8 ms·

> 2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating o

> 2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise. This point seems out of place to me. To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the same crime otherwise. Neither corporations nor private citizens can use a defense like, "it was civil disobedience," to avoid criminal liability. This has nothing to do with corporations being people or not. Could you please bring your lawyerly knowledge to bear and correct whatever deficiencies in understanding I have here?

mastax 9y ago
Wikipedia can help maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_implications_of_civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_impli... > Governments have generally not recognized the legitimacy of civil disobedience or viewed political objectives as an excuse for breaking the law. Specifically, the law usually distinguishes between criminal motive and criminal intent; the offender's motives or purposes may be admirable and praiseworthy, but his intent may still be criminal. Hence the saying that "if there is any possible justification of civil disobedience it must come from outside the legal system." See also the Necessity Defense (the above mentioned "political necessity") [0] and Jury Nullification [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit...
gotothedoctor 9y ago
I can understand the confusion/maybe I should have separated that into several points & or not sought to respond to the corporations are people comment I was certain I'd get before it was even said:) I'll try to unpack it but I may just make it worse.. 1) People love to say corporations are people too (thanks SCOTUS), but the law doesn't actually always consider corporations as legal people. It depends on lots of things. 2) "The law" is also too vague. Sometimes intent is relevant, sometimes its not; it just depends on what the law itself says. 3) Civil disobedience is not (as far as I know-there's a lot of laws) a defense for law-breaking, but, it may mitigate punishment or liability for a human. This depends on many things, ranging from the law, to the jurisdiction, to the facts of the case. 4) The distinction I was trying to make was: unlike people, companies do not engage in civil disobedience and a court will not allow a company to claim otherwise, be it as defense or as liability mitigation. Hope that answers your question?
- obstinate 9y ago
  Way more clear now. Thanks for taking the time.
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    Note the Supreme Court has explicitly expressed reluctance to apply RICO if it could be interpreted as a weapon against civil disobedience: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/us/supreme-court-voids-racketeering-conviction-of-anti-abortion-groups-in-80-s-case.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/us/supreme-court-voids...
    - gotothedoctor 9y ago
      That's not my read of that case & I don't think it applies here regardless. as per above, Uber is a company, so it can't engage in civil disobedience--thus there need be no concern that RICO "could be interpreted as a weapon against civil disobedience." Basically, in 2003, a very different SCOTUS said sorry Planned Parenthood, but, actually Operation Rescue, as awful & harassing as they are, are not committing EXTORTION, so no RICO for you & overturned their damages award. Here's the part of the article I'd guess you are referring to: "The decision, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 01-1118, did not appear to reflect any particular attitude on the court toward abortion, but rather a concern over the implications of invoking the federal racketeering law as a weapon against political protests. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was ''rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO's domain further.'' She noted that in the argument in the case, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who supported the clinics in their interpretation of extortion, acknowledged that the definition might have applied to the sit-ins of the civil rights movement." Ginsburg's concern was, if SCOTUS accepted that definition of extortion, others could use RICO to prosecute citizens for civil disobedience. Conseqently, she ruled against Planned Parenthood.
      - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
        I'm not arguing that it applies in this case, I'm just responding to parent's statement that "To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the same crime otherwise." I'm saying that many penalties take motive into consideration, and SC expressed concern about expanding motive in RICO cases in a way that could be applied to civil disobedience.
sandworm101 9y ago
There is room. No law can usurp things like freedom of speech. All sorts of apparently illegal acts find safe harbour if tied to free speach. A protest rally cannot be stopped simply be because the protestors are jaywalking or loitering on the sidewalk. Companies do have speech rights but they are very different. I can join a protest rally marching down mainstreet, but uber cannot hire people to do the same because the people violating the law are not enguaged in speech but in employment. So flesh persons can get away with acts that corporate "persons" cannot.
bitwize 9y ago
(IANAL) The law doesn't, but juries do. See, the whole point of civil disobedience is this: under the Constitution and the precepts of common law, bad laws don't have to be followed. So civil disobedience is making a show of deliberately breaking a bad law in order to call attention to the fact that the law is bad, risking your own liberty in the process. Then when it goes to trial, a jury may decide that though you broke the law, you are in the right and acquit you. This power of "jury nullification" is also recognized in common law and while it may not actually nullify laws, it makes them more difficult to enforce and when they're not enforced they are effectively void. A lot of the fun-fact ridiculous laws like "it is illegal to kiss in public on Sundays" are old laws which the local authorities can't be bothered to enforce and so are not really in force. But back to civil disobedience: it is an assertion through deed of human rights. Corporations lack human rights, and furthermore if you are making money off your violation of the law you are less likely to be smiled upon by a jury.
chrismcb 9y ago
If a law is "bad" there are essentially two ways to overturn it. One is to go through the legislative body and have it amended. This is difficult and time consuming, and hard for one person to do. The other way is to go to court, and argue that the law is bad. But about the only way to do that is to break the law. This is where civil disobedience comes in. It isn't a get out of jail free card, it is an opportunity to overthrow the law. If course, if you lose, you can go to jail.
- maverick_iceman 9y ago
  Courts can't overthrow bad laws, they can only overthrow unconstitutional laws (or state laws that violate federal laws).

