The latest move made by the EU to limit free expression and dissent
Europe Hacker Laws Could Make Protest a Crime
By PAUL MELLER
BRUSSELS, March 4 — The justice ministers of the European Union have agreed on laws intended to deter computer hacking and the spreading of computer viruses. But legal experts say the new measures could pose problems because the language could also outlaw people who organize protests online, as happened recently, en masse, with protests against a war in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/international/europe/05BRUS.html?th
Au,
I don't the Eurpean hacker laws described in the article you posted as a clear case. If people are trying to bring down an information system, for any reason, shouldn't they be held liable?
Part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences for your actions. If your protest is legal, it isn't civil disobedience is it?
Does anyone else see the irony in this quote (from Au's article)?
"[According to] Leon de Costa, chief executive of Judicium, a legal consultancy based in London. The new code "criminalizes behavior which, until now, has been seen as lawful civil disobedience," Mr. de Costa said. "
What do thay mean by "lawful civil disobedience"?
Good point about lawful civil disobedience, ebrown. I never caught the internal contradiction before.
Brown/Roger
But legal experts say the new measures could pose problems because the language could also outlaw people who organize protests online, as happened recently, en masse, with protests against a war in Iraq.
The new code "criminalizes behavior which, until now, has been seen as lawful civil disobedience," Mr. de Costa said.
The organizing of protests on line that had been lawful civil disobedience would now be unlawfl civil disobedience. That seems clear.
follow up Rocky Mtn News 3/05/03
"Rep. Betty Boyd, a Lakewood Democrat, said she believed that the teacher showed poor judgement and shouldn't have worn the button. However, no one says anything when people wear those "Charlton Heston is my president" buttons, she said."
Au, I think I agree with you in principle.
However, there should be a line drawn somewhere. These protests can possibly be economically damaging.
In the real world, the rights to protest are protected. However, if you purposely try to stop traffic you are causing a disturbance and can be arrested.
I would think the same distinction online is reasonable. "Organizing protests" is a term that covers a lot. If you are specifically trying to disrupt internet traffic, you should be willing to take the consequences.
I would like to see more details on where the line is drawn in these new measures.
dyslexia, Voice of Reason!
Au, the American Heritage Dictionary defined "civil disobedience" as:
"Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means."
By definition if what you are doing is "lawful" it is not civil disobedience.
Change your argument to "legal protest" and you might have a case.
I still maintain that causing a public nuisance should not be legal, whether it is part of a protest or not. Purposely holding up traffic or otherwise causing damage to others, whether economic or property related, should remain illegal. This statement does not take away peoples right to protest in a "legal" way.
There are situations that I would participate in true civil disobedience by breaking laws. I would be willing to take the consequences for my actions.
This is the power of civil disobedience.
ebrown_p
Civil disobedience is the term used in the article changing it to lawful protest is just a matter of semantics. The meaning is clear. They are talking about a legal activity which under the new rules may be adjudged illegal. This was not the intent but the possible outcome.
