headers
Clifford Conley Owens III | 1 Aug 16:04
Favicon

Civil Disobedience

I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil 
disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an 
opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I 
suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil 
disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just 
say a few things that come to mind.

One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps 
out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I 
suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other 
side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).  I remember arguing 
about copyright and piracy with someone in a philosophy class in high 
school (and imagine me talking like a 16-year-old version of Dan 
Glickman).  I thought that everyone who disagreed with me was being 
immature.  How ironic that over four years later I became a grad student 
and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members.  
But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who 
disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered 
*constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my 
mind about things.

I'm open for discussion, but if this organization ever plans a civil 
disobedience event, you can count me out of the event, and possibly out 
of the organization.

~Conley
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nelson Pavlosky | 1 Aug 17:18

Re: Civil Disobedience

There are definitely situations in which civil disobedience could be
justified and even required, although such situations are much less
common in the field of free culture than in the field of, say, civil rights.

The event that lead directly to the founding of SFC, the Diebold case,
included a civil disobedience component, although it was not one that
Luke and I directly participated in.  There were these memos that
detailed possible problems with the voting machines which are the
backbone of our democracy, and Diebold was trying to suppress that
information.  Luke and I took the legal route, fighting it in the
courts, but our allies didn't want to count on the courts making the
right call when democracy itself was on the line: they wanted to make
sure the public got the information it needed one way or the other. 
They organized a system of mirrors on college campuses, including people
like Asheesh Laroia and many of our earliest SFC recruits, to make sure
the Diebold memos stayed available.  Diebold had to play whack-a-mole,
sending takedown notices to each campus, but once the mirrors on one
campus were shut down, the memos just popped up on another campus.

It actually turned out that the court agreed with us that hosting the
Diebold memos was legal and a fair use.  Therefore the "electronic civil
disobedience" campaign had been arguably legal the whole time, and not
actually civil disobedience.  However, if the court had ruled the other
way, the mirrors would have continued to host the Diebold memos and
ensure public knowledge of possible flaws with our elections, even if it
had been judged to be against the law.  And I would have supported them
in that action 100%, even if I were unable to participate myself due to
legal reasons (I would have wanted to keep my hands "clean" during the
appeals process, presumably).  Sometimes the law is wrong, and when the
stakes are high enough, it is best to break the law, accepting the legal
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Fred Benenson | 1 Aug 17:55

Re: Civil Disobedience

Wait, who said what about civil disobedience?

And until people start getting arrested, I don't think we're there yet.
 

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <nelson <at> freeculture.org> wrote:
There are definitely situations in which civil disobedience could be
justified and even required, although such situations are much less
common in the field of free culture than in the field of, say, civil rights.

The event that lead directly to the founding of SFC, the Diebold case,
included a civil disobedience component, although it was not one that
Luke and I directly participated in.  There were these memos that
detailed possible problems with the voting machines which are the
backbone of our democracy, and Diebold was trying to suppress that
information.  Luke and I took the legal route, fighting it in the
courts, but our allies didn't want to count on the courts making the
right call when democracy itself was on the line: they wanted to make
sure the public got the information it needed one way or the other.
They organized a system of mirrors on college campuses, including people
like Asheesh Laroia and many of our earliest SFC recruits, to make sure
the Diebold memos stayed available.  Diebold had to play whack-a-mole,
sending takedown notices to each campus, but once the mirrors on one
campus were shut down, the memos just popped up on another campus.

It actually turned out that the court agreed with us that hosting the
Diebold memos was legal and a fair use.  Therefore the "electronic civil
disobedience" campaign had been arguably legal the whole time, and not
actually civil disobedience.  However, if the court had ruled the other
way, the mirrors would have continued to host the Diebold memos and
ensure public knowledge of possible flaws with our elections, even if it
had been judged to be against the law.  And I would have supported them
in that action 100%, even if I were unable to participate myself due to
legal reasons (I would have wanted to keep my hands "clean" during the
appeals process, presumably).  Sometimes the law is wrong, and when the
stakes are high enough, it is best to break the law, accepting the legal
consequences for your actions.

I am not saying that SFC should necessarily ever officially organize a
campaign involving civil disobedience.  That's a question for the
lawyers, as to what is legally possible or what is legally most
damaging, and an ethical question of whether it would be better to let
the organization shoulder the consequences for a civil disobedience
action, or to let the individuals hang separately.  However, I can
easily imagine another situation where civil disobedience would be
justified and necessary, just like the Diebold case if the court had
ruled the other way, and it would be a discussion worth having as to
what SFC's responsibilities are given our mission, our resources and our
constituents, and whether SFC should knowingly break an unjust law.

Peace,
~Nelson Pavlosky~

Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
> I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil
> disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an
> opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I
> suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil
> disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just
> say a few things that come to mind.
>
> One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps
> out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I
> suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other
> side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).  I remember arguing
> about copyright and piracy with someone in a philosophy class in high
> school (and imagine me talking like a 16-year-old version of Dan
> Glickman).  I thought that everyone who disagreed with me was being
> immature.  How ironic that over four years later I became a grad student
> and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members.
> But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who
> disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered
> *constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my
> mind about things.
>
> I'm open for discussion, but if this organization ever plans a civil
> disobedience event, you can count me out of the event, and possibly out
> of the organization.
>
> ~Conley
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Driscoll | 1 Aug 18:21

Re: Civil Disobedience

Point taken regarding unauthorized copying masquerading as civil
disobedience, Conley, but I would caution against throwing out babies
with bathwater. Non-violent direct action has been a powerful tactic
for many activist organizations and social movements. Properly
deployed amid a diversity of approaches, it can be done effectively,
respectfully, and responsibly.

Kevin

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Fred Benenson <fred.benenson <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Wait, who said what about civil disobedience?
>
> And until people start getting arrested, I don't think we're there yet.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <nelson <at> freeculture.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> There are definitely situations in which civil disobedience could be
>> justified and even required, although such situations are much less
>> common in the field of free culture than in the field of, say, civil
>> rights.
>>
>> The event that lead directly to the founding of SFC, the Diebold case,
>> included a civil disobedience component, although it was not one that
>> Luke and I directly participated in.  There were these memos that
>> detailed possible problems with the voting machines which are the
>> backbone of our democracy, and Diebold was trying to suppress that
>> information.  Luke and I took the legal route, fighting it in the
>> courts, but our allies didn't want to count on the courts making the
>> right call when democracy itself was on the line: they wanted to make
>> sure the public got the information it needed one way or the other.
>> They organized a system of mirrors on college campuses, including people
>> like Asheesh Laroia and many of our earliest SFC recruits, to make sure
>> the Diebold memos stayed available.  Diebold had to play whack-a-mole,
>> sending takedown notices to each campus, but once the mirrors on one
>> campus were shut down, the memos just popped up on another campus.
>>
>> It actually turned out that the court agreed with us that hosting the
>> Diebold memos was legal and a fair use.  Therefore the "electronic civil
>> disobedience" campaign had been arguably legal the whole time, and not
>> actually civil disobedience.  However, if the court had ruled the other
>> way, the mirrors would have continued to host the Diebold memos and
>> ensure public knowledge of possible flaws with our elections, even if it
>> had been judged to be against the law.  And I would have supported them
>> in that action 100%, even if I were unable to participate myself due to
>> legal reasons (I would have wanted to keep my hands "clean" during the
>> appeals process, presumably).  Sometimes the law is wrong, and when the
>> stakes are high enough, it is best to break the law, accepting the legal
>> consequences for your actions.
>>
>> I am not saying that SFC should necessarily ever officially organize a
>> campaign involving civil disobedience.  That's a question for the
>> lawyers, as to what is legally possible or what is legally most
>> damaging, and an ethical question of whether it would be better to let
>> the organization shoulder the consequences for a civil disobedience
>> action, or to let the individuals hang separately.  However, I can
>> easily imagine another situation where civil disobedience would be
>> justified and necessary, just like the Diebold case if the court had
>> ruled the other way, and it would be a discussion worth having as to
>> what SFC's responsibilities are given our mission, our resources and our
>> constituents, and whether SFC should knowingly break an unjust law.
>>
>> Peace,
>> ~Nelson Pavlosky~
>>
>> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>> > I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil
>> > disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an
>> > opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I
>> > suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil
>> > disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just
>> > say a few things that come to mind.
>> >
>> > One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps
>> > out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I
>> > suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other
>> > side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).  I remember arguing
>> > about copyright and piracy with someone in a philosophy class in high
>> > school (and imagine me talking like a 16-year-old version of Dan
>> > Glickman).  I thought that everyone who disagreed with me was being
>> > immature.  How ironic that over four years later I became a grad student
>> > and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members.
>> > But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who
>> > disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered
>> > *constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my
>> > mind about things.
>> >
>> > I'm open for discussion, but if this organization ever plans a civil
>> > disobedience event, you can count me out of the event, and possibly out
>> > of the organization.
>> >
>> > ~Conley
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss mailing list
>> > Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>

