> Overall, there is a feeling that Aaron Swartz’ death has to mark the beginning of a change. This petition could be a ticket and an opportunity for the administration to begin such a change, if nothing else, just by firing an overreaching prosecutor. That would be a symbolic action that would still send a message, albeit a weak one, but it would go a long way for many. In contrast, a nonaction from the administration would be a signal that vigilante justice is the only remaining option, which would be unfortunate on many levels.

This is a silly article. There are actually steps that happen before the firing of an official, most notably an investigation. But this article reads as: "We got 25,000 signatures, if the President doesn't ax her then people will resort to armed revolt"

(I'll skip the debate on whether it's good for a government to be directed by the popularity of an online petition, unless people favor the country renamed to 'The United States of Bieber')

The main point is that action in government is slow. And for good reason. If people want to hold onto the fantasy that when a bunch of people get angry, the government will take drastic action...then fine...but people who really want to see change should be prepared to accept that the original problem (the case against Swartz) may not be satisfactory dealt with, but that attitudes change and reform can eventually happen, as long as the people who care continue to speak up and apply pressure.