3 ms·

> A commenter on that story makes a good point: Forget for a moment that the user they were looking for was Snowden. If the FBI had been looking for info for a

by smtddr 13y ago

> A commenter on that story makes a good point: Forget for a moment that the user they were looking for was Snowden. If the FBI had been looking for info for a case against a serial killer or a child porn ring, would we still hold Lavabit as heroes for not following the court order? I would, because it's impossible to forget for a moment about Snowden. The context cannot be ignored; this is about Snowden. It's better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man behind bars. As far as I'm concerned Snowden did the right thing and if protecting other criminals is the only way to ensure Snowden's protection... so be it. To quote Armin from Attack on Titans: "If you aren't willing to sacrifice anything, you can't change anything". In this case, sacrificing the chance to punish the guilty is worthy of protecting the innocent.

ubernostrum 13y ago
"If you aren't willing to sacrifice anything, you can't change anything" Oddly enough, this is why I have issues with the way in which people now protest against unjust laws. The effectiveness of civil disobedience comes from putting authorities in a position where they must enforce an unjust law to the letter, thus demonstrating to the general public the injustice of the law itself and rallying support to change the law. This means that civil disobedience effectively requires the person engaging in it to suffer the consequences of disobedience. If a law is unjust, but violators who attempt to demonstrate this can simply walk away relatively unscathed, then it's a lot more difficult to make the case to the public at large that the law is unjust. After all, that guy jumped up and down on the law, and got away with it! How bad could it really be? But it seems that what we have now is a generation of people who are willing to take the step of declaring the law unjust, and willing to take the step of breaking it to make a point, but unwilling to suffer the consequences which would demonstrate the injustice to the public. Which accomplishes little.
- smtddr 13y ago
  I think Lavabit's owner and Snowden are suffering consequences for the choices they've made; more than they should be. I'm happy to ease that pain in whatever little way I can.

by smtddr 13y ago

ubernostrum 13y ago

"If you aren't willing to sacrifice anything, you can't change anything" Oddly enough, this is why I have issues with the way in which people now protest against unjust laws. The effectiveness of civil disobedience comes from putting authorities in a position where they must enforce an unjust law to the letter, thus demonstrating to the general public the injustice of the law itself and rallying support to change the law. This means that civil disobedience effectively requires the person engaging in it to suffer the consequences of disobedience. If a law is unjust, but violators who attempt to demonstrate this can simply walk away relatively unscathed, then it's a lot more difficult to make the case to the public at large that the law is unjust. After all, that guy jumped up and down on the law, and got away with it! How bad could it really be? But it seems that what we have now is a generation of people who are willing to take the step of declaring the law unjust, and willing to take the step of breaking it to make a point, but unwilling to suffer the consequences which would demonstrate the injustice to the public. Which accomplishes little.

smtddr 13y ago
I think Lavabit's owner and Snowden are suffering consequences for the choices they've made; more than they should be. I'm happy to ease that pain in whatever little way I can.