--

-- 
)_)_)_)_)_)_
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nelson Pavlosky | 1 Aug 18:25

Re: Civil Disobedience

Actually, that's a good question, Fred.  Conley said that he opposes
civil disobedience, but he did not mention specific examples of people
supporting civil disobedience within SFC.

Conley?

Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting
arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make
significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, if
publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the memos
probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they might have
been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still would have
supported it as a civil disobedience.

Another example of civil disobedience which I might support even if the
stakes are low is the banning of DeCSS and its ilk.  After DeCSS was
ruled to be illegal to publish I may have technically broken the law by
writing a giant prime number on the sidewalk which, when parsed by an
unzipping program, would uncompress to be the DeCSS code.  See a picture
of this at <http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyfaller/129082487/>... Luke
and I actually met Asheesh when he walked into one of us chalking the
number.  The prospect of people being fined for writing songs like "Oh
Nine, Eff Nine" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HaNbsIfp0> (for the
AACS processing key to crack HD-DVDs) or for wearing a tie with the
DeCSS code on it is vaguely hilarious and also great for calling
attention to the problems with this attack on freedom of speech.

There have also been a few examples of people actually going to jail for
free culture-related reasons, such as Dmitry Sklyarov, whose
imprisonment inspired Derek Slater:
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/07/eff15-day-i-became-copyfighter>. 
I'm not sure Dmitry intended his action to be civil disobedience, he was
probably just surprised when he was arrested while presenting research
at a conference in the United States, instead of the expected scenario
of a researcher being arrested in the Soviet Union.   Still, if that had
been civil disobedience instead of an accident, I probably would have
still supported Dmitry.

Peace,
~Nelson~

Fred Benenson wrote:
> Wait, who said what about civil disobedience?
>
> And until people start getting arrested, I don't think we're there yet.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <nelson <at> freeculture.org>wrote:
>
>   
>> There are definitely situations in which civil disobedience could be
>> justified and even required, although such situations are much less
>> common in the field of free culture than in the field of, say, civil
>> rights.
>>
>> The event that lead directly to the founding of SFC, the Diebold case,
>> included a civil disobedience component, although it was not one that
>> Luke and I directly participated in.  There were these memos that
>> detailed possible problems with the voting machines which are the
>> backbone of our democracy, and Diebold was trying to suppress that
>> information.  Luke and I took the legal route, fighting it in the
>> courts, but our allies didn't want to count on the courts making the
>> right call when democracy itself was on the line: they wanted to make
>> sure the public got the information it needed one way or the other.
>> They organized a system of mirrors on college campuses, including people
>> like Asheesh Laroia and many of our earliest SFC recruits, to make sure
>> the Diebold memos stayed available.  Diebold had to play whack-a-mole,
>> sending takedown notices to each campus, but once the mirrors on one
>> campus were shut down, the memos just popped up on another campus.
>>
>> It actually turned out that the court agreed with us that hosting the
>> Diebold memos was legal and a fair use.  Therefore the "electronic civil
>> disobedience" campaign had been arguably legal the whole time, and not
>> actually civil disobedience.  However, if the court had ruled the other
>> way, the mirrors would have continued to host the Diebold memos and
>> ensure public knowledge of possible flaws with our elections, even if it
>> had been judged to be against the law.  And I would have supported them
>> in that action 100%, even if I were unable to participate myself due to
>> legal reasons (I would have wanted to keep my hands "clean" during the
>> appeals process, presumably).  Sometimes the law is wrong, and when the
>> stakes are high enough, it is best to break the law, accepting the legal
>> consequences for your actions.
>>
>> I am not saying that SFC should necessarily ever officially organize a
>> campaign involving civil disobedience.  That's a question for the
>> lawyers, as to what is legally possible or what is legally most
>> damaging, and an ethical question of whether it would be better to let
>> the organization shoulder the consequences for a civil disobedience
>> action, or to let the individuals hang separately.  However, I can
>> easily imagine another situation where civil disobedience would be
>> justified and necessary, just like the Diebold case if the court had
>> ruled the other way, and it would be a discussion worth having as to
>> what SFC's responsibilities are given our mission, our resources and our
>> constituents, and whether SFC should knowingly break an unjust law.
>>
>> Peace,
>> ~Nelson Pavlosky~
>>
>> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>>     
>>> I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil
>>> disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an
>>> opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I
>>> suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil
>>> disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just
>>> say a few things that come to mind.
>>>
>>> One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps
>>> out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I
>>> suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other
>>> side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).  I remember arguing
>>> about copyright and piracy with someone in a philosophy class in high
>>> school (and imagine me talking like a 16-year-old version of Dan
>>> Glickman).  I thought that everyone who disagreed with me was being
>>> immature.  How ironic that over four years later I became a grad student
>>> and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members.
>>> But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who
>>> disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered
>>> *constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my
>>> mind about things.
>>>
>>> I'm open for discussion, but if this organization ever plans a civil
>>> disobedience event, you can count me out of the event, and possibly out
>>> of the organization.
>>>
>>> ~Conley
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>     
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Fred Benenson | 1 Aug 18:36

Re: Civil Disobedience



On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <nelson <at> freeculture.org> wrote:
Actually, that's a good question, Fred.  Conley said that he opposes
civil disobedience, but he did not mention specific examples of people
supporting civil disobedience within SFC.

Conley?

Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting
arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate...

Glad to hear it ..
 
but I would make
significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, if
publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the memos
probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they might have
been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still would have
supported it as a civil disobedience.
 
Indeed.



Another example of civil disobedience which I might support even if the
stakes are low is the banning of DeCSS and its ilk.  After DeCSS was
ruled to be illegal to publish I may have technically broken the law by
writing a giant prime number on the sidewalk which, when parsed by an
unzipping program, would uncompress to be the DeCSS code.  See a picture
of this at <http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyfaller/129082487/>... Luke
and I actually met Asheesh when he walked into one of us chalking the
number.  The prospect of people being fined for writing songs like "Oh
Nine, Eff Nine" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HaNbsIfp0> (for the
AACS processing key to crack HD-DVDs) or for wearing a tie with the
DeCSS code on it is vaguely hilarious and also great for calling
attention to the problems with this attack on freedom of speech.

