3 ms·

So how would you propose someone expose (what they consider to be) criminal or unjust practices? It's only ok if an impartial observer just happened to find the

So how would you propose someone expose (what they consider to be) criminal or unjust practices? It's only ok if an impartial observer just happened to find themselves in the middle of a commercial farming operation with a video camera? I get that it sucks for someone to be acting in bad faith toward their employer, but isn't that justified and even necessary when the employer is acting in bad faith toward the populace? Obviously this is what Snowden did - he knew what he was doing, he didn't just stumble upon a pile of documents. But maybe you would describe what he did as sketchy, criminal, and wrong? Many have, of course. Edit: Well you heavily edited your comment while I wrote mine. But, I don't think the wife-beating analogy is valid, it brings in ulterior motives. In this situation there is no mayoral campaign to derail, they actually just wanted to expose the crimes because those are what they took issue with. Still don't understand your desire to demonize the whistleblower.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Snowden is a hero because he exposed that our political class was lying to us. We make broad exceptions when it comes to the government itself because there is no other form of recourse. If the government is lying to you, you're truly hosed. Here, all sorts of things could happen to bring crimes to light. A worker might rat out his employer. A news crew could be filming some other story. A civil suit might involve disclosure of practices. The FDA might investigate the farm as part of some food chain issue. After all, we've created a seriously complex system of laws and enforcement to handle stuff like this. Are we now saying that they aren't good enough? If not, why not fix them, instead of having people sneak around other people's property? And let's not forget, if you let the special group called "people who care about animal treatment" violate property rights, then you'll be doing it for everybody, including people you don't agree with, like perhaps "people who don't want abortions happening" Nope, there are tons of ways to catch this crime and punish the criminals. Let's use them and enough with the self-promotional I'm-upset-so-I-have-a-right-to-break-the-rules bullshit. No amount of drama here is going to change my mind about the firm necessity of respecting private property in the abstract (meaning assuming there isn't more to the story.)
- pyre 13y ago
  > A worker might rat out his employer. This is just naive. In the places where this happens, such 'ratting out' would incur social penalties from the (local) community. It's better to sweep possibly illegal acts under the rug when the livelihood of the community is (possibly) at stake. Take Snowden as an example (since it's already on the table). How many people had access to the same information about what the NSA was doing for years, and said nothing? Do you really want the only recourse to be waiting for insiders to come forward? That said, do we really need more laws here? If "lying on your resume to investigate wrong-doings" is such a generically bad thing, then why is this legislation limited to a specific industry? > "people who don't want abortions happening" This is a poor example. What could they possibly exposed to shock the public? That abortions are happening? The whole point of going undercover and releasing footage is to expose something to the public. I'm curious what crimes and/or reprehensible behavior is going on at abortion clinics? Doctors sexually abusing patients? Doctors taking aborted fetuses into a backroom and eating them? I'd argue that if said things were actually happening, it would still be in the public interested even if it was an anti-abortion group that was doing it. > The FDA might investigate the farm as part of some food chain issue. Many people believe the government is in the pocket of said industries. It takes a really severe issue (e.g. Mad Cow Disease) to have any significant impact. Just witness how the industry was able to get its own law passed to make it specifically illegal to try and exposed illegal acts behind (their) closed doors. Do you really think that government oversight will work correctly in such an environment?
- resu_nimda 13y ago
  Well, a lot of people don't have a lot of faith in the institutional processes (cf. Deepwater Horizon, many other regulatory failures), and don't want to wait around for a serendipitous happenstance, that doesn't seem very reliable. And yeah, there is a fine line between "exposing wrongdoing" and "interfering with legal business operations," and an activist might not always know which side they will fall on, but I would prefer to live in a country where they have some liberty to act on their beliefs.
  - DanielBMarkham 13y ago
    This isn't very difficult to do. Take 100K. Hire private investigators to find people who work at the place in question and who are not happy. Pay these people for affidavits stating that animal cruelty goes on. Based on that sworn testimony, go to a federal prosecutor and get a warrant. Take the warrant and gather evidence. Or, start a civil action and begin discovery. This kind of thing is done all the time. But you know what it lacks? Publicity. Because at the end of the day, that's what activists want. It's not necessarily to stop the wrong, it's to get TV and internet coverage -- just like we see here -- and to use that coverage to raise money, gain attention, create an even bigger movement. So yeah, I'm all for activists speaking out. Hell, I'll go march with them. But not onto somebody else's private property. They can go jump in a lake as far as I care, no matter what kind of impassioned cause they're thumping their chests about this week. Look, either civilization depends on the rule of law or we all get to make impassioned speeches about things and do what we want because we believe our beliefs to be so special (more than other people). Count me in as a "rule of law" guy. Otherwise neither you or I are going to like things very much.
toddh 13y ago
Exactly. Whistleblowing is a meta statement about a law. A law by definition can't address whisteblowing no more than a law can bring the idea of a governement of laws to life. They both flow from the same place, the human conscience.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Snowden is a hero because he exposed that our political class was lying to us. We make broad exceptions when it comes to the government itself because there is no other form of recourse. If the government is lying to you, you're truly hosed. Here, all sorts of things could happen to bring crimes to light. A worker might rat out his employer. A news crew could be filming some other story. A civil suit might involve disclosure of practices. The FDA might investigate the farm as part of some food chain issue. After all, we've created a seriously complex system of laws and enforcement to handle stuff like this. Are we now saying that they aren't good enough? If not, why not fix them, instead of having people sneak around other people's property? And let's not forget, if you let the special group called "people who care about animal treatment" violate property rights, then you'll be doing it for everybody, including people you don't agree with, like perhaps "people who don't want abortions happening" Nope, there are tons of ways to catch this crime and punish the criminals. Let's use them and enough with the self-promotional I'm-upset-so-I-have-a-right-to-break-the-rules bullshit. No amount of drama here is going to change my mind about the firm necessity of respecting private property in the abstract (meaning assuming there isn't more to the story.)

