2 ms·

>>I think the equivalent to that "white moderate" today is the person who thinks that anyone rocking the boat and making demands today, like Swartz, is "naive".

>>I think the equivalent to that "white moderate" today is the person who thinks that anyone rocking the boat and making demands today, like Swartz, is "naive". I disagree. There wasn't anything naive about the Civil Rights Movement. Its leaders possessed a deep understanding of the society in which they lived. They organized and led large groups of people over a period of fifteen years (with a background of at least another one hundred years to lean on), protested nonviolently even when faced with the threat of violence from those in power, had constructive dialogues with civil leaders, and eventually managed to get their way. In contrast, Swartz broke into a computer cabinet at a university and downloaded a bunch of academic journals, an act he viewed as a form of protest, but was actually burglary and theft. He was treated extremely harshly and unfairly, but that's because he acted alone with no support or context (unlike, say, Rosa Parks).

TaylorAlexander 10y ago
It's easy to describe the black civil rights movement as one that simply broke laws too. Lots of people in the black civil rights movement broke laws (many of those laws being unjust) and many people at the time dismissed them as rowdy criminals. I think your perception is being colored by the fact that the black civil rights movement is perceived to have "won" (never mind that the economic equality they were fighting for still has not been achieved), while Aaron is perceived to have lost. But I think Aaron was wise. I think "intellectual property" is economically harmful to society and is an instrument that the powerful use to abuse the masses. You claim too that Aaron acted alone with no context, but that is false. There is a long history of people questioning intellectual property laws and he acted in solidarity with that movement. It so happens that this group of people do not physically organize and so you may believe there is no movement, but you'd be wrong. Aaron's actions in my opinion come from a position of great wisdom about certain things in the world. I'm not even sure it could be called naivety that he didn't see the harassment coming, though truthfully I don't know much about his circumstances.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. The difference is that they did so in a public and organized way. Aaron, on the other hand, broke into the computer closet at MIT as a lone individual. Therefore he was persecuted. Keep in mind that during the 50s and 60s, half the country (mostly the northern half), as well as the federal government, supported the civil rights movement. The same can't be said about intellectual property today. In fact there is no such thing as the Intellectual Property Movement. Which is why Aaron was perceived to have acted alone, despite the fact that many people agreed with his views.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. They also understood that they'd likely be arrested and prosecuted. And many were.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      Yes, but not by the federal government. That's a BIG difference.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I'm not sure that was always the case, but for the sake of argument: what's the significant difference?
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        I can't speak for what enraged_camel is thinking about. What pops into my mind is how you have the feds coming down on you in all locations. With states, you might just dodge the ones that are corrupt enough to consider your actions crimes. Keep a distance or sneak through them. If it's federal, you're screwed wherever you go with likely worse sentence on top of it. The federal cases also bring better-trained cops and equipment to the situation than many local jurisdictions.
        enraged_camel 10y ago

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

It's easy to describe the black civil rights movement as one that simply broke laws too. Lots of people in the black civil rights movement broke laws (many of those laws being unjust) and many people at the time dismissed them as rowdy criminals. I think your perception is being colored by the fact that the black civil rights movement is perceived to have "won" (never mind that the economic equality they were fighting for still has not been achieved), while Aaron is perceived to have lost. But I think Aaron was wise. I think "intellectual property" is economically harmful to society and is an instrument that the powerful use to abuse the masses. You claim too that Aaron acted alone with no context, but that is false. There is a long history of people questioning intellectual property laws and he acted in solidarity with that movement. It so happens that this group of people do not physically organize and so you may believe there is no movement, but you'd be wrong. Aaron's actions in my opinion come from a position of great wisdom about certain things in the world. I'm not even sure it could be called naivety that he didn't see the harassment coming, though truthfully I don't know much about his circumstances.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. The difference is that they did so in a public and organized way. Aaron, on the other hand, broke into the computer closet at MIT as a lone individual. Therefore he was persecuted. Keep in mind that during the 50s and 60s, half the country (mostly the northern half), as well as the federal government, supported the civil rights movement. The same can't be said about intellectual property today. In fact there is no such thing as the Intellectual Property Movement. Which is why Aaron was perceived to have acted alone, despite the fact that many people agreed with his views.
- grzm 10y ago
  Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. They also understood that they'd likely be arrested and prosecuted. And many were.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    Yes, but not by the federal government. That's a BIG difference.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I'm not sure that was always the case, but for the sake of argument: what's the significant difference?
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        I can't speak for what enraged_camel is thinking about. What pops into my mind is how you have the feds coming down on you in all locations. With states, you might just dodge the ones that are corrupt enough to consider your actions crimes. Keep a distance or sneak through them. If it's federal, you're screwed wherever you go with likely worse sentence on top of it. The federal cases also bring better-trained cops and equipment to the situation than many local jurisdictions.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago