Forgive me if this seems inappropriate to ask, but I'm actually somewhat curious. In this article and others I've read about Swartz, he is described using terms like "prodigy" and "genius".

Are these descriptions accurate or is the press somewhat guilty of puffing up the stature of Aaron in order to pull you inevitably towards the cliché story of the 'tragically passed genius'?

If he were not a "prodigy" or "genius", would his actions and ideals be any less worthy of recognition, or his passing any less tragic?

Those close to him think so. Larry Lessig called him his mentor (not mentee). Tim Berners-Lee said "we have lost an elder".

I don't know but it wouldn't be a great story if we just called him an anarchist.

"I was changed. Until then, I’d felt my talent was a shield, that I could break the rules without consequence, because there was something special and even righteous about me."

The analogy he tries to draw is stretched too far, and too thin. There is a difference between brandishing your talent on one hand, and simply standing up for righteousness on another.

Aaron put all he had in to a cause much bigger than himself, and even in his death, put a spotlight on the lopsided legal system.

The author, on the other hand, considers his becoming the establishment as "right of passage" in to some higher level of maturity. While it may be fair for the author to characterize his youth experiences as plain basking in talent, he could not be more far off in describing Aaron the same way.

How did this get published? He did not release the JSTOR downloads and "make them available to the public". The writer draws a weak connection between Aaron Swartz and himself and seems to miss the point at so many levels.

This is the worst article I've read about this topic.