Indeed, one of the facets of civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to accept the consequences. As much as we may like the activist, we can't support making an exception to the law, because that would invite anarchy.
However, this logic rapidly breaks down when the prosecution is vindictive and the consequences disproportionate, as they are in this case. Before the indictment was expanded, he was facing up to 35 years in prison.[1] Even if he doesn't get that, he'll likely bankrupt himself and his family defending himself, and suffer consequences for years to come. No one should have to "deal with" this. It's the government that deserves the blame for his fate, not him.
> we can't support making an exception to the law, because that would invite anarchy.
Exceptions to the law are made every day - it is hardly applied at all when the violators are politicians, big media organizations, and bankers. I'd agree we don't already make exceptions to the law when high profile connected public figures (eg the ex-head of MFG and the guy who authorized F&F) are indicted for anything.
That's a great point and yet another reason why it's becoming increasingly difficult to accept the argument that activists who perform civil disobedience must accept the consequences.
I'm not familiar with the specifics in this case, but if it's like most other cases they're not pushing for 35 years. They're pushing for him to take a much shorter sentence by threatening 35 years. (It's still ridiculous, but my point is they probably don't think 35 years is appropriate for his crime -- they think 35 years is appropriate for getting him to accept their deal)
However, this logic rapidly breaks down when the prosecution is vindictive and the consequences disproportionate, as they are in this case. Before the indictment was expanded, he was facing up to 35 years in prison.[1] Even if he doesn't get that, he'll likely bankrupt himself and his family defending himself, and suffer consequences for years to come. No one should have to "deal with" this. It's the government that deserves the blame for his fate, not him.
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/swartz-arrest/