Promotion of illegal activity -- an activist's view

[Marley23]

@Scissorjack

That’s the blood of the workers you’re horking up, plutocrat.

As I said earlier, that’s enough. Thank you.

[Scissorjack]

@Marley23

As I said earlier, that’s enough. Thank you.

Duly noted. My apologies for prolonging it.

[Green_Cymbeline]

@SmashTheState

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.

Just out of curiosity, what should I search on to read more? I’m interested to learn more…

[Polycarp]

Question for the Mods./Admins.: Would it be a violation of the rules to advocate the violation of a law deemed unjust (by the member posting at least) as an act of civil disobedience, recognizing in the post that persons doing so might be subject to arrest – and that, in the opinion of the member making the post, that wold be an acceptable price to pay to bring light to the injustice of the particular law? I’m seeing that as a quite different phenomenon from the “promotion of illegal activity” issue generally. I am not in general in favor of breaking any law, but I agree that there is a time and place for civil disobedience with awareness of the potential consequences.

[SmashTheState]

@nyctea scandiaca

Just out of curiosity, what should I search on to read more? I’m interested to learn more…

Ottawa Panhandlers’ Union. Here are a couple of articles to get you started.

[Frank]

@SmashTheState

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.

It’s probable that you won’t be, and evidence to date suggests that you won’t be. You’ve made it clear since early days that you have performed and that you advocate illegal acts under the laws of Ottawa, Ontario, or Canada (or any combination of the above) in re the removal of the fence. I haven’t seen any moderator actions against you for doing so. Have I missed something?

Is advocating the burning down of people’s houses the same to you as advocating the removal of a fence?

In closing, if you would like an online forum in which you and yours can advocate such actions as the latter, why don’t you start a forum of your own?

[Little_Nemo]

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.

No, the board’s policy is neutral - it says don’t advocate breaking any laws. What you’re asking for would require the board administration to take sides: you want them to decide which laws are good and which are bad and give tacit permission for posters to advocate breaking the bad ones.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

@Polycarp

Question for the Mods./Admins.: Would it be a violation of the rules to advocate the violation of a law deemed unjust (by the member posting at least) as an act of civil disobedience, recognizing in the post that persons doing so might be subject to arrest – and that, in the opinion of the member making the post, that wold be an acceptable price to pay to bring light to the injustice of the particular law? I’m seeing that as a quite different phenomenon from the “promotion of illegal activity” issue generally. I am not in general in favor of breaking any law, but I agree that there is a time and place for civil disobedience with awareness of the potential consequences.

I think it would depend on the circumstances, the law, the act of civil disobedience, the likely consequences for the person and the potential consequences for the READER. I’m trying to think of an example, and I can’t, but I don’t want to say “never under any circumstances.”

Note again that we have no problem with discussions of civil disobedience as such, nor with a discussion of desired changes in laws, unfairness of laws, etc. For instances, we’ve had discussions about the guy who shot an abortion doctor, presumably thinking that this was “civil disobedience” while most of us consider it murder. Third-hand discussions, about news stories or people engaged in civil disobedience would presumably be OK. Encouraging or urging for such practices would not.

Examples: “Come march with us to support a Constitutional Amendment to legalize marijuana” is fine. “Come help us burn down the courthouse to protest overly-severe penalties for smoking marijuana” is not. “Join us, we’re going to smoke pot in City Hall to protest the marijuana laws” is not.

The line is a fairly clear one, and is drawn at advocating illegal behaviors or explaining how to engage in illegal behaviors.

[raindog]

@SmashTheState

.…snip…
(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*…snip…*

Except you made a claim that was false. At the very least it undermines your credibility.

You made the claim. You were asked for a cite and provided no commentary, but a wiki link that did nothing to support your claim.

[LurkMeister]

Still waiting for a response to this:

@LurkMeister

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.

Unless you consider this

@SmashTheState

(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.

to be handwaving aside my question and allowing you to disregard it. In which case I wonder why you chose to use it as an example of a warning you were given instead of the times when you were warned for promoting illegal activities in support of civil disobedience or one of the other causes you are always talking about.

[Shodan]

I assume, SmashTheState, that you agree that if the ban were to be lifted, it would have to be lifted on all forms of illegal activity - making death threats against trolls, for instance.

Or are you attempting to make a case that certain illegal activities should be OK, but not others? Could you describe the circumstances that should allow this?

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

The line is a fairly clear one, and is drawn at advocating illegal behaviors or explaining how to engage in illegal behaviors.

And on that note, posts encouraging any kind of campaign usually aren’t allowed, whether the campaign itself is legal or illegal. We make exceptions for charitable appeals, but not too many other causes.

[Gary_Robson]

@SmashTheState

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.

You’re missing two things here, Smash:

1. There a difference between you making a personal choice to break a law and suffer the consequences, and you potentially causing others to suffer the consequences by using their message board as your bully pulpit.

2. There’s a big difference between “what one can be legally held responsible for” and “what one can be sued for.” The SDMB is a moderated message board. If we explicitly allow you to advocate breaking the law, some overzealous attorney could well drag Creative Loafing into a lawsuit. Justified or not, the cost of defending the suit could well shut down the board.

[Sapo]

@SmashTheState

(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.

I am afraid you are. The main purpose of any business is indeed to turn a profit. They have different ways of doing it, which is why some are restaurants, some are hospitals and some are message boards, but they are all about turning a profit.

[E-Sabbath]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

I think it would depend on the circumstances, the law, the act of civil disobedience, the likely consequences for the person and the potential consequences for the READER. I’m trying to think of an example, and I can’t, but I don’t want to say “never under any circumstances.”
…
The line is a fairly clear one, and is drawn at advocating illegal behaviors or explaining how to engage in illegal behaviors.

What about, say, the recent situation in Iran? It is possible that explicit instructions were posted on how to run a proxy server for Iranians to access the internet with, as a means of civil disobedience to the Iranian state. I’m reasonably sure that would count as an illegal behavior in Iran, while a legal one in the USA.

[Gfactor]

@SmashTheState

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.

Actually, we’ve got a rule on calls to action, too. **Marley **mentioned it, but here is the rule:

Calls to Action: Threads calling for folks to take actions (political, charitable, personal, etc) are prohibited unless there is prior approval from a moderator or administrator. Do not instigate members to take action for or against any issue or entity. Do not post phone numbers, email addresses or any other personally identifiable information of any entity in this regard. Exceptions for valid and noble causes may be made with the advance permission of a moderator or administrator.

FAQ - Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@E-Sabbath

What about, say, the recent situation in Iran? It is possible that explicit instructions were posted on how to run a proxy server for Iranians to access the internet with, as a means of civil disobedience to the Iranian state. I’m reasonably sure that would count as an illegal behavior in Iran, while a legal one in the USA.

I thought the mods have always clearly stated that the laws of the U.S. (or Illinois or Chicago, as may be) were the guiding legal principles. It’s hard enough to discern fine line distinctions about speech under U.S. law and impossible to do so for every country in the world.

[Green_Cymbeline]

@SmashTheState

Ottawa Panhandlers’ Union. Here are a couple of articles to get you started.

Smash, just wanted to thank you for the links, and I just read your other “Ask the” thread which was closed, and found everything about your union organizing work very fascinating. Thank you for sharing your experience, and please, just because there were some real jerks in that thread, don’t let that stop you from posting.

[Green_Cymbeline]

Oh crap, I just saw that you were suspended. I think that really stinks, and I hope you will be back soon because I think you have a lot to offer us.

[Sapo]

@nyctea scandiaca

Oh crap, I just saw that you were suspended…

Don’t we have a rule about personal insults here?