6 ms·

I appreciate the point you're trying to make here but this isn't correct. Point 4 makes it sound as if courts do allow natural persons to claim civil disobedien

I appreciate the point you're trying to make here but this isn't correct. Point 4 makes it sound as if courts do allow natural persons to claim civil disobedience as a defense. They don't. At the level of a general statement (i.e., subject to specific statutory context), natural persons and legal entities are in the same position. Either could argue that a given law is unconstitutional, and win or lose. Or, either could refuse to comply with a law on purely moral/ethical/whatever grounds. In the latter case, the legal consequence is the same regardless of natural person, partnership, nonprofit, forprofit, etc.: violation of law. Considerations of justice, motivations, etc. can impact sentencing for natural persons and legal entities alike. Legal entities may have their personhood revoked in some cases - that is one difference w/ natural persons.

mbreese 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the point isn't necessarily that you'd use civil disobedience as an affirmative defense (like a self-defense claim would be). Instead, you'd make that argument to a jury that may or may not factor that into their decision (i.e. jury nullification). You're right that it's not a claim you'd make to a court expecting leniency. But you might be able to gain sympathy from a jury of your peers if they thought you were morally right. I don't think there is anything that would stop a defense from making that argument. If that's all you had to argue, then that's the proverbial "pound the table", if you will.
- raleighm 10y ago
  I agree. Just saying that's available to corporations as well. Reason I mention is this: "companies do not engage in civil disobedience" is not only not true; we need and should expect companies to engage in civil disobedience. Edit: To be clear, I am not talking at all about Greyball. I mean cases where civil disobedience would actually be justified.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Civil disobedience is rooted in ideas of justice. E.g. a corporation could engage in civil disobedience by refusing to have separate black and white seating areas. But our society does not generally recognize any "justice" angle to economic regulation. It's not "civil disobedience" for a company to skirt laws as part of a profit-making enterprise just because it wants to second-guess the government's idea of what those regulations should be. Nobody will write history books about how the noble unicorn startup evaded unjust regulations of its day to maximize its market capitalization.
    - raleighm 10y ago
      No disagreement here on that. I'm not defending Greyball.
  - gotothedoctor 10y ago
    I am not sure why you think that companies do or should engage in civil disobedience. When companies want to change laws, they lobby the government, in part because telling one's employees to break the law is criminal conspiracy and very expensive, given how much power companies have & employees don't. Sure, corporations sometimes do act in the public interest and sometimes act in the interest of justice. However, legally, courts & judges do not consider mitigating liability or punishment for their behavior on this basis. There are many reasons for this, but mostly because its just better public policy to limit any civil disobedience mitigation to actual humans. Otherwise, eg, wouldn't coal mining companies be all about "civil disobedience"?
    - raleighm 10y ago
      Take PRISM for example, or imagine a Muslim registry - or any other scenario where government requires companies to comply with a scheme and the company's appropriate ethical response would be refusal. (1) Why should we not welcome civil disobedience then or call it anything other than "civil disobedience"? (2) In a judicial context, what specifically do you believe would stop the same sentencing considerations from applying to corporations? Sentencing guidelines? Judicial precedent? Criminal procedure is not my field, so there's a possibility I am making some basic mistaken assumption - please correct me if so.
      - gotothedoctor 10y ago
