Tracking the development of Aaron Swartz from his rise as an internet icon to his untimely and unfortunate death is without a doubt an emotionally gripping experience, for one cannot simply view this film without developing a sense of personal anguish and sympathy towards Swartz’s situation regardless of their judgement of his actions.
This movie challenges its viewers to question the norms of informational access through chronicling Swartz’s legal battle against JSTOR and the US Government. The mission behind the struggle in advocating for laws that Swartz views to be destructive towards public interest is best expressed through this quote that appears in the opening sequence of the film:
“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them,
or shall we endeavor to amend them,
and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?”-David Henry Thoreau
In opening the movie with this quote, the director aims at evoking a particular emotional response from the audience, as each individual possesses some sentiment or another about what they feel is “unjust.” This immediately invests the viewer at a personal level, allowing for an increased attention and involvement in what is about to unfold.
Although it can be argued that Swartz’s objectives may have been both idealistic and unrealistic, I nonetheless felt more connected and ultimately troubled by his journey than I initially expected. I believe the film takes a slightly aggressive approach in supporting Swartz’s actions against JSTOR and their privatization of academic information, leading most viewers to back his rationale.
This is the point where I became more skeptical of the filmmaker’s disposition, as I was torn between supporting Aaron’s crusade and respecting the US Government’s laws set in place to protect intellectual property. Although I held a good deal of personal investment in Aaron’s legal outcome due to the framing of his story on the part of the filmmaker, I could not help but to consider the implications of his actions from the perspective of those who have dedicated their lives to academic scholarship and publishing.
Although this viewpoint was not as heavily portrayed in the movie as it could have been, I still was hesitant to fully embrace Swartz in the way I perceive the director would have wanted the viewer to do so.
The Internet’s Own Boy is clearly constructed in a manner designed to support and ultimately label Swartz as a martyr for free informational access on the Internet, yet this approach is somewhat problematic for me due to its unfaltering support of Swartz despite his clear violation of the law. While I do agree his sentencing should have been dramatically reduced, I still think the film undervalued the criminality of his actions. The film assigns less blame to Swartz than is probably deserved, and raises valid concerns about how we go about punishing cyber-crimes of this nature, yet I question the scope in which the film was directed, as it at times hyperbolizes certain scenarios in order to advance its overarching message on the issues of free access and the internet.
