> MIT brought the charges of breaking and entering that led to Swartz’s arrestThat's because they didn't know who it was that was doing it. Their main purpose in getting the police involved was to find out.
> Many urged MIT to advocate to not prosecute and MIT chose not to.
Yes, that's a fair point (and IIRC the Abelson report makes a similar point), and it was an overstatement on my part to say that MIT asked that no further action be taken. (I believe JSTOR did, though.)
However, that's still very different from saying that MIT (or JSTOR) "lobbied the feds to pursue Swartz", which is what the post I was originally responding to claimed. Neither MIT nor JSTOR did any such thing.
> Spinning this like MIT wasn’t responsible or JSTOR wasn’t responsible is so mealymouthed.
I don't think either MIT or JSTOR were responsible for "pursuing" Swartz. They certainly weren't responsible for threatening him with decades in jail. That was the federal prosecutor.
One could argue that MIT was "responsible" because they didn't work harder to persuade the feds not to pursue Swartz. But that could just as easily have been because they couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that a federal prosecutor would go so overboard until after it had actually happened, at which point it was too late.
> all they needed to do was say “hey don’t do that”
It's not at all clear to me that that would have made a difference, given the attitude of the federal prosecutor. That's not to say MIT shouldn't have done it (I think they should have), but it's also not an argument, IMO, for MIT being responsible for what happened to Swartz. Prosecutorial overreach is the responsibility of the prosecutor--and of the government that empowers the prosecutor, and ultimately of all of us citizens who empower the government.