You don't get off to persuasive start when you call everyone who disagrees with you (before even making it clear what you're disagreeing ABOUT) a moron.
You are misreading the first line of the article. The article's author is lumping himself AND Jeff Atwood (not to mention nearly the entire population of Hacker News) into the same bucket here: ALL of them saddened by the passing of Aaron Swartz.
He then disagrees with Jeff Atwood about a further point: whether Aaron should have "accepted the penalty" for his activism.
Personally, when I first read Jeff Atwood's original essay I felt that I understood what he was getting at ("I'm disappointed that Aaron 'quit' on us, and I hope no one else does."), but I felt (as does this author) that his suggestion that civil disobedience requires one to accept the penalties for breaking the law. I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in civil disobedience, nor am I sure that meekly accepting the state-imposed punishment is a necessary component of civil disobedience.
> I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in civil disobedience
This is an interesting point: I would develop it to talk about _levels_ of disobedience.
Like Andrew Auernheimer, I think Swartz knew he would get "in trouble", but didn't appreciate the scale -- which is understandable, as I say in my article, because the details of "trouble" are deliberately obscured.
From a NYT article on the matter: A respected Harvard researcher who also is an Internet folk hero has been arrested in Boston on charges related to computer hacking, which are based on allegations that he downloaded articles that he was entitled to get free. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html?_r=0)
It is also reasonable for one to think they wouldn't get in trouble for this. Either way, at the root of civil disobedience and activism is the desire to change.
I think Dr. King's quote is being taken out of context in these discussions. Dr. King doesn't mean to simply "grin and bear it", Dr. King means that fighting for our freedom is hard, and thus activists must, in order to have any chance of producing change, be prepared for the worst, in some form of self sacrifice.
Atwood is saying (I feel erroneously) that Swartz came so close to creating a change, but gave it all away when he "ragequit".
The point is, what happened happened, and I hope we never have to have a "next time", but I'll bet that if there is a next time, it will play out very differently, and for the better, thanks to Swartz.
He then disagrees with Jeff Atwood about a further point: whether Aaron should have "accepted the penalty" for his activism.
Personally, when I first read Jeff Atwood's original essay I felt that I understood what he was getting at ("I'm disappointed that Aaron 'quit' on us, and I hope no one else does."), but I felt (as does this author) that his suggestion that civil disobedience requires one to accept the penalties for breaking the law. I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in civil disobedience, nor am I sure that meekly accepting the state-imposed punishment is a necessary component of civil disobedience.