Motive matters. What Swartz did was in protest for a cause, a form of civil disobedience (which has always been a valid form of protest in democratic societies).
Motive matters when you believe something should be criminal, but there are extenuating circumstances.
But if you don't think something should be illegal to begin with, why do you want to see someone punished? Regardless of motive? If you think it should be allowed, then it should be allowed period, regardless of whether it was to make a quick buck or for civil disobedience. Right?
I totally get who you respect more. What I don't get is "give every tech CEO the Swartz treatment" first. If you don't think what they did should be illegal, then there's just no justification for that.
The other was to make a quick buck.
I know which has earned my respect more.