The main editorial in the Friday Kansas City Star has more than a few readers scratching their heads.
The editorial was named “A World Poorer for His Loss” and focused on Aaron Swartz, who was considered a tech genius and who committed suicide last week by hanging himself. He was 26 and had suffered from depression.
A source at the Star told Bottom Line that editorial writer E. Thomas McClanahan wrote the piece, but that it was approved by a majority of editorial board members at the McClatchy-owned paper.
McClanahan refused to explain his goal with writing the editorial.
For one, the editorial had no Kansas City connection whatsoever. It is very likely that very few Kansas Citians had any idea who Swartz was, or the fact he helped write the RSS standard or was a builder of Reddit.com.
Aside from those achievements, Swartz was in serious legal trouble because he “believed data should be free and he assigned the mission of liberating it.” He took a registry of online federal documents into the public domain that had been behind a paywall.
He then downloaded five million academic articles from the MIT computer network from the schools subscription-only site. He was charged with 13 felonies.
“Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars,” noted the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston in a news release. ”It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.”
The MIT theft potentially could have cost Swartz three decades in prison and a million dollar fine.
The Star editorial seemed to say that hacking by individuals like Swartz and others is a crime that should be overlooked.
“In light of Swartz’s death, the Justice Department should review its handling of cases under that law and how it pursues particular instances of hacking,” stated the editorial.
“…Computer hacking is an affliction of our times, and what Swartz was accused of doing was no small matter. But he didn’t do it for personal gain.”
Many felt the Star editorial was hypocritical.
“Is the editorial saying that it should be permissible for people to help take down the Kansas City Star’s new paywall so that “information should be set free?”‘ said an emailer to Bottom Line. “Or are some crimes better than others?”
What is particularly ironic is the KC Star paywall helps pay the salaries of people like McClanahan.
It’s obvious his superiors don’t feel that information should be free.
SWARTZ NOT FOUND GUILTY
Mr. Swartz was charged with stealing. He wasn’t found guilty. I’m disturbed that this item and (apparently) the Star editorial assume that Swartz did what the government said he did.
I believe a person should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
I don’t believe someone is guilty just because the government says he’s guilty.
True. If he was innocent he probably should not have hung himself.
MAYBE HE COMMITTED SUICIDE FOR NO REASON
Probably? No, he should not have hanged himself, period.
I don’t know who Swartz was or whether he was a good guy or a bad guy, but I doubt the horrible decision he made to hang himself had much to do with whether or not he actually was guilty. I’m sure the fear of being found guilty played a much larger part of his thinking. And who knows what else was going on in his life?
Just because Swartz committed suicide, doesn’t mean he was actually guilty.
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
McClanahan is so used to defending Wall Street that he can no longer recognize criminal activity. He’s an apologist for the privileged.
McCLANAHAN AN IDIOT
I have always thought that McClanahan is an idiot. His post in the Sunday Star reinforced my opinion that he is a raving idiot and a poor writer who doesn’t deserve his position with a big-city newspaper. He rehashed every global warming conspiracy theory Fox News has aired, and has since been debunked. I had thought that almost everyone today accepted climate change as reality, and the focus had shifted to preparation for it. As a piece of writing that logically developed the exposition of an idea, it was a damn poor piece, and barely made sense.
John, there seems to be a trend among modern newspaper columnists, (I have seen this with the NYT art critics as well), to present a premise or assumption as fact, with little or no justification or ground to demonstrate why the writer has come to this deduction or conclusion. Their only justification for their asserted premise seems to be; “I’m a big-city writer, and I said it’s so.” Then they take events or artist’s works, remove the events or works from their context, edit and strip them down, and make them fit as examples that support their premise. Its sloppy and fraudulent writing and wouldn’t get a passing grade in Comp 101. I don’t know why writers that are getting paid 6 or 7 figure salaries are allowed to post such lazy work.
Also John, your comment above, referencing his suicide with guilt, was uncalled for, and you should apologize for it. He was known to have major depression issues and had a history of suicidal tendencies. Your comment disrespects all those with emotional disorders. I’ve thought you were too cool and above such a remark.
You’re correct. However, these commenters keep saying he was innocent when they really don’t know one way or another. My remark was dumb. Thanks.
CALL IT LARCENY
I think ‘liberation of data’ is simply a 2 dollar word for larceny.
It’s part of a parasitic mentality based upon intolerance & hatred for anything deemed ‘private property’ - intellectual or real.
Those who embrace this moral turpitude disdain common virtue, favor entitlement, and demand some ‘other’ pay for it all.
I pity this young man who hanged himself, and my sympathies go out to his family, but he appeared to lay the groundwork for his own demise.
It should be noted that this young man’s father made his millions by owning a software development company. You have to wonder if the son would have felt the same about “liberating data” if it was from his father’s company.
SAD ALL AROUND
Good point. Methinks he would’ve been righteously indignant at the theft - because that’s different. Sad, all around.