The more I've thought about hyper-reductionist arguments like this, the more they fall flat to me. It's like saying that murder is wrong only if you assume that INTERCEPTING a certain set of randomly arranged atoms with another set of random atoms is wrong.

If your point is that data (or media) should not be protected by any law so long as its reducible to simple prime numbers, then I think you're missing the point here as anything can be reduced to a prime number. So long as you assume that some things are restrictable (or, protectable depending on your stance of the ethics copyright) then its hyperbolic to just say that things that can be reduced to constituent parts should never be exclusively controlled.

What I think you mean, Nelson, is that the DMCA is a bad law because it makes certain prime numbers illegal in spite of the existence of copyright (ignoring that the DMCA is meant to be an extension thereof). A work could be in the public domain and that prime number could decrypt the file it is represented in, and that would still be wrong.

Ok, sorry if that was pedantic, but I figured I'd share my thoughts here.


F

PS: If anyone can manage to find a way to get arrested for a DMCA violation, please, let me know. The attempts I've made have only confused the cops I've tried to explain them to.


 


There have also been a few examples of people actually going to jail for
free culture-related reasons, such as Dmitry Sklyarov, whose
imprisonment inspired Derek Slater:
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/07/eff15-day-i-became-copyfighter>.
I'm not sure Dmitry intended his action to be civil disobedience, he was
probably just surprised when he was arrested while presenting research
at a conference in the United States, instead of the expected scenario
of a researcher being arrested in the Soviet Union.   Still, if that had
been civil disobedience instead of an accident, I probably would have
still supported Dmitry.

Peace,
~Nelson~

Fred Benenson wrote:
> Wait, who said what about civil disobedience?
>
> And until people start getting arrested, I don't think we're there yet.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <nelson <at> freeculture.org>wrote:
>
>
>> There are definitely situations in which civil disobedience could be
>> justified and even required, although such situations are much less
>> common in the field of free culture than in the field of, say, civil
>> rights.
>>
>> The event that lead directly to the founding of SFC, the Diebold case,
>> included a civil disobedience component, although it was not one that
>> Luke and I directly participated in.  There were these memos that
>> detailed possible problems with the voting machines which are the
>> backbone of our democracy, and Diebold was trying to suppress that
>> information.  Luke and I took the legal route, fighting it in the
>> courts, but our allies didn't want to count on the courts making the
>> right call when democracy itself was on the line: they wanted to make
>> sure the public got the information it needed one way or the other.
>> They organized a system of mirrors on college campuses, including people
>> like Asheesh Laroia and many of our earliest SFC recruits, to make sure
>> the Diebold memos stayed available.  Diebold had to play whack-a-mole,
>> sending takedown notices to each campus, but once the mirrors on one
>> campus were shut down, the memos just popped up on another campus.
>>
>> It actually turned out that the court agreed with us that hosting the
>> Diebold memos was legal and a fair use.  Therefore the "electronic civil
>> disobedience" campaign had been arguably legal the whole time, and not
>> actually civil disobedience.  However, if the court had ruled the other
>> way, the mirrors would have continued to host the Diebold memos and
>> ensure public knowledge of possible flaws with our elections, even if it
>> had been judged to be against the law.  And I would have supported them
>> in that action 100%, even if I were unable to participate myself due to
>> legal reasons (I would have wanted to keep my hands "clean" during the
>> appeals process, presumably).  Sometimes the law is wrong, and when the
>> stakes are high enough, it is best to break the law, accepting the legal
>> consequences for your actions.
>>
>> I am not saying that SFC should necessarily ever officially organize a
>> campaign involving civil disobedience.  That's a question for the
>> lawyers, as to what is legally possible or what is legally most
>> damaging, and an ethical question of whether it would be better to let
>> the organization shoulder the consequences for a civil disobedience
>> action, or to let the individuals hang separately.  However, I can
>> easily imagine another situation where civil disobedience would be
>> justified and necessary, just like the Diebold case if the court had
>> ruled the other way, and it would be a discussion worth having as to
>> what SFC's responsibilities are given our mission, our resources and our
>> constituents, and whether SFC should knowingly break an unjust law.
>>
>> Peace,
>> ~Nelson Pavlosky~
>>
>> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>>
>>> I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil
>>> disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an
>>> opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I
>>> suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil
>>> disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just
>>> say a few things that come to mind.
>>>
>>> One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps
>>> out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I
>>> suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other
>>> side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).  I remember arguing
>>> about copyright and piracy with someone in a philosophy class in high
>>> school (and imagine me talking like a 16-year-old version of Dan
>>> Glickman).  I thought that everyone who disagreed with me was being
>>> immature.  How ironic that over four years later I became a grad student
>>> and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members.
>>> But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who
>>> disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered
>>> *constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my
>>> mind about things.
>>>
>>> I'm open for discussion, but if this organization ever plans a civil
>>> disobedience event, you can count me out of the event, and possibly out
>>> of the organization.
>>>
>>> ~Conley
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Clifford Conley Owens III | 1 Aug 19:21
Favicon

