3 ms·

I'm going to take a little bite at this, because I think it's an important question, though I don't think it only applies in the case of your imagined modern de

I'm going to take a little bite at this, because I think it's an important question, though I don't think it only applies in the case of your imagined modern definitions. Civil disobedience has never been limited to "we're accepting punishment for {x} to demonstrate that doing {x} should not be punished." In many cases, it has been "we're accepting punishment for {x} to demonstrate that doing {y} should not be punished, or to demonstrate that doing [z] should be punished or stopped or whatever." The scope has always been wide, and activists rarely staged illegal sit-ins, for example, just to demonstrate that sit-ins shouldn't be illegal. So the question you pose has wide relevance. You can start to come at the answer in a variety of ways, but perhaps the first if sometimes insufficient criterion of justifiable civil disobedience might be that the illegal protest action should aim at preventing greater harm than it causes, and it should be action against organizations that are significantly responsible for the harm you want to prevent. I think that criterion is satisfied in this case; that is, I think much greater harm is caused longterm by the permanent restriction of funding for Wikileaks than is caused by temporary DDoS'ing MC, Visa, and Paypal.

sigzero 16y ago
Wow, what world do you live in? I am going to be blunt. In this instance there is NO justification for the DDoS period. Those other companies are doing business the way they do business and it is totally legal and totally above board. Using your logic, as long as I can justify in my mind that a "greater good" is coming out of it I am "in the clear". I will say it again, it is never right to wrong for a chance to do right. You can try to justify six ways to Sunday but in the end it is still wrong.
michaelchisari 16y ago
Very well said, and I hope you get upvotes for it. I think a lot of the issue stems with many people here having a conception of political change as being possible with very little conflict, and I don't think that's true. There is no easy, polite way to pressure those with extraordinary power to act differently. And sometimes you have to do things that are illegal (like sit-ins, digital or virtual). And when you do, you can recognize they are illegal, but partake in them anyways, and even fight your charges on moral grounds, and that makes your disobedience no less civil.
anamax 16y ago
> I think much greater harm is caused longterm by the permanent restriction of funding for Wikileaks than is caused by temporary DDoS'ing MC, Visa, and Paypal. That makes sense only if MC, Visa, and Paypal have an obligation to help Wikileaks receive funding. Do they? Why? Who else has that obligation? (Does discover have that obligation? How about Google Checkout?) How do we know?

sigzero 16y ago

Wow, what world do you live in? I am going to be blunt. In this instance there is NO justification for the DDoS period. Those other companies are doing business the way they do business and it is totally legal and totally above board. Using your logic, as long as I can justify in my mind that a "greater good" is coming out of it I am "in the clear". I will say it again, it is never right to wrong for a chance to do right. You can try to justify six ways to Sunday but in the end it is still wrong.

michaelchisari 16y ago

Very well said, and I hope you get upvotes for it. I think a lot of the issue stems with many people here having a conception of political change as being possible with very little conflict, and I don't think that's true. There is no easy, polite way to pressure those with extraordinary power to act differently. And sometimes you have to do things that are illegal (like sit-ins, digital or virtual). And when you do, you can recognize they are illegal, but partake in them anyways, and even fight your charges on moral grounds, and that makes your disobedience no less civil.

anamax 16y ago

> I think much greater harm is caused longterm by the permanent restriction of funding for Wikileaks than is caused by temporary DDoS'ing MC, Visa, and Paypal. That makes sense only if MC, Visa, and Paypal have an obligation to help Wikileaks receive funding. Do they? Why? Who else has that obligation? (Does discover have that obligation? How about Google Checkout?) How do we know?