You probably disagree with the common feeling that the prosecuted actions of e.g. Weev, Swartz, etc. would not actually be crimes in any decent society, but don't pretend you've never heard of them.
To us their actions were trivial. To a trial jury or especially to a grand jury, not so much.
But this specific objection actually undermines your entire argument. If justifiable trivial actions can be maliciously portrayed as crimes, so much more can justifiable nontrivial actions. It's a sliding scale anyway: I'm no über-hacker so I know that many things that are trivial to more skilled people would be initially mysterious to me. This is why just law must be based on the consideration of specific acts that either meet or fail to meet concrete widely-understood criteria. Just law does not punish acts that are in a "gray" area, which cannot be said with certainty to be crimes. When uncertainty is a basis for prosecution, the only criteria we have are the potential misunderstandings of the dumbest jury a prosecutor could possibly empanel. At that point, human innovation and happiness will cease.
It seems pretty clear at this point that you did not in fact need any citations.
