I think you are the only reasonable (modded) up contributor to this entire thread/article. I wonder how many of these knee-jerk responders even bothered to read his opinion piece, let alone the actual factual report. But hey they perused reddit for a while, clearly that's enough to formulate a complete opinion.
Take this excerpt from the piece people are bashing:
Other questions address our values. In reviewing the record for the report, I was struck by how little attention the MIT community paid to the Swartz case, at least before the suicide. The Tech carried regular news items on the arrest and the court proceedings. Yet in the two years of the prosecution, there was not one opinion piece, and not one letter to the editor. The Aaron Swartz case offers a textbook example of the issues of openness and intellectual property on the Internetâ"the kinds of issues for which people traditionally look to MIT for intellectual leadership. But when those issues erupted in our midst, we didnâ(TM)t recognize them, and we were not intellectually engaged. Why not?
The fact is that Abelson's conclusions are spot on. Imagine how much more Aaron Schwartz could have contributed to this world and to the movement of open publishing if he had exercised some discretion?
Yes, there was prosecution overreach. Yes, there was disengagement and enabling of this overreach by MIT staff. But that doesn't change the fact that what he did, in protest, did nothing but harm himself.