Re: Civil Disobedience


Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
> Actually, that's a good question, Fred.  Conley said that he opposes
> civil disobedience, but he did not mention specific examples of people
> supporting civil disobedience within SFC.
> 
> Conley?
I don't have specifics for you, other than something on the Scrabulous 
thread ("I with the developers would release the source code so we could 
to a mass civil disobedience" -- I'm actually not sure what this 
sentence means, spelling aside...what would be civil disobedience 
here?).  I just know I've heard it highly spoken of often in #freeculture.
> 
> Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting
> arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make
> significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, if
> publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the memos
> probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they might have
> been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still would have
> supported it as a civil disobedience.
I would not have.  I think that the rebellion against authority is only 
be justified when authority is causing you to do something immoral or 
taking someone's life.  I don't expect any of you to agree with me.
> 
> Another example of civil disobedience which I might support even if the
> stakes are low is the banning of DeCSS and its ilk.  After DeCSS was
> ruled to be illegal to publish I may have technically broken the law by
> writing a giant prime number on the sidewalk which, when parsed by an
> unzipping program, would uncompress to be the DeCSS code.  See a picture
> of this at <http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyfaller/129082487/>... Luke
> and I actually met Asheesh when he walked into one of us chalking the
> number.  The prospect of people being fined for writing songs like "Oh
> Nine, Eff Nine" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HaNbsIfp0> (for the
> AACS processing key to crack HD-DVDs) or for wearing a tie with the
> DeCSS code on it is vaguely hilarious and also great for calling
> attention to the problems with this attack on freedom of speech.
I agree that it was a terrible ruling, but I stand by my belief.
> 
> There have also been a few examples of people actually going to jail for
> free culture-related reasons, such as Dmitry Sklyarov, whose
> imprisonment inspired Derek Slater:
> <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/07/eff15-day-i-became-copyfighter>. 
> I'm not sure Dmitry intended his action to be civil disobedience, he was
> probably just surprised when he was arrested while presenting research
> at a conference in the United States, instead of the expected scenario
> of a researcher being arrested in the Soviet Union.   Still, if that had
> been civil disobedience instead of an accident, I probably would have
> still supported Dmitry.
> 
> Peace,
> ~Nelson~
> 
> Fred Benenson wrote:
>> Wait, who said what about civil disobedience?
>>
>> And until people start getting arrested, I don't think we're there yet.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <nelson <at> freeculture.org>wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> There are definitely situations in which civil disobedience could be
>>> justified and even required, although such situations are much less
>>> common in the field of free culture than in the field of, say, civil
>>> rights.
>>>
>>> The event that lead directly to the founding of SFC, the Diebold case,
>>> included a civil disobedience component, although it was not one that
>>> Luke and I directly participated in.  There were these memos that
>>> detailed possible problems with the voting machines which are the
>>> backbone of our democracy, and Diebold was trying to suppress that
>>> information.  Luke and I took the legal route, fighting it in the
>>> courts, but our allies didn't want to count on the courts making the
>>> right call when democracy itself was on the line: they wanted to make
>>> sure the public got the information it needed one way or the other.
>>> They organized a system of mirrors on college campuses, including people
>>> like Asheesh Laroia and many of our earliest SFC recruits, to make sure
>>> the Diebold memos stayed available.  Diebold had to play whack-a-mole,
>>> sending takedown notices to each campus, but once the mirrors on one
>>> campus were shut down, the memos just popped up on another campus.
>>>
>>> It actually turned out that the court agreed with us that hosting the
>>> Diebold memos was legal and a fair use.  Therefore the "electronic civil
>>> disobedience" campaign had been arguably legal the whole time, and not
>>> actually civil disobedience.  However, if the court had ruled the other
>>> way, the mirrors would have continued to host the Diebold memos and
>>> ensure public knowledge of possible flaws with our elections, even if it
>>> had been judged to be against the law.  And I would have supported them
>>> in that action 100%, even if I were unable to participate myself due to
>>> legal reasons (I would have wanted to keep my hands "clean" during the
>>> appeals process, presumably).  Sometimes the law is wrong, and when the
>>> stakes are high enough, it is best to break the law, accepting the legal
>>> consequences for your actions.
>>>
>>> I am not saying that SFC should necessarily ever officially organize a
>>> campaign involving civil disobedience.  That's a question for the
>>> lawyers, as to what is legally possible or what is legally most
>>> damaging, and an ethical question of whether it would be better to let
>>> the organization shoulder the consequences for a civil disobedience
>>> action, or to let the individuals hang separately.  However, I can
>>> easily imagine another situation where civil disobedience would be
>>> justified and necessary, just like the Diebold case if the court had
>>> ruled the other way, and it would be a discussion worth having as to
>>> what SFC's responsibilities are given our mission, our resources and our
>>> constituents, and whether SFC should knowingly break an unjust law.
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>> ~Nelson Pavlosky~
>>>
>>> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>>>     
>>>> I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil
>>>> disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an
>>>> opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I
>>>> suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil
>>>> disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just
>>>> say a few things that come to mind.
>>>>
>>>> One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps
>>>> out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I
>>>> suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other
>>>> side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).  I remember arguing
>>>> about copyright and piracy with someone in a philosophy class in high
>>>> school (and imagine me talking like a 16-year-old version of Dan
>>>> Glickman).  I thought that everyone who disagreed with me was being
>>>> immature.  How ironic that over four years later I became a grad student
>>>> and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members.
>>>> But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who
>>>> disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered
>>>> *constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my
>>>> mind about things.
>>>>
>>>> I'm open for discussion, but if this organization ever plans a civil
>>>> disobedience event, you can count me out of the event, and possibly out
>>>> of the organization.
>>>>
>>>> ~Conley
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>     
>>   
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

--

-- 
office: Torgersen 3180
email: ccowens <at> vt.edu
cell: (540) 597-8820
xmpp: conley <at> jabber.org
aim: vtconley
sip: conley <at> ekiga.net
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nelson Pavlosky | 1 Aug 19:36

Re: Civil Disobedience

Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>   
>> Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting
>> arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make
>> significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, if
>> publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the memos
>> probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they might have
>> been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still would have
>> supported it as a civil disobedience.
>>     
> I would not have.  I think that the rebellion against authority is only 
> be justified when authority is causing you to do something immoral or 
> taking someone's life.  I don't expect any of you to agree with me.

I'm going to let everything else slide, because this is the example
which I think is actually important.

Do you really believe that it would be better to allow Diebold to (1)
abuse copyright law for purposes it was not Constitutionally meant to
serve, to (2) crush our first amendment rights to essential political
speech, in order to (3) suppress information about problems with our
elections which might allow them to be fixed or decided by random chance
/ computer errors.... than to oppose an unjust law and get the
information to the public necessary to alert them to a threat to the
core of our democracy?  In that case I think that sitting silently while
democracy itself fades away would be an immoral thing to do.

I'm not sure you're thinking this through.

Peace,
~Nelson~

P.S. Do you think the American Revolution was a just rebellion against
authority?
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nini last name | 1 Aug 19:50
Favicon

Re: Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience is a beautiful thing, it's not just about sticking it to a proverbial "man", it's reminding everyone, including ourselves, that the people still hold power, that these "laws" and "norms" society has decided on are nothing more then abstract concepts that once people stop agreeing with, lose their power. I completely support civil disobedience in almost every facet.

> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:36:29 -0400
> From: nelson <at> freeculture.org
> To: discuss <at> freeculture.org
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Civil Disobedience
>
> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
> > Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
> >
> >> Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting
> >> arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make
> >> significant exceptions. For example, in the Diebold memos example, if
> >> publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the memos
> >> probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they might have
> >> been subject to significant copyright damages. I still would have
> >> supported it as a civil disobedience.
> >>
> > I would not have. I think that the rebellion against authority is only
> > be justified when authority is causing you to do something immoral or
> > taking someone's life. I don't expect any of you to agree with me.
>
> I'm going to let everything else slide, because this is the example
> which I think is actually important.
>
> Do you really believe that it would be better to allow Diebold to (1)
> abuse copyright law for purposes it was not Constitutionally meant to
> serve, to (2) crush our first amendment rights to essential political
> speech, in order to (3) suppress information about problems with our
> elections which might allow them to be fixed or decided by random chance
> / computer errors.... than to oppose an unjust law and get the
> information to the public necessary to alert them to a threat to the
> core of our democracy? In that case I think that sitting silently while
> democracy itself fades away would be an immoral thing to do.
>
> I'm not sure you're thinking this through.
>
> Peace,
> ~Nelson~
>
> P.S. Do you think the American Revolution was a just rebellion against
> authority?
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on the go. 
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Clifford Conley Owens III | 1 Aug 20:13
Favicon

Re: Civil Disobedience


Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>>   
>>> Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting
>>> arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make
>>> significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, if
>>> publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the memos
>>> probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they might have
>>> been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still would have
>>> supported it as a civil disobedience.
>>>     
>> I would not have.  I think that the rebellion against authority is only 
>> be justified when authority is causing you to do something immoral or 
>> taking someone's life.  I don't expect any of you to agree with me.
> 
> I'm going to let everything else slide, because this is the example
> which I think is actually important.
> 
> Do you really believe that it would be better to allow Diebold to (1)
> abuse copyright law for purposes it was not Constitutionally meant to
> serve, to (2) crush our first amendment rights to essential political
> speech, in order to (3) suppress information about problems with our
> elections which might allow them to be fixed or decided by random chance
> / computer errors.... than to oppose an unjust law and get the
> information to the public necessary to alert them to a threat to the
> core of our democracy?  In that case I think that sitting silently while
> democracy itself fades away would be an immoral thing to do.
> 
> I'm not sure you're thinking this through.
I'm thinking this through.  You could make noise without showing the 
emails.  You can talk about the constitution, but I don't think it's 
some inherent right written in the heart of the universe.

Once again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I think there 
would have to be something far more important than any free culture 
value being threatened to warrant civil disobedience.

I really probably shouldn't have started this discussion.  It was just a 
thought that came to mind as a reason I might leave this organization.

