4 ms·

Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period. "Fighting the system" is a different can of wo

Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period. "Fighting the system" is a different can of worms. Being a revolutionary is also different. But Civil Disobedience means that you put civility -- the willingness to not fight -- at the same level as your moral outrage. Civil Disobedience is doing the right thing, being willing to take the consequences without a fight, and daring the public to put up with such an immoral system. The person who is being disobedient is asking "How can our society continue in a practical way when we treat people this way?" It's both a moral and a practical question. It's not just outrage. It's an important distinction. I'm fine with revolutionaries, after all, the U.S. started with a revolution. But we were very clear in the Declaration of Independence the reasons for our taking up arms. We had a job to do, and the king had a job to do. The king wasn't doing his, and after trying our best to meet his demands, power then reverted to the natural legislature of the people. This wasn't a moral crusade. This was a reluctant servant taking the only action possible. If you want a moral crusade and a revolution, then you have to answer one key question: what makes you so right? After all, if we're talking morals, other people have morals too, and I betcha they're not going to agree with yours. What do we do? All get clubs and run out into the street and whoever wins gets to decide what's right? Been a lot of that going around, and it never ends well. Majorities don't decide the correct construction of a society that's going to last. All they get to do is bully folks into getting their way. I can't make a call on Aaron because I have no idea what his intentions were, and the story never finished. So the reader is free to add whatever he would like onto it (one of the reasons it is so powerful, probably) But I know from Civil Disobedience. Powerful concept. Poorly understood. ADD: Was going to link to MLK's letter from a Birmingham Jail, but that might derail us. MLK put this in religious terms, "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?", but the core of the question in my mind is not religious, it is this: how are we all going to continue getting along together if things continue like this?