        You seem to be kind of conflating ethics & civil disobedience? And expanding civil disobedience to include, for example, refusing to work assigned to you? The government does not require companies to comply with a scheme. Companies are free to contract with the government, but certainly aren't forced. PRISM & Muslim registries are also edge cases. There are many companies who choose not to do any work with the military, defense industry, or even gun, drug, or tobacco companies for ethical reasons. Most companies will allow their employees to opt not to work on projects that violate their ethics or values. However, a company would certainly be within their rights to fire an employee for refusing to participate in a project. (its not a smart move, nor does it help with retention of other employees) None of this is, by any means, civil disobedience--nor are ethics and civil disobedience interchangeable. (& it doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical--but civil disobedience is about law-breaking.) As you may remember, the courts would not permit the government to force Apple to build decryption software to crack that iphone. And we should not welcome all or encourage civil disobedience. We should just create just laws. Also, we should not redefine or expand the definition of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is not a "sentencing consideration." All of this is so inside baseball that it'd take explaining all of civil & criminal procedure in order for you to understand. It would take me a long time to make it both clear and accurate and the payoff would not be worth it. Sorry, but yes, you are making many mistaken assumptions:) There are many public policy reasons why corporations do not & are not considered to engage in civil disobedience. Here's a few quick ones: we don't want companies to direct their employees to break the law or ignore health safety or environmental regulations, or to encourage the formation of criminal enterprises, most (99%?) are defined by a profit-making purpose & this undermines that (& create shareholder lawsuits.) and, despite Citizens United, the overwhelming majority of our laws do not treat corporations as people. For instance, corporations, legally speaking, are not considered to have mens rea or intentions. TLDR: Citizens United aside, it is actually just not useful or accurate to consider corporations as people, because they aren't. As far as our legal system goes, humans have intentions & a state of mind and corporations don't. (Feel argue they do, but, as far as the US legal system goes, they don't. And shouldn't. Because they actually don't. So, please, don't. Or, just don't expect my response).
gotothedoctor 10y ago
No, civil disobedience is not permitted as a defense for humans in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. However, depending on the crime/charge, jurisdiction & relevant laws, it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--but not for corporations. As far as I am aware, there is no court nor is there any case or any law passed, where a corporation is procedurally or statutorily permitted to introduce any claim that their liability or punishment ought to be mitigated by a claim of disobedience. In other words, civil disobedience may be legally relevant (tho not as a defense) when a human is the defendant, but it is not relevant for a corporation.
- raleighm 10y ago
  I understand that's your view. I'm asking about its basis. Because what you're saying doesn't sound true, but the point matters (current context aside), so if you are right, I would like to know. > it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--but not for corporations By whom or what, pursuant to what? Courts? Sentencing guidelines? Can you provide an example?
  - gotothedoctor 10y ago
    I understand what you are asking & why you think there is an easy answer that I'm not giving you, but unfortunately, there isn't one. There's no easy explanation that wouldn't require learning or understanding criminal & civil procedure first. I recognize that's not satisfying, but, well, law is overlapping, conflicting, and complicated. But no, civil disobedience is not about sentencing guidelines, and its not statutory (legislatures don't create laws for breaking the law) nor is it a defense, but nonetheless, it may be relevant. Again, it depends on many things, like the case itself, the jurisdiction, local rules, applicable laws, the judge...and why any of this matters is hard to understand without a background in civil & criminal procedure. Someone else asked similar here & I went into further detail about why. A short answer is that humans have have states of mind, intentions and motives, and corporations do not (maybe you think they do; the legal system does not--judges and juries determine them as elements of crimes for humans, but not for corporations.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14278589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14278589 Hope this helps; I wish I had a better way of explaining, but, I'm no sure what else to say other than that our laws distinguish between humans and corporations and so do our courts, because our democracy has determined that its best for public policy not to, for example, allow companies, whose legal purpose is to produce monetary profits for shareholders, to instruct their employees to break laws.

