I have been dinged at least once by what I regard as overzealous enforcement of the “no promotion of illegal activity” rule. Having had some time to ruminate on this, I would like to put forward my argument for eliminating, or at least loosening, this rule.
As an activist, I have a fair amount of court time logged and more than a passing familiarity with constitutional law. The law texts I have read all agree that the courts tacitly support civil disobedience as a way of cleaning up bad law. Most judges, even when forced to pass sentence on activists challenging unjust laws, will show leniency so long as the activist is seen to be attempting to reform law rather than overthrow it or challenge its hegemony. It is generally acknowledged by the courts that progress in human freedom, whether it is abolishing slavery or granting women their suffrage, is accomplished by activists defying bad law.
My avocation as an activist brings me into frequent conflict with the law. I have, in the past, worn handcuffs and no doubt I will again. Yet even the police have been known to turn a blind eye when they see that justice is served by breaking the letter of the law in order to serve its spirit – or at least, in order to provide enough “wiggle room” to maintain relative peace on the streets. Yet where even the police are willing to overlook law-breaking in certain contexts, I find myself self-censoring on SD when discussing my activities as a labour organizer and activist, lest I run afoul of the rules.
I am on record in many places in the media as advocating the violation of the law. For example, I have spent time in jail for attempting to cut the lock on a fence which blocks part of a pedestrian underpass. This location was used by the street population as an area for socializing during the day, and for shelter from the elements at night. Our organization currently has a million dollar lawsuit pending on constitutional grounds against the city in an attempt to force them to remove the fence. The charges against me were dropped when they realized we were planning a constitutional defence (which would have assisted us in our lawsuit). I have given numerous interviews (some of them available online with a Google search) where I advocate and promote the illegal removal and/or vandalism of the fence. While the media seems not to mind running such material – and I have yet to be charged for uttering such provocation – I would probably be censored and/or censured here for doing so.
I would argue that the hard-line stance on SD against discussion of illegal activity is a tacit promotion of the status quo, and not necessary given that the courts themselves recognize the need for such discussion and action. The SD message boards acts as a common carrier, and is not responsible for the content it carries. Suppose, for example, I was to promote the unionization of workers despite the laws in many US states against such activity; is it not enough that I am prepared to deal with whatever legal action the police or courts may wish to take against me? For SD to censor (or censure) such statements on the basis that unionization is illegal is unjust. It puts SD in the position of taking a side, and always on the side of the State.
My position is that the SD rule against promotion of illegal activity creates a chill not conducive to the free and open discussion of ideas required for its stated mission statement of “fighting ignorance.”
The post you link to proposes the burning down of the homes of people who own legal (if unpopular) businesses. Please explain, for those of us who don’t have your towering knowledge of constitutional law, how this qualifies as civil disobedience, which I always understood to mean the defiance of laws or government activities.
And just how long do you think the SDMB would last once Creative Loafing saw the unchecked promotion of illegal activity on the board? The SDMB is part of a business, a business which relies on advertisers. Advertisers aren’t usually keen to have their products associated with law-breaking, however peripheral that association.
Your suggestion, if adopted, would be business suicide.
Since when is it illegal to promote unionization? Cite, please.
I have no problem with civil disobedience but when it gets to vandalism and destruction of property, you lose my sympathy for your cause no matter how worthy it might be.
Your cite does not say what you think it does. It says you can’t be forced to join a union as a condition of being hired, or hired then forced to join a union to stay employed. That is NOT making promoting of unionization illegal. It is protecting those workers who do not wish to join a union in order to get a job.
And, if your cite is correct, less then half the states have those laws.
Well, that makes about as much sense as any other legal claim you’ve made here, which ain’t much. If you’d bothered to read your own cite, you’d have noticed that it says nothing about prohibiting union activity…it just lists the 22 states that prohibit making union membership/dues a condition of employment. In other words, you can get a job without having to join a union. I happen to live in one of those states, and there are plenty of unions here.
We encourage discussion of most topics, and a discussion of WHY something is illegal is certainly welcome here. A discussion of whether something SHOULD BE illegal is also fine, we’re very supportive. But a discussion of how to circumvent the law, or to engage in an illegal act… NO.
That’s not going to change. Those rules were drafted by READER lawyers, and it would be a waste of time and money to ask them to review them. (I suppose, if you’re willing to pay their fees, I could ask them to review their prior decision, but I’m pretty sure what they’ll say.)
I should also comment that those engaged in civil disobedience need to care enough about their cause to be willing to suffer consequences. The equal rights marchers in the '50s faced jail, beatings, etc. The peace demonstrators in the '60s faced police brutality, etc. The fact is that there are lots of causes, and the Chicago READER, as a business, does not feel willing to put itself at risk for any of these causes.
You broke a rule, you got called on it. Take it like a man. : p What “case” are you arguing here? That you shouldn’t have been warned? That those type of suggestions should be allowed?
Please, you posted something that is against the rules and were warned.
(1) A number of folks here seem to think we’re in the Pit. We’re not. Please contribute only if you have something constructive to say. Snarky one-liners aren’t constructive.
(2) The nitpicking over labour laws is not useful or productive. If you prefer, I could use as an example advocating for workers in essential services to wildcat, or advocating for workers to take over their factories, as they have recently in France, South Korea, and Chile. My point is that a blanket ban on advocating illegal activities is tacit de facto support for the views of the State, regardless of merit.
(3) I am not complaining about the warning I received specifically. I indicated that it was the source of my consideration of the larger implications of SD’s policy around the advocacy of illegal activities.
(4) This board is operated by a business, yes. I was under the impression, however, that profit was not the main purpose. I may be mistaken in that. My argument is that the stated purpose of SD may be in conflict with the goal of turning a profit through minimizing risk. I have no power and can’t force the administration to do anything. All I’ve done is pose what I consider to be a fair argument, and the administration is of course free to totally disregard it.
For God’s sake, man, don’t trifle with him! One word from Ksmashy and every Moochy McGee in the city will down his crudely hand-lettered sign, withhold his lack of labour and stop demanding $2 for the bus! Do you want a bum strike on your hands?
(my bolding)
a blanket ban on illegal activities is exactly the right thing to do. On the ohter hand, there might be a very specific cause (and unionization is not it) that may be so important that the SD, CL and CR may risk accepting it. Otherwise, you’d get people advocating harassing unionized panhandlers because they don’t like them.
Also, forced unionization is not that anarchic, at least in my book, it’s a dictatorship by those in power.
Hey, fascist, we don’t need your pig “rules” to tell us what we can and can’t say and where we can’t say it, dig? Freedom of expression is where it’s at, baby, they’ve got the guns but we’ve got the numbers, so let’s kick out the jams and burn this sucker to the ground, cos’ we’re The Kids, and we’re taking over, so I’m declaring this The People’s Message Board, baby. And the only reason you don’t listen to our music is because you don’t like it, oink oink.
As C K Dexter Haven says upthread, this isn’t a Constitutional or ethical issue, it’s protection for Creative Loafing and the board, because in the unlikely event somebody sued CLM over something on the board, it would be a threat to the existence of the board.
And I remind everybody that we’re not in the Pit here, so enough with the personal jabs.