mistermann 14y ago
> If you want a moral crusade and a revolution, then you have to answer one key question: what makes you so right? This is a very good question, the article asked a similar question: >But who then decides what data “deserves” to be stolen and “liberated”? How about we have an honest, uncensored, long running if necessary, public debate about these matters, involving academics and yes, even the public. I almost think politicians should be explicitly excluded as they are largely, let's say, "compromised", or at the very least have repeatedly proven incapable of acting like informed responsible adults. Let's set some ground rules for discussion, such as for starters, no lying or half-truths. When someone lies, it goes on their record so their future statements can be judged based on their past actions. The concept of "character" is traditionally used to serve this purpose, but in the modern age I don't think this low tech approach is cutting it. (If we could do something just to stop the lying and disingenuousness, you'd have half the battle won.) Lay out the options, list the advantages, disadvantages, and costs. If the various sides "can't agree" on these, fire them and get new ones. Then, let the public decide. This probably sounds a lot like the role democracy is supposed to serve, but are there really any serious people out there that would claim the present form of democracy, in most any country, even remotely resembles in practice what it is supposed to be in theory. All of this will require money and technology, so fund it with tax dollars. Yes, it will be difficult, it will require much discussion, compromise, and innovative thinking, but it's far from impossible.
- damncabbage 14y ago
  > ... no lying or half-truths. So who gets to decide what's a half-truth, a lie by omission, or just well-intentioned but insufficiently detailed?
  - mistermann 14y ago
    Most things are provably true/false, or not broken down into fine enough detail. In the minority of situations where it is genuinely indeterminate, you come to a consensus, just as happens between normal people millions of times each day on this planet. Part of the problem is, politicians routinely pass legislation they know is wrong, knowing they can hide behind the "we didn't know, our intentions were in the right place" argument later because they know they will be let off the hook, even though everyone knows they are lying. Governance has become such an "emperor has no clothes" scenario, where lying with impunity isn't given a second thought - no one would have believed you if you had predicted this state of affairs 100 years ago. Processing all these lies on an ongoing basis sounds impossible, but if the media and the public actually started outing politicians and executives for their lying, they would stop doing it so much, making verification of genuine uncertainties much easier.
- userulluipeste 14y ago
  What stoppes the new debate players to become "compromised" like the old ones when the entire thing becomes serious and the stakes get high?
  - mistermann 14y ago
    We could try honesty and integrity. That this seems like a comical suggestion when actually it isn't kind of shows how bad things are.
bguthrie 14y ago
The distinction between felony and misdemeanor is key, and therein rests Lessig's argument about proportionality. I don't doubt that Aaron would have been willing to do time if it meant making a point. But he didn't want to set a precedent in this circuit court that this kind of activity was a felony violation of the CFAA--it would have made it harder, not easier, for those who came after him. Also, while I agree with you that civil disobedience means going to jail, most moral crusaders whom society has fit to punish that way have not been charged with felonies (Martin Luther King Jr was never charged as a felon), and past innovators with similarly murky histories (Steve Jobs and blue boxes, for example) suffered no punishment. Aaron's political actions made him a target for the worst the government could do.
analog 14y ago
"Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period." I'm afraid you're wrong. You can also attempt to avoid the consequences and still be committing an act of civil disobedience.
- eplanit 14y ago
  But from that perspective, the activist is not distinguishable from the criminal. Responsibility and acceptance of consequences is the source of "honor" in an act of civil disobedience.
  - analog 14y ago
    No it's not. The conscious decision to refuse to cooperate with an unjust law is the source of honour.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    This is wrong. Let's take some really serious examples: the holocaust and slavery. Both were imposed by the law, and both were fought by concientious individuals. People harbored escaped slaves, people helped jews escape the nazi death camps. And they also tried very hard to avoid the consequences of those actions (which in the case of harboring jews could be death). Yes, this does make them criminals, but it does not put their actions on a lesser moral standing or make them less honorable. The difference between the activist and the criminal lies in the underlying morality of the act and of the law, it does not lie in whether or not someone willingly accepts the legal punishment for breaking the law.
    - martinced 14y ago
      +100 000
sampsonjs 14y ago
"Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period." Excuse me, the dude took his own life. That's a pretty powerful "fuck you" to the government. Another idiotic meme that needs to die: if a prosecution of an individual is unjust, it doesn't matter whether said individual went in expecting to become a martyr.
chc 14y ago
> But Civil Disobedience means that you put civility -- the willingness to not fight -- at the same level as your moral outrage. Although civil disobedience is in contrast to war, AFAIK the term doesn't imply civility any more than "civil war" does. The word "civil" in most of the common two-word combinations you can think of means something along the lines of "of the citizens." Civil rights are the rights of the citizens; civil war is a war between citizens of the same country; civil disobedience is citizens doing what they feel to be their civic duty by disobeying the civil government. None of these imply any particularly great level of politeness, much less being a doormat.
nova 14y ago
> Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period. Why? So they can thoroughly stomp you and nobody else get the idea? So many moral demands for the little guy and not for the huge all-powerful blind mad machine that crushed him.

mistermann 14y ago

> If you want a moral crusade and a revolution, then you have to answer one key question: what makes you so right? This is a very good question, the article asked a similar question: >But who then decides what data “deserves” to be stolen and “liberated”? How about we have an honest, uncensored, long running if necessary, public debate about these matters, involving academics and yes, even the public. I almost think politicians should be explicitly excluded as they are largely, let's say, "compromised", or at the very least have repeatedly proven incapable of acting like informed responsible adults. Let's set some ground rules for discussion, such as for starters, no lying or half-truths. When someone lies, it goes on their record so their future statements can be judged based on their past actions. The concept of "character" is traditionally used to serve this purpose, but in the modern age I don't think this low tech approach is cutting it. (If we could do something just to stop the lying and disingenuousness, you'd have half the battle won.) Lay out the options, list the advantages, disadvantages, and costs. If the various sides "can't agree" on these, fire them and get new ones. Then, let the public decide. This probably sounds a lot like the role democracy is supposed to serve, but are there really any serious people out there that would claim the present form of democracy, in most any country, even remotely resembles in practice what it is supposed to be in theory. All of this will require money and technology, so fund it with tax dollars. Yes, it will be difficult, it will require much discussion, compromise, and innovative thinking, but it's far from impossible.

