4 ms·

What would you classify John Brown's raid of the Harpers Ferry armory as? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry,_West_Virginia#John_Brown.27s_raid http://

What would you classify John Brown's raid of the Harpers Ferry armory as? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry,_West_Virginia#John_Brown.27s_raid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry,_West_Virginia#Jo...

hugh3 16y ago
Well, I'm not American and I'm not especially familiar with all the details of US history, so this is the first I've heard of this particular event. However, I'll have a read of the wikipedia article (there's a longer article about the actual event linked from the one on the location) and see what I think. Well, it certainly doesn't fit the definition of "Civil Disobedience" under any circumstances. Whether it was justified or not is a question I'll leave to others with more knowledge of the era... but to me it certainly doesn't seem to me like it was a good way to pursue the political aim of ending slavery.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Do you live in the US?
  - hugh3 16y ago
    What's the relevance?
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      We'll, we're discussing the MPAA, which is an American organization, American civil disobedience with regard to Rosa Parks, Harpers Ferry and the catalyst for the American Civil War. When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.
chrischen 16y ago
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia. Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones. If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person. However in the case of anonymous vs MPAA/RIAA, is there a moral right to sidestep laws (unrelated to copyright, btw) just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't let people get movies and music for free? Copyright is different from DoS attacking. Choose what you stand for clearly. If you truly believe in DoS attacks AND anti-copyright go ahead and actively disobey both (not that you're automatically right). But if you only believe in disobeying one and breaking the other law just to further your motive in the former objective, well then that's bad.
- hugh3 16y ago
  "Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia An impossibly broad definition -- it encompasses all crime.
  - chrischen 16y ago
    Well assuming you consistently do it, then yes it would be civil disobedience. Just because you're civilly disobeying doesn't make it right.

hugh3 16y ago

Well, I'm not American and I'm not especially familiar with all the details of US history, so this is the first I've heard of this particular event. However, I'll have a read of the wikipedia article (there's a longer article about the actual event linked from the one on the location) and see what I think. Well, it certainly doesn't fit the definition of "Civil Disobedience" under any circumstances. Whether it was justified or not is a question I'll leave to others with more knowledge of the era... but to me it certainly doesn't seem to me like it was a good way to pursue the political aim of ending slavery.

chopsueyar 16y ago
Do you live in the US?
- hugh3 16y ago
  What's the relevance?
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    We'll, we're discussing the MPAA, which is an American organization, American civil disobedience with regard to Rosa Parks, Harpers Ferry and the catalyst for the American Civil War. When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.

chrischen 16y ago

"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia. Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones. If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person. However in the case of anonymous vs MPAA/RIAA, is there a moral right to sidestep laws (unrelated to copyright, btw) just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't let people get movies and music for free? Copyright is different from DoS attacking. Choose what you stand for clearly. If you truly believe in DoS attacks AND anti-copyright go ahead and actively disobey both (not that you're automatically right). But if you only believe in disobeying one and breaking the other law just to further your motive in the former objective, well then that's bad.

hugh3 16y ago
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia An impossibly broad definition -- it encompasses all crime.
- chrischen 16y ago
  Well assuming you consistently do it, then yes it would be civil disobedience. Just because you're civilly disobeying doesn't make it right.