Hacking the Elephant.
WIRED reports that hackers will be attempting to attack Bush/Cheney websites during the GOP's Convention in NYC.
What's at stake? Fundraising capacity, for one.
So what do you think, readers? Assuming such attacks come off, is this civil disobedience or interference with someone's first amendment rights?
Email or comment, if you have an opinion!
What's at stake? Fundraising capacity, for one.
So what do you think, readers? Assuming such attacks come off, is this civil disobedience or interference with someone's first amendment rights?
Email or comment, if you have an opinion!
posted by The Malcontent at 3:20 PM
3 Comments:
Individuals cannot interfere with first Amendment rights. They lack "color of law." The government does not violate one's first Amendment rights by protecting websites through law enforcement-- they aren't saying moveon.org has to shut down during the convention, they're just saying that joehacker is going to go to jail for hacking the republican website during the convenction.
It is, however, criminal to interfere with another's website, or to invade another's computer, or to interfere with commerce by wire. I do not advocate illegal activity in protest, but I know people who do (see my blog for related newsical stuff).
I believe that people should internalize the costs of their speech and action. In this case, civil disobedience that involves illegal action can, and probably will result in criminal and/or civil prosecution. As long as those who hack are prepared to pay the price, I think that their actions may be the only political "discourse" that we see in this country before the election.
Well said, Galactichero! And I agree with your perspective on the costs of speech and action, as you know.
I would make one point in light of your assertion that "Individuals cannot interfere with first Amendment rights." Of course individuals can interfere with someone's exercise of their first amendment rights--if someone gags you to prevent you from speaking, or ties you up to prevent you from going to church, they have interfered with your ability to exercise those rights protected from governmental interference by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The point that I think you were trying to make is a lawyerly one that I respect. As you and I know well, and the general public usually does not, the first amendment protects citizens from government actions (specifically, laws abridging your rights), but not from the behaviors of your fellow citizens. Thus your comment on the criminal law, etc. (and, in fact, in the examples I gave, the actions of the person gagging or tying you would be unlawful under laws prohibiting assault, not first amendment protections. That being said, they would still be interfering with your practicing those rights protected under the 1st Amendment, but just not in the way prohibited by that Amendment.)
So, I short-handed, not in the way that non-lawyers do (that is, by invoking 1st amendment protections where none exist), but in a different way (by saying "1st Amendment" rather than enumerating the various forms of speech that would be being suppressed or interfered with).
Perhaps I should have just said "free speech" or "political speech," eh?
In general, however, I will be using more "colloquial" language than many of my colleagues in the law would probably prefer (for legal accuracy's sake), but I am trying not to be too legalistic in the blog, and to reach the general population. Apparently, I intend to have my semantic and legalistic arguments in the comment section of the blog.
Agreed. I made the comment not to criticize, but to be sure that people who are not as lawyerly recognize that individuals cannot violate first amendment rights. There is also the "heckler's veto," where the government claims to be protecting the speaker from a hostile crowd by curtailing the speaker's speech so that the crowd does not attack him or her. Perhaps they should take the RNC website down during the convention. It would be for their own protection...
Why wasn't this an issue before the DNC? Did you hear about the FBI raids on protestor co-op houses. Why weren't those before the DNC?
Post a Comment
<< Home