A subpoena is an order from a court for the person named in the subpoena to give testimony (or answer questions) about a specific issue. So if people don't discuss a case, then they can't be subpoena'd because they'd have no knowledge of the subject matter. I'm not sure about the defence funds issue.

so what's wrong with that? If I'm a guy's friend, I speak out and say the case is BS, and I get a subpoena, I go and answer the questions right? I guess an aggressive prosecutor can use this to intimidate people? Or maybe it means that the more questions people answer the more hairy the case becomes so the defense can't make a clear strategy

I just remembered and researched/confirmed that they asked his ex gf a bunch of questions in front of a grand jury and gave her immunity in response. She says (or suggests) she pleaded the fifth on every q

I would not trust anything his friends say to the media as being fully truthful, particularly in this case wherein all sides have an agenda to promote.

Ardiril, it's a fact though that his friends were quiet about it. And his later GF says he specifically didn't want her to hug him in front of the prosecutor etc. Here's something from one of the people in his circle:

Many people asked why people didn’t speak up before. I can only explain my reasoning. I was too scared to speak publicly for fear of how my words might be used against him. And I was too scared to get embroiled in the witch hunt that I’ve watched happen over the last three years. Because it hasn’t been about justice or national security. It’s been about power.

In fact even till today the lawyer who first Aaron consulted says there are details about the case he can't expound on etc.

I guess in the end this type of situation (federal prosecution) is deadly serious and high-pressure for everyone, I guess as a third party I can't even begin to imagine how stressful and scary the situation is for everyone involved…

I am going only with what you write here as I have not followed Swartz's case at all.

Without more context, the statement "I was too scared to speak publicly for fear of how my words might be used against him" could apply equally to the press as well as the prosecutors. Like the naked emperor, the public generally ignores the role that the press plays in these events, and that press has a great interest in playing up those aspects that ensure repeat consumption and subsequently increased ad revenues. Naturally, the press will slant such fears away from themselves and squarely toward the government. This is particularly true when the only statements the press can get from people who knew him fall along the lines of "I'm too scared to talk."

His acquaintances had little to fear of the prosecution, those who were not accomplices anyway, as Swartz had adequate defense counsel who would have ensured that only relevant facts, not hearsay, would enter into the realm of judgment (not a blanket statement; insert applicable qualifiers), especially in this case where Swartz's acts spoke volumes by themselves and his only defense was his motivation. Acquaintances who had knowledge of his acts as he performed them would of course also be implicated. Further, the judge had an interest in running these hearings by the book regarding witness testimony, because a case of such high profile was most certainly headed toward years of appeal, possibly as long as a decade, regardless of the outcome.

No, his acquaintances' real fear prior to his death, excepting any accomplices, was the court of public opinion, and that can play a huge role not only in sentencing, but also in their own futures. As is so commonly mentioned, Google never forgets and having their names tied to defending a felon is a major career hurdle that comes around each time someone circles the track.

Now with Swartz's death, his acquaintances can speak after the fact, and with a fair amount of surety about the course of the future that was absent while Swartz was alive, his friends can paint their own actions to suit their needs. What we must ask ourselves of each such statement that you blockquoted: "Is this serving to promote Swartz's image, or to cover the blogger's own ass?"

that's a good point. even I personally wasn't that riled up in support of Swartz before his suicide even though I've followed his writings etc for a while. I guess the reason question is where was everybody (including my own opinion, as someone who didn't know him personally but really was griefstricken by his loss) when he was "going through it" instead of after the tragedy

Again, my knowledge here is vague, but I get the impression that his inner circle was fairly well educated, and when told by a lawyer, "Don't talk to anyone," educated people tend to follow that counsel. Further, lawyering up is quite common nowadays. That is, when someone within your network is implicated in anything, calling your lawyer if for no other reason than to alert him/her that you know the defendant.

Lawyers are quite aware of the role that the press plays, and prosecutors have a political interest in public perception since their top boss is either elected or politically appointed.

Do you have any reason to suppose that his circle did not support him in private while he was still alive?

oh he had a lot of personal friends and support, but by the end he'd run out of money and his parents were about to mortgage their house... I'm just saying the tech media and political activists and broader media that have given us wall to wall coverage and outrage after his suicide weren't really rallying for him before, you know? for example, I'd only vaguely heard of his defense fund and wasn't aware that he really needed money, or was facing a dozen felony charges even if he took a plea deal, etc

what good does it do for thousands of people to mourn and be angry about it after he's dead. he needed this mobilization when he was alive

You can assume that anyone involved in a court battle needs money, especially in Swartz's case where he was not fighting his guilt but the morality of the law itself. How could you not realize he faced a dozen or so charges? The repeat nature of his actions gave substance to his martyrdom. I speculate that the reason the black-hats didn't get more involved is because they saw that defending his particular case was a futile effort. Public disobedience as a statement of justice only goes so far.

Outrage after the fact is a common trait in armchair activism, and as you indicate, it is mostly empty bluster.

Most likely this can be traced back to the hard reality that a progressive agenda has far more battles to fight than it has potential resources and commitment upon which it can draw.

It's funny you say that about the progressive agenda cause this is something that has been rattling in my head lately.

First of all, both the Gaza war a few months ago and this Aaron Swartz situation have really driven me to disgust with the liberal mainstream and disgust at myself for having disengaged from issues related to these things a long time ago.

On the other hand, you can't spend all your time worrying about these things cause you'd lose your damn mind. Add on to that that now I'm acclimatizing to Indian politics and the situation out here is hella bad, much worse and more dangerous for marginalized groups than anything in the US.

And I'm like damn. I neither want to lose my mind worrying about all the injustice in the world all the time nor do I want to get myself involved in becoming a target of some cop or powerful entity. The only way you can really effect change in these things while staying safe and comfortable yourself is to work on organizing slow mass movements and institutions...