mbreese 10y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the point isn't necessarily that you'd use civil disobedience as an affirmative defense (like a self-defense claim would be). Instead, you'd make that argument to a jury that may or may not factor that into their decision (i.e. jury nullification). You're right that it's not a claim you'd make to a court expecting leniency. But you might be able to gain sympathy from a jury of your peers if they thought you were morally right. I don't think there is anything that would stop a defense from making that argument. If that's all you had to argue, then that's the proverbial "pound the table", if you will.

raleighm 10y ago
I agree. Just saying that's available to corporations as well. Reason I mention is this: "companies do not engage in civil disobedience" is not only not true; we need and should expect companies to engage in civil disobedience. Edit: To be clear, I am not talking at all about Greyball. I mean cases where civil disobedience would actually be justified.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Civil disobedience is rooted in ideas of justice. E.g. a corporation could engage in civil disobedience by refusing to have separate black and white seating areas. But our society does not generally recognize any "justice" angle to economic regulation. It's not "civil disobedience" for a company to skirt laws as part of a profit-making enterprise just because it wants to second-guess the government's idea of what those regulations should be. Nobody will write history books about how the noble unicorn startup evaded unjust regulations of its day to maximize its market capitalization.
  - raleighm 10y ago
    No disagreement here on that. I'm not defending Greyball.
- gotothedoctor 10y ago
  I am not sure why you think that companies do or should engage in civil disobedience. When companies want to change laws, they lobby the government, in part because telling one's employees to break the law is criminal conspiracy and very expensive, given how much power companies have & employees don't. Sure, corporations sometimes do act in the public interest and sometimes act in the interest of justice. However, legally, courts & judges do not consider mitigating liability or punishment for their behavior on this basis. There are many reasons for this, but mostly because its just better public policy to limit any civil disobedience mitigation to actual humans. Otherwise, eg, wouldn't coal mining companies be all about "civil disobedience"?
  - raleighm 10y ago
    Take PRISM for example, or imagine a Muslim registry - or any other scenario where government requires companies to comply with a scheme and the company's appropriate ethical response would be refusal. (1) Why should we not welcome civil disobedience then or call it anything other than "civil disobedience"? (2) In a judicial context, what specifically do you believe would stop the same sentencing considerations from applying to corporations? Sentencing guidelines? Judicial precedent? Criminal procedure is not my field, so there's a possibility I am making some basic mistaken assumption - please correct me if so.
    - gotothedoctor 10y ago
      You seem to be kind of conflating ethics & civil disobedience? And expanding civil disobedience to include, for example, refusing to work assigned to you? The government does not require companies to comply with a scheme. Companies are free to contract with the government, but certainly aren't forced. PRISM & Muslim registries are also edge cases. There are many companies who choose not to do any work with the military, defense industry, or even gun, drug, or tobacco companies for ethical reasons. Most companies will allow their employees to opt not to work on projects that violate their ethics or values. However, a company would certainly be within their rights to fire an employee for refusing to participate in a project. (its not a smart move, nor does it help with retention of other employees) None of this is, by any means, civil disobedience--nor are ethics and civil disobedience interchangeable. (& it doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical--but civil disobedience is about law-breaking.) As you may remember, the courts would not permit the government to force Apple to build decryption software to crack that iphone. And we should not welcome all or encourage civil disobedience. We should just create just laws. Also, we should not redefine or expand the definition of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is not a "sentencing consideration." All of this is so inside baseball that it'd take explaining all of civil & criminal procedure in order for you to understand. It would take me a long time to make it both clear and accurate and the payoff would not be worth it. Sorry, but yes, you are making many mistaken assumptions:) There are many public policy reasons why corporations do not & are not considered to engage in civil disobedience. Here's a few quick ones: we don't want companies to direct their employees to break the law or ignore health safety or environmental regulations, or to encourage the formation of criminal enterprises, most (99%?) are defined by a profit-making purpose & this undermines that (& create shareholder lawsuits.) and, despite Citizens United, the overwhelming majority of our laws do not treat corporations as people. For instance, corporations, legally speaking, are not considered to have mens rea or intentions. TLDR: Citizens United aside, it is actually just not useful or accurate to consider corporations as people, because they aren't. As far as our legal system goes, humans have intentions & a state of mind and corporations don't. (Feel argue they do, but, as far as the US legal system goes, they don't. And shouldn't. Because they actually don't. So, please, don't. Or, just don't expect my response).

gotothedoctor 10y ago

No, civil disobedience is not permitted as a defense for humans in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. However, depending on the crime/charge, jurisdiction & relevant laws, it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--but not for corporations. As far as I am aware, there is no court nor is there any case or any law passed, where a corporation is procedurally or statutorily permitted to introduce any claim that their liability or punishment ought to be mitigated by a claim of disobedience. In other words, civil disobedience may be legally relevant (tho not as a defense) when a human is the defendant, but it is not relevant for a corporation.

raleighm 10y ago
I understand that's your view. I'm asking about its basis. Because what you're saying doesn't sound true, but the point matters (current context aside), so if you are right, I would like to know. > it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--but not for corporations By whom or what, pursuant to what? Courts? Sentencing guidelines? Can you provide an example?
- gotothedoctor 10y ago
  I understand what you are asking & why you think there is an easy answer that I'm not giving you, but unfortunately, there isn't one. There's no easy explanation that wouldn't require learning or understanding criminal & civil procedure first. I recognize that's not satisfying, but, well, law is overlapping, conflicting, and complicated. But no, civil disobedience is not about sentencing guidelines, and its not statutory (legislatures don't create laws for breaking the law) nor is it a defense, but nonetheless, it may be relevant. Again, it depends on many things, like the case itself, the jurisdiction, local rules, applicable laws, the judge...and why any of this matters is hard to understand without a background in civil & criminal procedure. Someone else asked similar here & I went into further detail about why. A short answer is that humans have have states of mind, intentions and motives, and corporations do not (maybe you think they do; the legal system does not--judges and juries determine them as elements of crimes for humans, but not for corporations.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14278589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14278589 Hope this helps; I wish I had a better way of explaining, but, I'm no sure what else to say other than that our laws distinguish between humans and corporations and so do our courts, because our democracy has determined that its best for public policy not to, for example, allow companies, whose legal purpose is to produce monetary profits for shareholders, to instruct their employees to break laws.