look at Swartz's prior writings and why his lawyers would instruct him not to discuss it.

[dccoolgai]

Assuming that what is charged here is true - namely, that the prosecutors brought the case against Swartz because of his philosophical writings on open data - any minutiae of the case is irrelevant. Thank you for your explanation of the importance of establishing intent in the context crminal law, but couched in the bed of prosecutorial misconduct that it apparently is, it just isn't relevant here and even bringing it up is compositional sophistry.

If I, as a prosecutor, decide to charge you with felony assualt because I don't like the color of your shirt, it simply does not matter that you either A) Slapped someone in the face last year or B) Wrote on your blog that you intended to do it. My case is prima facie invalid - I am not allowed to charge you with felonies because I don't like the color of your shirt or because I don't like your philosopy on government transparency.

[GHFigs]

Assuming that what is charged here is true - namely, that the prosecutors brought the case against Swartz because of his philosophical writings on open data

The whole point is that it's not true! It's just something HuffPo, et al. are spinning out of a much less controversial statement about what evidence they considered to establish intent. The strongly-conclusive headlines do not match the actual story here. Defending the bullshit headlines doesn't make them true--that's not how truth works.