~Conley

> 
> Peace,
> ~Nelson~
> 
> P.S. Do you think the American Revolution was a just rebellion against
> authority?
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

--

-- 
office: Torgersen 3180
email: ccowens <at> vt.edu
cell: (540) 597-8820
xmpp: conley <at> jabber.org
aim: vtconley
sip: conley <at> ekiga.net
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Elizabeth Ortlieb | 1 Aug 20:17

Re: Civil Disobedience

Tell Walmart to STOP INTIMIDATING ITS WORKERS
Read and Sign the Petition please! -Elizabeth 

Barack Obama 08!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
From: David Nassar, Wal-Mart Watch [mailto:info <at> walmartwatch.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:48 AM
To: Elizabeth Ortlieb
Subject: "Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win"

  
Dear Elizabeth,

You have to read this front-page story from today's Wall Street Journal:

"Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win" 

According to the article, Wal-Mart is holding mandatory meetings with
supervisors and managers to warn them that if Senator Obama wins the
presidential election, Democrats will pass the Employee Free Choice Act to
unionize their stores.

Why is Wal-Mart so worried? Because workers who have the power to stand up
to their employers have higher wages, better health care, and fairer work
places.

You and I both know that Wal-Mart will do anything to get out of treating
its employees with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Not only are Wal-Mart's actions morally despicable, they also raise legal
concerns. Tell Wal-Mart to stop intimidating its employees into voting
against Senator Obama: 

http://action.walmartwatch.com/voters

Wal-Mart is notorious for its union-busting tactics. As the Wall Street
Journal article states:

Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep
unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams
from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union
activity was building.
With weakened workers' rights, Wal-Mart can bully its employees to skip
breaks and work "off the clock" for no pay. Wal-Mart has received numerous
fines for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act - firing employees for
taking federally protected medical leave. They've also received fines for
violating child labor laws and hiring undocumented immigrants to clean
stores after hours. 

We're not talking about one or two violations at rogue stores - we're
talking about calculated, systematic business decisions made at Wal-Mart's
headquarters that have resulted in millions of workers' rights being
violated.

It's no wonder why Wal-Mart doesn't want to have to listen to its employees.
That's why our work is more important than ever right now. 

Show Wal-Mart that the country is listening - and we want workers to decide
for themselves how to vote:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/voters

Thanks for spreading the word about this breaking news story.

Sincerely,

David Nassar 
Wal-Mart Watch

 
Paid for by WalmartWatch.com, a campaign of Five Stones and The Center for
Community and Corporate Ethics

To unsubscribe: http://action.walmartwatch.com/unsubscribe

 
Elizabeth Ortlieb
puppycoconut <at> bellsouth.net 
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
-Barack Obama

 
---------------------------------------
For Peace Day on 21 September...
I will volunteer time with my community to spread peace
What will you do? Visit www.peaceoneday.org

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org] On Behalf Of Clifford Conley Owens
III
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:14 PM
To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
particular
Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Civil Disobedience

Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>>   
>>> Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting 
>>> arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make 
>>> significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, 
>>> if publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the 
>>> memos probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they 
>>> might have been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still 
>>> would have supported it as a civil disobedience.
>>>     
>> I would not have.  I think that the rebellion against authority is 
>> only be justified when authority is causing you to do something 
>> immoral or taking someone's life.  I don't expect any of you to agree
with me.
> 
> I'm going to let everything else slide, because this is the example 
> which I think is actually important.
> 
> Do you really believe that it would be better to allow Diebold to (1) 
> abuse copyright law for purposes it was not Constitutionally meant to 
> serve, to (2) crush our first amendment rights to essential political 
> speech, in order to (3) suppress information about problems with our 
> elections which might allow them to be fixed or decided by random 
> chance / computer errors.... than to oppose an unjust law and get the 
> information to the public necessary to alert them to a threat to the 
> core of our democracy?  In that case I think that sitting silently 
> while democracy itself fades away would be an immoral thing to do.
> 
> I'm not sure you're thinking this through.
I'm thinking this through.  You could make noise without showing the emails.
You can talk about the constitution, but I don't think it's some inherent
right written in the heart of the universe.

Once again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I think there would
have to be something far more important than any free culture value being
threatened to warrant civil disobedience.

I really probably shouldn't have started this discussion.  It was just a
thought that came to mind as a reason I might leave this organization.

~Conley

> 
> Peace,
> ~Nelson~
> 
> P.S. Do you think the American Revolution was a just rebellion against 
> authority?
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

--
office: Torgersen 3180
email: ccowens <at> vt.edu
cell: (540) 597-8820
xmpp: conley <at> jabber.org
aim: vtconley
sip: conley <at> ekiga.net
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Greg Grossmeier | 1 Aug 20:24

Re: Civil Disobedience

"So please, next time, just spend 10 seconds explaining why you think 
your forward is relevant to this list. We're going for quality, not 
quantity."  -Fred

Best,
-Greg

Elizabeth Ortlieb wrote:
> Tell Walmart to STOP INTIMIDATING ITS WORKERS
> Read and Sign the Petition please! -Elizabeth 
>  
> Barack Obama 08!
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> From: David Nassar, Wal-Mart Watch [mailto:info <at> walmartwatch.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: Elizabeth Ortlieb
> Subject: "Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win"
> 
> 
>   
> Dear Elizabeth,
> 
> You have to read this front-page story from today's Wall Street Journal:
> 
> "Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win" 
> 
> According to the article, Wal-Mart is holding mandatory meetings with
> supervisors and managers to warn them that if Senator Obama wins the
> presidential election, Democrats will pass the Employee Free Choice Act to
> unionize their stores.
> 
> Why is Wal-Mart so worried? Because workers who have the power to stand up
> to their employers have higher wages, better health care, and fairer work
> places.
> 
> You and I both know that Wal-Mart will do anything to get out of treating
> its employees with the dignity and respect they deserve.
> 
> Not only are Wal-Mart's actions morally despicable, they also raise legal
> concerns. Tell Wal-Mart to stop intimidating its employees into voting
> against Senator Obama: 
> 
> http://action.walmartwatch.com/voters
> 
> Wal-Mart is notorious for its union-busting tactics. As the Wall Street
> Journal article states:
> 
> Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep
> unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams
> from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union
> activity was building.
> With weakened workers' rights, Wal-Mart can bully its employees to skip
> breaks and work "off the clock" for no pay. Wal-Mart has received numerous
> fines for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act - firing employees for
> taking federally protected medical leave. They've also received fines for
> violating child labor laws and hiring undocumented immigrants to clean
> stores after hours. 
> 
> We're not talking about one or two violations at rogue stores - we're
> talking about calculated, systematic business decisions made at Wal-Mart's
> headquarters that have resulted in millions of workers' rights being
> violated.
> 
> It's no wonder why Wal-Mart doesn't want to have to listen to its employees.
> That's why our work is more important than ever right now. 
> 
> Show Wal-Mart that the country is listening - and we want workers to decide
> for themselves how to vote:
> 
> http://action.walmartwatch.com/voters
> 
> Thanks for spreading the word about this breaking news story.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> David Nassar 
> Wal-Mart Watch
>  
>  
> Paid for by WalmartWatch.com, a campaign of Five Stones and The Center for
> Community and Corporate Ethics
> 
> To unsubscribe: http://action.walmartwatch.com/unsubscribe
>   
> 
> 
>  
> Elizabeth Ortlieb
> puppycoconut <at> bellsouth.net 
> "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
> We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
> -Barack Obama
>  
>  
> ---------------------------------------
> For Peace Day on 21 September...
> I will volunteer time with my community to spread peace
> What will you do? Visit www.peaceoneday.org
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org
> [mailto:discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org] On Behalf Of Clifford Conley Owens
> III
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:14 PM
> To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
> particular
> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Civil Disobedience
> 
> 
> 
> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>>> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting 
>>>> arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make 
>>>> significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, 
>>>> if publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the 
>>>> memos probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they 
>>>> might have been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still 
>>>> would have supported it as a civil disobedience.
>>>>     
>>> I would not have.  I think that the rebellion against authority is 
>>> only be justified when authority is causing you to do something 
>>> immoral or taking someone's life.  I don't expect any of you to agree
> with me.
>> I'm going to let everything else slide, because this is the example 
>> which I think is actually important.
>>
>> Do you really believe that it would be better to allow Diebold to (1) 
>> abuse copyright law for purposes it was not Constitutionally meant to 
>> serve, to (2) crush our first amendment rights to essential political 
>> speech, in order to (3) suppress information about problems with our 
>> elections which might allow them to be fixed or decided by random 
>> chance / computer errors.... than to oppose an unjust law and get the 
>> information to the public necessary to alert them to a threat to the 
>> core of our democracy?  In that case I think that sitting silently 
>> while democracy itself fades away would be an immoral thing to do.
>>
>> I'm not sure you're thinking this through.
> I'm thinking this through.  You could make noise without showing the emails.
> You can talk about the constitution, but I don't think it's some inherent
> right written in the heart of the universe.
> 
> Once again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I think there would
> have to be something far more important than any free culture value being
> threatened to warrant civil disobedience.
> 
> I really probably shouldn't have started this discussion.  It was just a
> thought that came to mind as a reason I might leave this organization.
> 
> ~Conley
> 
>> Peace,
>> ~Nelson~
>>
>> P.S. Do you think the American Revolution was a just rebellion against 
>> authority?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> 
> --
> office: Torgersen 3180
> email: ccowens <at> vt.edu
> cell: (540) 597-8820
> xmpp: conley <at> jabber.org
> aim: vtconley
> sip: conley <at> ekiga.net
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Clifford Conley Owens III | 1 Aug 20:29
Favicon