mastax 9y ago

Wikipedia can help maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_implications_of_civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_impli... > Governments have generally not recognized the legitimacy of civil disobedience or viewed political objectives as an excuse for breaking the law. Specifically, the law usually distinguishes between criminal motive and criminal intent; the offender's motives or purposes may be admirable and praiseworthy, but his intent may still be criminal. Hence the saying that "if there is any possible justification of civil disobedience it must come from outside the legal system." See also the Necessity Defense (the above mentioned "political necessity") [0] and Jury Nullification [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit...

gotothedoctor 9y ago

I can understand the confusion/maybe I should have separated that into several points & or not sought to respond to the corporations are people comment I was certain I'd get before it was even said:) I'll try to unpack it but I may just make it worse.. 1) People love to say corporations are people too (thanks SCOTUS), but the law doesn't actually always consider corporations as legal people. It depends on lots of things. 2) "The law" is also too vague. Sometimes intent is relevant, sometimes its not; it just depends on what the law itself says. 3) Civil disobedience is not (as far as I know-there's a lot of laws) a defense for law-breaking, but, it may mitigate punishment or liability for a human. This depends on many things, ranging from the law, to the jurisdiction, to the facts of the case. 4) The distinction I was trying to make was: unlike people, companies do not engage in civil disobedience and a court will not allow a company to claim otherwise, be it as defense or as liability mitigation. Hope that answers your question?

obstinate 9y ago
Way more clear now. Thanks for taking the time.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  Note the Supreme Court has explicitly expressed reluctance to apply RICO if it could be interpreted as a weapon against civil disobedience: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/us/supreme-court-voids-racketeering-conviction-of-anti-abortion-groups-in-80-s-case.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/us/supreme-court-voids...
  - gotothedoctor 9y ago
    That's not my read of that case & I don't think it applies here regardless. as per above, Uber is a company, so it can't engage in civil disobedience--thus there need be no concern that RICO "could be interpreted as a weapon against civil disobedience." Basically, in 2003, a very different SCOTUS said sorry Planned Parenthood, but, actually Operation Rescue, as awful & harassing as they are, are not committing EXTORTION, so no RICO for you & overturned their damages award. Here's the part of the article I'd guess you are referring to: "The decision, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 01-1118, did not appear to reflect any particular attitude on the court toward abortion, but rather a concern over the implications of invoking the federal racketeering law as a weapon against political protests. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was ''rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO's domain further.'' She noted that in the argument in the case, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who supported the clinics in their interpretation of extortion, acknowledged that the definition might have applied to the sit-ins of the civil rights movement." Ginsburg's concern was, if SCOTUS accepted that definition of extortion, others could use RICO to prosecute citizens for civil disobedience. Conseqently, she ruled against Planned Parenthood.
    - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
      I'm not arguing that it applies in this case, I'm just responding to parent's statement that "To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the same crime otherwise." I'm saying that many penalties take motive into consideration, and SC expressed concern about expanding motive in RICO cases in a way that could be applied to civil disobedience.

sandworm101 9y ago

There is room. No law can usurp things like freedom of speech. All sorts of apparently illegal acts find safe harbour if tied to free speach. A protest rally cannot be stopped simply be because the protestors are jaywalking or loitering on the sidewalk. Companies do have speech rights but they are very different. I can join a protest rally marching down mainstreet, but uber cannot hire people to do the same because the people violating the law are not enguaged in speech but in employment. So flesh persons can get away with acts that corporate "persons" cannot.

bitwize 9y ago

(IANAL) The law doesn't, but juries do. See, the whole point of civil disobedience is this: under the Constitution and the precepts of common law, bad laws don't have to be followed. So civil disobedience is making a show of deliberately breaking a bad law in order to call attention to the fact that the law is bad, risking your own liberty in the process. Then when it goes to trial, a jury may decide that though you broke the law, you are in the right and acquit you. This power of "jury nullification" is also recognized in common law and while it may not actually nullify laws, it makes them more difficult to enforce and when they're not enforced they are effectively void. A lot of the fun-fact ridiculous laws like "it is illegal to kiss in public on Sundays" are old laws which the local authorities can't be bothered to enforce and so are not really in force. But back to civil disobedience: it is an assertion through deed of human rights. Corporations lack human rights, and furthermore if you are making money off your violation of the law you are less likely to be smiled upon by a jury.

chrismcb 9y ago

If a law is "bad" there are essentially two ways to overturn it. One is to go through the legislative body and have it amended. This is difficult and time consuming, and hard for one person to do. The other way is to go to court, and argue that the law is bad. But about the only way to do that is to break the law. This is where civil disobedience comes in. It isn't a get out of jail free card, it is an opportunity to overthrow the law. If course, if you lose, you can go to jail.

maverick_iceman 9y ago
Courts can't overthrow bad laws, they can only overthrow unconstitutional laws (or state laws that violate federal laws).