benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (T Cox) (01/29/86)
[]
If I am not mistaken, civil disobedience is the willful disobeying of a
law. The long-term goal of one who participates in this activity is the
alteration of or repeal of the law being violated. The auto-dialing of
Falwell would be civil disobedience if it were aimed at changing laws
regarding the use of phones. If the auto-dialing were illegal an
harassing, then I might assume that the particular law would be the
law against using phones to harass people.
If, on the other hand, the auto-dialing were aimed specifically
at Falwell, who is not the author or enforcer of any United States
federal, state, or local law or ordinance, then I must assume that
the auto-dialing was not civil disobedience.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
--
T. Cox ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
Live long,
avoid intentionalist terminology,
and prosper.emery@gypsy.UUCP (01/31/86)
Remember this about Civil Disobediance: You break the law, because you are willing to pay the price. Thoreau, (who is credited as starting this) was quite willing to go to jail for not paying taxes. If you are not willing to pay the penalty for your actions, its not "civil disobediance", as Thoreau knew it. Dave Emery Siemens Research ...princeton!siemens!emery
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (02/04/86)
In article <27200002@gypsy.UUCP> emery@gypsy.UUCP writes: >If you are not willing to pay the penalty for your actions, its not >"civil disobediance", as Thoreau knew it. Here in Minnesota, there's been a big to-do at the Hormel meat-packing plant in Austin: the workers went on strike, and Hormel started hiring replacements. Last I heard, the strikers were applying to the sheriff for "permission" to commit acts of civil disobedience in order to prevent the replacements from entering the plant. I found this extremely amusing. -- ===+=== Andre Guirard /@ @\ The eyes have it. /_____\ ihnp4!mmm!cipher ( @ @ ) Beanies ahoy! \ _ / `-'
steve@valid.UUCP (02/07/86)
> ...The auto-dialing of > Falwell would be civil disobedience if it were aimed at changing laws > regarding the use of phones... > If, on the other hand, the auto-dialing were aimed specifically > at Falwell, who is not the author or enforcer of any United States > federal, state, or local law or ordinance, then I must assume that > the auto-dialing was not civil disobedience. > Please correct me if I am wrong. > T. Cox ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn I think you're basically right. I don't think that the auto-dialing of Fallwell's fundraising phone was civil disobedience (CD) as those of us who do CD define it. As I recall from my local newspaper, the guy who called Fallwell was just trying to foul up the Rev's fundraising, but had no quarrel with telephone laws or Fallwell's right to do fundraising. Civil disobedience is aimed at changing unjust laws OR unjust social practices. Fallwell's fundraising might be dishonest in the way it portrays reality, but it certainly isn't ``immoral'' to raise money for his political causes. I'd love to see Fallwell's fundraising efforts fail miserably, but I'd also hate to see right-wingers pull that sort of telephone tactic on a low-budget left-wing organization that I belonged to. Even if the goal of the auto-dialing was to change a law, many proponents of civil disobedience would oppose it. One school of thought says that CD should not destroy property, because doing so is immoral. I think running up Fallwell's phone bill would count as property destruction. Another school of thought says that while violence against people is wrong, violence against property is okay if it helps the Cause. Yet a third school of thought says that whether it's immoral or not, destroying property is generally a bad tactic, because it makes the people doing it look irresponsible and violent in the public's eye. Steve Homer {hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!steve