Re: Civil Disobedience

My bad.

~Conley

Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> "So please, next time, just spend 10 seconds explaining why you think 
> your forward is relevant to this list. We're going for quality, not 
> quantity."  -Fred
> 
> Best,
> -Greg
> 
> Elizabeth Ortlieb wrote:
>> Tell Walmart to STOP INTIMIDATING ITS WORKERS
>> Read and Sign the Petition please! -Elizabeth 
>>  
>> Barack Obama 08!
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> From: David Nassar, Wal-Mart Watch [mailto:info <at> walmartwatch.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:48 AM
>> To: Elizabeth Ortlieb
>> Subject: "Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win"
>>
>>
>>   
>> Dear Elizabeth,
>>
>> You have to read this front-page story from today's Wall Street Journal:
>>
>> "Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win" 
>>
>> According to the article, Wal-Mart is holding mandatory meetings with
>> supervisors and managers to warn them that if Senator Obama wins the
>> presidential election, Democrats will pass the Employee Free Choice Act to
>> unionize their stores.
>>
>> Why is Wal-Mart so worried? Because workers who have the power to stand up
>> to their employers have higher wages, better health care, and fairer work
>> places.
>>
>> You and I both know that Wal-Mart will do anything to get out of treating
>> its employees with the dignity and respect they deserve.
>>
>> Not only are Wal-Mart's actions morally despicable, they also raise legal
>> concerns. Tell Wal-Mart to stop intimidating its employees into voting
>> against Senator Obama: 
>>
>> http://action.walmartwatch.com/voters
>>
>> Wal-Mart is notorious for its union-busting tactics. As the Wall Street
>> Journal article states:
>>
>> Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep
>> unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams
>> from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union
>> activity was building.
>> With weakened workers' rights, Wal-Mart can bully its employees to skip
>> breaks and work "off the clock" for no pay. Wal-Mart has received numerous
>> fines for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act - firing employees for
>> taking federally protected medical leave. They've also received fines for
>> violating child labor laws and hiring undocumented immigrants to clean
>> stores after hours. 
>>
>> We're not talking about one or two violations at rogue stores - we're
>> talking about calculated, systematic business decisions made at Wal-Mart's
>> headquarters that have resulted in millions of workers' rights being
>> violated.
>>
>> It's no wonder why Wal-Mart doesn't want to have to listen to its employees.
>> That's why our work is more important than ever right now. 
>>
>> Show Wal-Mart that the country is listening - and we want workers to decide
>> for themselves how to vote:
>>
>> http://action.walmartwatch.com/voters
>>
>> Thanks for spreading the word about this breaking news story.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> David Nassar 
>> Wal-Mart Watch
>>  
>>  
>> Paid for by WalmartWatch.com, a campaign of Five Stones and The Center for
>> Community and Corporate Ethics
>>
>> To unsubscribe: http://action.walmartwatch.com/unsubscribe
>>   
>>
>>
>>  
>> Elizabeth Ortlieb
>> puppycoconut <at> bellsouth.net 
>> "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
>> We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
>> -Barack Obama
>>  
>>  
>> ---------------------------------------
>> For Peace Day on 21 September...
>> I will volunteer time with my community to spread peace
>> What will you do? Visit www.peaceoneday.org
>>  
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org
>> [mailto:discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org] On Behalf Of Clifford Conley Owens
>> III
>> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:14 PM
>> To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in
>> particular
>> Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Civil Disobedience
>>
>>
>>
>> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>>> Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
>>>> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> Generally I would agree with Fred that until people are getting 
>>>>> arrested, civil disobedience is not appropriate... but I would make 
>>>>> significant exceptions.  For example, in the Diebold memos example, 
>>>>> if publishing the memos had not been fair use, people posting the 
>>>>> memos probably would not have been subject to jail time, but they 
>>>>> might have been subject to significant copyright damages.  I still 
>>>>> would have supported it as a civil disobedience.
>>>>>     
>>>> I would not have.  I think that the rebellion against authority is 
>>>> only be justified when authority is causing you to do something 
>>>> immoral or taking someone's life.  I don't expect any of you to agree
>> with me.
>>> I'm going to let everything else slide, because this is the example 
>>> which I think is actually important.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that it would be better to allow Diebold to (1) 
>>> abuse copyright law for purposes it was not Constitutionally meant to 
>>> serve, to (2) crush our first amendment rights to essential political 
>>> speech, in order to (3) suppress information about problems with our 
>>> elections which might allow them to be fixed or decided by random 
>>> chance / computer errors.... than to oppose an unjust law and get the 
>>> information to the public necessary to alert them to a threat to the 
>>> core of our democracy?  In that case I think that sitting silently 
>>> while democracy itself fades away would be an immoral thing to do.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure you're thinking this through.
>> I'm thinking this through.  You could make noise without showing the emails.
>> You can talk about the constitution, but I don't think it's some inherent
>> right written in the heart of the universe.
>>
>> Once again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I think there would
>> have to be something far more important than any free culture value being
>> threatened to warrant civil disobedience.
>>
>> I really probably shouldn't have started this discussion.  It was just a
>> thought that came to mind as a reason I might leave this organization.
>>
>> ~Conley
>>
>>> Peace,
>>> ~Nelson~
>>>
>>> P.S. Do you think the American Revolution was a just rebellion against 
>>> authority?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>> --
>> office: Torgersen 3180
>> email: ccowens <at> vt.edu
>> cell: (540) 597-8820
>> xmpp: conley <at> jabber.org
>> aim: vtconley
>> sip: conley <at> ekiga.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

--

-- 
office: Torgersen 3180
email: ccowens <at> vt.edu
cell: (540) 597-8820
xmpp: conley <at> jabber.org
aim: vtconley
sip: conley <at> ekiga.net
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dean Jansen | 1 Aug 20:38

Re: Civil Disobedience

Once again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I think there
would have to be something far more important than any free culture
value being threatened to warrant civil disobedience.

