Being a criminal certainly is a rather objective term. However, every revolutionary in history has been labeled a criminal by their government. You're arguing that they're unjust solely because they are breaking a law, and not even considering what it is they're fighting against.
The JSTOR documents that were downloaded by Swartz were publically funded research papers that were being sold at outrageously high prices. Important research like that, especially when tax payer funded, needs to be in the public domain. Our government is insanely interested in squashing the flow of information and standing up for corporations. I never thought someone as liberal as you would stand up for the corporations, especially in order to deter the growth of human knowledge.
Your examples are vastly different aims though. I'm talking about the difference between blackmailing politicians to make they vote in favour of the bill reducing the criminal penalty for leaking information and blackmailing politicians to vote against the same bill.
Just as the patriots who threw the tea overboard in the Boston tea party were labeled as criminals and treasonous, so are they. I can't recall any revolution in history that didn't involve going against the current government's will.
This isn't a revolution, it's a minor political disagreement.
That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that blackmailing politicians to corrupt the democratic process is immoral (regardless of whether it is illegal or not). I'm challenging the people who are defending the practice, especially if they're hypocritically defending it only when if favours their personal opinion or is to their benefit. This doesn't only apply to supporters of Anonymous.
You have the option to fight that democratically. You just have to remember that it isn't just about what you think - you need to convince the majority (or at least a significant minority). Anonymous has had to resort to such extreme tactics because, in their fundamental politics, they represent an insignificant minority. The system isn't perfect but that's no excuse to actively make it worse.
They were protesting the British Monarchy, an effective dictatorship in America at the time and the system they were opposing. It isn't in any way comparable to anything in the US today.
I agree the political system is far from perfect. My solution is to work at improving it. Your solution seems to be supporting people who are actively making it worse, adding even more corruption and anti-democratic processes. You are, by association, celebrating all of the flaws you're complaining about. Of course next time, they might not be promoting something you agree with and you won't have a leg to stand on.