damncabbage 14y ago
> ... no lying or half-truths. So who gets to decide what's a half-truth, a lie by omission, or just well-intentioned but insufficiently detailed?
- mistermann 14y ago
  Most things are provably true/false, or not broken down into fine enough detail. In the minority of situations where it is genuinely indeterminate, you come to a consensus, just as happens between normal people millions of times each day on this planet. Part of the problem is, politicians routinely pass legislation they know is wrong, knowing they can hide behind the "we didn't know, our intentions were in the right place" argument later because they know they will be let off the hook, even though everyone knows they are lying. Governance has become such an "emperor has no clothes" scenario, where lying with impunity isn't given a second thought - no one would have believed you if you had predicted this state of affairs 100 years ago. Processing all these lies on an ongoing basis sounds impossible, but if the media and the public actually started outing politicians and executives for their lying, they would stop doing it so much, making verification of genuine uncertainties much easier.
userulluipeste 14y ago
What stoppes the new debate players to become "compromised" like the old ones when the entire thing becomes serious and the stakes get high?
- mistermann 14y ago
  We could try honesty and integrity. That this seems like a comical suggestion when actually it isn't kind of shows how bad things are.

bguthrie 14y ago

The distinction between felony and misdemeanor is key, and therein rests Lessig's argument about proportionality. I don't doubt that Aaron would have been willing to do time if it meant making a point. But he didn't want to set a precedent in this circuit court that this kind of activity was a felony violation of the CFAA--it would have made it harder, not easier, for those who came after him. Also, while I agree with you that civil disobedience means going to jail, most moral crusaders whom society has fit to punish that way have not been charged with felonies (Martin Luther King Jr was never charged as a felon), and past innovators with similarly murky histories (Steve Jobs and blue boxes, for example) suffered no punishment. Aaron's political actions made him a target for the worst the government could do.

analog 14y ago

"Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period." I'm afraid you're wrong. You can also attempt to avoid the consequences and still be committing an act of civil disobedience.

eplanit 14y ago
But from that perspective, the activist is not distinguishable from the criminal. Responsibility and acceptance of consequences is the source of "honor" in an act of civil disobedience.
- analog 14y ago
  No it's not. The conscious decision to refuse to cooperate with an unjust law is the source of honour.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  This is wrong. Let's take some really serious examples: the holocaust and slavery. Both were imposed by the law, and both were fought by concientious individuals. People harbored escaped slaves, people helped jews escape the nazi death camps. And they also tried very hard to avoid the consequences of those actions (which in the case of harboring jews could be death). Yes, this does make them criminals, but it does not put their actions on a lesser moral standing or make them less honorable. The difference between the activist and the criminal lies in the underlying morality of the act and of the law, it does not lie in whether or not someone willingly accepts the legal punishment for breaking the law.
  - martinced 14y ago
    +100 000

sampsonjs 14y ago

"Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period." Excuse me, the dude took his own life. That's a pretty powerful "fuck you" to the government. Another idiotic meme that needs to die: if a prosecution of an individual is unjust, it doesn't matter whether said individual went in expecting to become a martyr.

chc 14y ago

> But Civil Disobedience means that you put civility -- the willingness to not fight -- at the same level as your moral outrage. Although civil disobedience is in contrast to war, AFAIK the term doesn't imply civility any more than "civil war" does. The word "civil" in most of the common two-word combinations you can think of means something along the lines of "of the citizens." Civil rights are the rights of the citizens; civil war is a war between citizens of the same country; civil disobedience is citizens doing what they feel to be their civic duty by disobeying the civil government. None of these imply any particularly great level of politeness, much less being a doormat.

nova 14y ago

> Civil Disobedience means accepting that what you are doing is illegal and dealing with the consequences. Period. Why? So they can thoroughly stomp you and nobody else get the idea? So many moral demands for the little guy and not for the huge all-powerful blind mad machine that crushed him.