I really probably shouldn't have started this discussion.  It was just a
thought that came to mind as a reason I might leave this organization.

I don't know if I should even respond here, but this thread seems slightly bizarre.

As I understand it, you're randomly considering leaving the group because you disagree with most manifestations of civil disobediance?

I just searched through the past 8 months of fc-discuss archives and found the term mentioned A SINGLE TIME. Before that, back in November of '07, there was a real conversation about it. If this complaint relates to that, or any other FC conversation or FC related topic, please say so in your original post. Sorry to blow up here, but the FC list seems to be busy with a lot of time wastingly unfocused stuff.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that civil disobediance doesn't relate to FC -- the original post just did very little to orient the discussion in an FC direction.

--Dean

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Clifford Conley Owens III | 1 Aug 20:59
Favicon

Re: Civil Disobedience


Dean Jansen wrote:
>     Once again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I think there
>     would have to be something far more important than any free culture
>     value being threatened to warrant civil disobedience.
> 
>     I really probably shouldn't have started this discussion.  It was just a
>     thought that came to mind as a reason I might leave this organization.
> 
> 
> I don't know if I should even respond here, but this thread seems 
> slightly bizarre.
> 
> As I understand it, you're randomly considering leaving the group 
> because you disagree with most manifestations of civil disobediance?
No, I'm saying it would be a situation where I would consider leaving. 
I just see people in this group as being prone towards that kind of action.
> 
> I just searched through the past 8 months of fc-discuss archives and 
> found the term mentioned A SINGLE TIME. Before that, back in November of 
> '07, there was a real conversation about it. If this complaint relates 
> to that, or any other FC conversation or FC related topic, please say so 
> in your original post. Sorry to blow up here, but the FC list seems to 
> be busy with a lot of time wastingly unfocused stuff.
I'm new to this mailing list.  I hang out on #freeculture a lot though, 
and have heard it mentioned there occassionally. Sorry if this hasn't 
been focused.
> 
> And to be clear, I'm not saying that civil disobediance doesn't relate 
> to FC -- the original post just did very little to orient the discussion 
> in an FC direction.
Once again, my bad.
> 
> --Dean
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--

-- 
office: Torgersen 3180
email: ccowens <at> vt.edu
cell: (540) 597-8820
xmpp: conley <at> jabber.org
aim: vtconley
sip: conley <at> ekiga.net
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nelson Pavlosky | 1 Aug 21:21

Re: Civil Disobedience

Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
> Nelson Pavlosky wrote:
>   
>> Do you really believe that it would be better to allow Diebold to (1)
>> abuse copyright law for purposes it was not Constitutionally meant to
>> serve, to (2) crush our first amendment rights to essential political
>> speech, in order to (3) suppress information about problems with our
>> elections which might allow them to be fixed or decided by random chance
>> / computer errors.... than to oppose an unjust law and get the
>> information to the public necessary to alert them to a threat to the
>> core of our democracy?  In that case I think that sitting silently while
>> democracy itself fades away would be an immoral thing to do.
>>
>> I'm not sure you're thinking this through.
>>     
> I'm thinking this through.  You could make noise without showing the 
> emails.  

You can, but your warnings will have no teeth.  You need the evidence to
convince people that you're not just a crazy alarmist conspiracy
theorist, and the Diebold memos were that evidence.  I gave my talk at
your school, you know exactly why we had to share the Diebold memos in
their entirety.  Individual quotes could be shrugged off as taken out of
context or fabricated, but the whole corpus of e-mails is difficult to
write off.  More importantly, there was no way Luke and I could have
read the entire archives ourselves, and even if we did we would not have
been able to find everything interesting or incriminating in the
archives.  Only by open-sourcing the investigation could we find the
evidence necessary to e.g. get the California government to sue Diebold
the way it did.

If we were even banned from sharing quotes or smaller selections, then
it should be obvious that this would cripple any attempt to warn the
public about the voting problems.

> You can talk about the constitution, but I don't think it's 
> some inherent right written in the heart of the universe.
>   

It's not an inherent right written in the heart of the universe, but
neither are the "rights" of authority.  Men created the government's
authority, and men can dismantle the government's authority.  The
Constitution is the source of the government's authority, and when the
government oversteps the bounds of that grant of authority, then it may
be appropriate to violate the lesser law to defend the greater law, the
greater law being the Constitution.  If (1) and (2) are constitutional
issues, then the Constitution may be a valid reason to post the Diebold
memos even if it were to violate copyright law.  The Constitution is the
social contract by which we cede our individual power to the government,
and when the government breaks that contract it may be appropriate to
take that power back into our own hands.
> Once again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I think there 
> would have to be something far more important than any free culture 
> value being threatened to warrant civil disobedience.

Issue (1) might be a free culture issue more than anything else (even if
I do think the constitution is involved) but (2) and (3) are clearly
more important than most of the issues that free culture usually deals
with, which is why the Diebold case was something of a perfect storm. 
It's one thing when copyright is being abused, that's just something
that free culture geeks get excited about.  But when copyright is abused
to silence essential political speech about the voting process which
underpins our democracy, that's something everyone should get excited
about, and everybody did, that's why it was in the New York Times etc. 
If you don't think the 1st Amendment + freedom of speech is important,
and you don't think it's important whether elections are rigged and
democracy is a sham, then I'd like to know what you think *is* important
short of mass murder.  (Hint: the end of freedom of speech and the end
of democracy could easily lead to the latter.)

Peace,
~Nelson~
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nelson Pavlosky | 1 Aug 17:35

What civil disobedience is and isn't

I would also like to address a potential source of miscommunication: the
definition of civil disobedience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Henry David Thoreau and many others have engaged in
civil disobedience, in the name of civil rights.  They knowingly and
consciously broke the law, and made no effort to hide or evade
punishment, accepting the punishment in an effort to expose an unjust
law for what it was.

People pirating movies in their basement are generally not engaging in
civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience over copyright on movies would
be something more like going into a public square with big signs,
ripping DVDs for people in violation of the DMCA and giving them away on
the street with pamphlets attached until the cops came and arrested you,
followed by a long prison term where you write passionate and inspired
books as your health declines, and people march around outside with
"Free DVD Dude!" signs.  (This is of course a silly example that I would
not actually recommend.)  Civil disobedience is an effort to turn the
state's power against itself, by letting it abuse its power in a
dramatically public way that makes everyone horrified.

People downloading illicit movies in their basement generally don't care
whether they are breaking the law, they are not breaking the law to make
a point or expose the injustice of the law, they are breaking the law to
get free movies.  They are also not breaking the law publicly and
accepting the legal consequences, they break the law quietly and are
hoping that they will not get caught, and if the MPAA tracked them down
they would probably settle the case to save their college funds.  And
honestly, it probably isn't worth going bankrupt or going to jail for
Hollywood movies anyway, this is not an issue where civil disobedience
is necessary or justified in my humble opinion.

That doesn't mean that the law isn't absurd or unjust, it almost
certainly isn't right to utterly ruin a person for downloading a few
bloody songs, the punishment does not fit the crime (I understand that
the punishment is less severe if you physically go into a store and
steal a DVD from the shelf).  But I do not see a potential benefit to
civil disobedience in this case that would make it worthwhile to suffer
the statutory damages.

Do you see the difference between downloading movies in your basement
and e.g. fighting to keep the Diebold memos available to the public?

