NB: JSTOR, to its credit, Larry Lessig says "great credit" (<
https://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bul...>), didn't pursue prosecution of Swartz. M.I.T., however certainly did (also noted by Lessig). From Abelson's report, commissioned by MIT:
If the Review Panel is forced to highlight just one issue for reflection, we would choose to look to the MIT administration’s maintenance of a “neutral” hands-off attitude that regarded the prosecution as a legal dispute to which it was not a party. This attitude was complemented by the MIT community’s apparent lack of attention to the ruinous collision of hacker ethics, open-source ideals, questionable laws, and aggressive prosecutions that was playing out in its midst. As a case study, this is a textbook example of the very controversies where the world seeks MIT’s insight and leadership.
A friend of Aaron Swartz stressed in one of our interviews that MIT will continue to be at the cutting edge in information technology and, in today’s world, challenges like those presented in Aaron Swartz’s case will arise again and again. With that realization,
“Neutrality on these cases is an incoherent stance. It’s not the right choice for a tough
leader or a moral leader.”
<http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pd...>
pp. 100-101
And the US DoJ and courts have bloody hands.
The careers of Ortiz and Heymann (DoJ) have suffered somewhat: Heymann left the DoJ, Ortiz's ambitions for higher office (reputedly she'd had interest in the Mass. governorship) were thwarted. The judge remains on the US District Court of Massachussetts.