There are better ways to do what Swartz apparently wanted to accomplish.
The "computer fraud" laws are pretty sucky, but there are reasons that they're that way.
It's standard practice to charge criminals with the most serious possible interpretation of their actions. It's supposed to elicit plea-bargains instead of trials. Maybe Swartz should paid more attention to how these things go.
I don't like laws where the "method" is more illegal than the "results." But if the president of the US can be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice WRT a non-crime, I don't see how the little guy stands a chance.
The people most hurt by Swartz's actions are likely to be those who won't be able to get guest access to MIT's network, or free and easy access to the research papers, after they tighten up their security so that this can't happen again.
I don't understand why Swartz wasn't in jail. I'm pretty sure if some were up against 35 years in prison, he'd be locked in a cell where means for suicide were unavailable. Just more pampering of white, white collar criminals, I guess. Usually derided by the public when the "crime" looks worse.
And yeah, the law "bullies" people. No one is very sympathetic for the 'real' criminals; jokes abound about how they'll get theirs when they're raped in prison, from classes of people that really ought not be "happy" about such things.