Peace,
~Nelson~

Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:
> I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil 
> disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an 
> opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I 
> suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil 
> disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just 
> say a few things that come to mind.
>
> One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps 
> out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I 
> suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other 
> side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).  I remember arguing 
> about copyright and piracy with someone in a philosophy class in high 
> school (and imagine me talking like a 16-year-old version of Dan 
> Glickman).  I thought that everyone who disagreed with me was being 
> immature.  How ironic that over four years later I became a grad student 
> and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members.  
> But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who 
> disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered 
> *constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my 
> mind about things.
>
> I'm open for discussion, but if this organization ever plans a civil 
> disobedience event, you can count me out of the event, and possibly out 
> of the organization.
>
> ~Conley
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Asheesh Laroia | 5 Aug 07:46

Re: Civil Disobedience

Hi Conley,

Let me begin by saying that I should be asleep in this hostel in 
Argentina, but I found myself compelled to reply.  I mean that in the best 
way possible. (-:

 	Question: Is it better to abide by the rules until they're changed
 	or help speed the change by breaking them?

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Clifford Conley Owens III wrote:

> I hear a lot of people in this organization speak very highly of civil
> disobedience, and it seems like some of us are just waiting for an
> opportunity to justify breaking the law and sticking it to "the man."  I
> suppose I could right a very long-winded article on why I think civil
> disobedience is a bad idea, but I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just
> say a few things that come to mind.

I'm glad to have that discussion.

> One example that often comes up is piracy, but I feel that that helps
> out the mpaa/riaa far more than just boycotting it all together.  I
> suppose most of you don't know this, but I used to be on the far other
> side of this discussion (about copyright/culture).

Some of you who have met me know that I used to be a staunch copyright 
supporter.  Most of you probably don't.  (Lately, as I meet a lot more 
people in the Free World, I wonder what they think "makes me tick.") 
Conley's exposition of a transition away from "Piracy is SO OBVIOUSLY 
WRONG" to "Yay Free Softare and Free Cultural Works!" is like looking into 
a mirror.

> I remember arguing about copyright and piracy with someone in a 
> philosophy class in high school (and imagine me talking like a 
> 16-year-old version of Dan Glickman).  I thought that everyone who 
> disagreed with me was being immature.  How ironic that over four years 
> later I became a grad student

Oh, you're a grad student!  No wonder you have so much time for Free Game 
playing.

Wait, what!? (-;

> and the person I was arguing with was one of my first chapter members. 
> But the thing is, I *still* think that all the people in the room who 
> disagreed were being immature!  It wasn't until I discovered 
> *constructive* solutions like the FSF and CC that I really changed my 
> mind about things.

Conley, I agree with you that giving the massive media industries free 
promotion is pretty problematic for a migration toward a Free Culture. 
You're not alone in that regard.

One of the points I think lost in Nelson's many long and important words 
about the Diebold funtime is this: the students sharing the memos could 
*not* have known about issues like what came up in a different memo leak 
case: Diebold illegally installing uncertified versions of their software 
on California's machine 
<http://importance.corante.com/archives/003325.html>.

Sharing the memos allowed searches for that sort of problem, and no 
substitute for the whole archive could suffice for that.

But of course, Nelson stands by what the EFF went to court to win: the 
idea that sharing these memos was not a violation of copyright.  It was 
always the separate "Why war?" group that called it Electronic Civil 
Disobedience.

Students for Free Culture has always prided itself on being a "big tent" 
organization; there has been stress between factions with more or less 
radical bents, but I've always been really happy to see all the different 
sides meet up here.

But to quickly summarize my perspective: In 2003 I got involved in OPG v. 
Diebold, and in 2004 I saw Students for Free Culture begin.  I have long 
leaned on the side of being a goodie-two-shoes, often to my chagrin.  But 
for the most of that really important 2003-2004 year, the LILO bootloader 
on my laptop would pose me this question:

 	Question: Is it better to abide by the rules until they're changed
 	or help speed the change by breaking them?

If I didn't think the question was interesting, I would have cycled 
it out for another random quote.

The next year, I read Lessig's _Free Culture_, which helped teach me that 
law, architecture ("technology"), and norms are part of an interesting, 
mutually-interacting system.  If anyone on the list hasn't given it a 
read, I recommend it.

As you know, sometimes the rules aren't clear.  The culture around what 
constitutes illegal or bad (just to name two terms that might be used) 
copying changes over time, and as people in society, we can contribute to 
setting those norms.  Lessig's _Free Culture_ lists a few times that 
people tried to set those norms not by "civil disobedience" but just by 
doing what they wanted and letting the law follow.

Anyway, I must be one of those crazy people with nothing to do but write 
email.  I had better stop.

-- Asheesh.

--

-- 
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
 		-- Indian proverb
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Samantha (Herbert) Tanzer | 6 Aug 00:50

Wiki Government Yellow Pages

Hopefully this is within the FC purview....

So, election season is coming up, which brings ones of my favorite  
topics to the forefront - open-democracy/e-government.

Anyway.  A nifty, nifty set of government web services is from the UK  
based MySociety.org, which has a bunch of open-source databases,  
including WriteToThem.com which is a comprehensive listing of all your  
government, from township to parliament, sorted by zip-code.  There is  
no comparable US data source, despite the creator (whom I've met)  
encouraging us to steal his stuff.

There might be soon.  I met a David from America Solutions (yes, it's  
Newt Gingrich's 527 with that "Drill Here, Drill Now" program, but  
that doesn't mean they can't otherwise be useful) at my internship,  
who is organizing a similar project.  He plans to create a similar  
database, not by amassing the data themselves, but by creating a wiki  
for people to fill in and turning that into a zip-code searchable  
database.  I don't know if the framework will be open source, but I  
hope so. I plan to ask him about that.

I'm going to be communicating with him about this and to see what  
about e-government projects they're working on.  Is there any interest  
here for involvement?  What other e-democracy projects do you know of  
or want to see?

The full list of MySociety projects is here: http://www.mysociety.org/projects 
   FixMySteet.com is probably the niftyest, in my opinion.

Love,
Herbert.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kevin Driscoll | 6 Aug 16:18

Re: Wiki Government Yellow Pages

Hey Herbert,

This is excellent stuff. Perhaps we should do a blog post collecting
participatory politics web tools like Nelson did for video.

Some more useful sites along these lines,

Open Congress (the grand poobah of this ish)
http://www.opencongress.org/

Cause Caller (Fred's project!)
http://www.causecaller.com/

Kevin

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Samantha (Herbert) Tanzer
<herbertanzer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hopefully this is within the FC purview....
>
> So, election season is coming up, which brings ones of my favorite
> topics to the forefront - open-democracy/e-government.
>
> Anyway.  A nifty, nifty set of government web services is from the UK
> based MySociety.org, which has a bunch of open-source databases,
> including WriteToThem.com which is a comprehensive listing of all your
> government, from township to parliament, sorted by zip-code.  There is
> no comparable US data source, despite the creator (whom I've met)
> encouraging us to steal his stuff.
>
> There might be soon.  I met a David from America Solutions (yes, it's
> Newt Gingrich's 527 with that "Drill Here, Drill Now" program, but
> that doesn't mean they can't otherwise be useful) at my internship,
> who is organizing a similar project.  He plans to create a similar
> database, not by amassing the data themselves, but by creating a wiki
> for people to fill in and turning that into a zip-code searchable
> database.  I don't know if the framework will be open source, but I
> hope so. I plan to ask him about that.
>
> I'm going to be communicating with him about this and to see what
> about e-government projects they're working on.  Is there any interest
> here for involvement?  What other e-democracy projects do you know of
> or want to see?
>
> The full list of MySociety projects is here: http://www.mysociety.org/projects
>   FixMySteet.com is probably the niftyest, in my opinion.
>
> Love,
> Herbert.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

--

-- 
)_)_)_)_)_)_
Permalink