pyre 13y ago
> A worker might rat out his employer. This is just naive. In the places where this happens, such 'ratting out' would incur social penalties from the (local) community. It's better to sweep possibly illegal acts under the rug when the livelihood of the community is (possibly) at stake. Take Snowden as an example (since it's already on the table). How many people had access to the same information about what the NSA was doing for years, and said nothing? Do you really want the only recourse to be waiting for insiders to come forward? That said, do we really need more laws here? If "lying on your resume to investigate wrong-doings" is such a generically bad thing, then why is this legislation limited to a specific industry? > "people who don't want abortions happening" This is a poor example. What could they possibly exposed to shock the public? That abortions are happening? The whole point of going undercover and releasing footage is to expose something to the public. I'm curious what crimes and/or reprehensible behavior is going on at abortion clinics? Doctors sexually abusing patients? Doctors taking aborted fetuses into a backroom and eating them? I'd argue that if said things were actually happening, it would still be in the public interested even if it was an anti-abortion group that was doing it. > The FDA might investigate the farm as part of some food chain issue. Many people believe the government is in the pocket of said industries. It takes a really severe issue (e.g. Mad Cow Disease) to have any significant impact. Just witness how the industry was able to get its own law passed to make it specifically illegal to try and exposed illegal acts behind (their) closed doors. Do you really think that government oversight will work correctly in such an environment?
resu_nimda 13y ago
Well, a lot of people don't have a lot of faith in the institutional processes (cf. Deepwater Horizon, many other regulatory failures), and don't want to wait around for a serendipitous happenstance, that doesn't seem very reliable. And yeah, there is a fine line between "exposing wrongdoing" and "interfering with legal business operations," and an activist might not always know which side they will fall on, but I would prefer to live in a country where they have some liberty to act on their beliefs.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  This isn't very difficult to do. Take 100K. Hire private investigators to find people who work at the place in question and who are not happy. Pay these people for affidavits stating that animal cruelty goes on. Based on that sworn testimony, go to a federal prosecutor and get a warrant. Take the warrant and gather evidence. Or, start a civil action and begin discovery. This kind of thing is done all the time. But you know what it lacks? Publicity. Because at the end of the day, that's what activists want. It's not necessarily to stop the wrong, it's to get TV and internet coverage -- just like we see here -- and to use that coverage to raise money, gain attention, create an even bigger movement. So yeah, I'm all for activists speaking out. Hell, I'll go march with them. But not onto somebody else's private property. They can go jump in a lake as far as I care, no matter what kind of impassioned cause they're thumping their chests about this week. Look, either civilization depends on the rule of law or we all get to make impassioned speeches about things and do what we want because we believe our beliefs to be so special (more than other people). Count me in as a "rule of law" guy. Otherwise neither you or I are going to like things very much.

toddh 13y ago

Exactly. Whistleblowing is a meta statement about a law. A law by definition can't address whisteblowing no more than a law can bring the idea of a governement of laws to life. They both flow from the same place, the human conscience.