From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:42:09 +0800
To: David Sternlight <ota+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Netscape
Message-ID: <199607232310.QAA29698@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:52 AM 7/23/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
>At 5:09 PM -0700 7/22/96, Ted Anderson wrote:
>>
>>I must agree with Lucky.  I am quite sure that even if Netscape was not
>>begin distributed over the net, copies would still be uploaded to
>>international sites by folks practicing Civil disobedience.
>
>To call simple lawbreaking by cowards working in secret "civil
>disobedience" is to defame the name of Gandhi, King, and all the legitimate
>protesters of modern history. Civil disobedience must be seen publicly, and
>must be done by observable individuals. Masked men throwing stink bombs is
>not civil disobedience--it's hooliganism.

As usual, while you have at least the hint of a truth there, you manage to 
warp it just enough to be difficult to recognize.

Historically, the the government has had nominal control of the media.  The 
only civil disobedience that was _seen_ to be successful were the examples 
that made the news.  And the "only" examples which made the news were the 
ones the government wanted to publicize.  And the "only" examples the 
government wanted to publicize were the ones in which government 
"successfully" made examples of those doing it.  And the "only" examples 
where the government achieved this were the ones where the perpetrator 
allowed himself to be caught.  (my usages of the word, "only," are somewhat 
hyperbolic, of course.  In practice, they are strong probabilities.)

Your usage of the word, "legitimate" is quite slick (in the worst sense of 
the word, "slick"):  The only ones you're going to want to acknowledge were 
"legitimate" are the ones that either are already successful, or the few you 
approve of and are still waiting to be successful.

So, in a certain odd sense, it has been correct to say that the only 
"successful" (and thus, by your standards, "legitimate") civil disobedience 
has been that in which the perpetrator did it openly. And not surprisingly, 
anyone who does anything in such a way that he's not caught (and therefore, 
is also not subject to government-sponsored publicity) is a "coward" by your 
standards.  How convenient!  A rather sophisticated self-fulfilling 
prophecy.  No wonder you've got some people fooled into believing you're a 
good debator.

Fast-forward to 1996.  Today, the traditional news media is beginning to be 
seriously bypassed by the computer networks, and this process is 
accelerating.  No longer can the government keep enough control of the news 
media in order to help ensure that civil disobedience stays covered up 
unless they catch the protestor. Since everything else seems to be changing, 
it's no surprise that civil disobedience is, too.  

Today, civil disobedience still needs publicity, but to achieve that it now 
DOESN'T need the cooperation of the mainstream media, or implicitly the 
government.  So a person doesn't need to be "caught" in order to win.  The 
_results_ must be publicized, the person or people who did it doesn't.   
This represents a rather enormous change in the whole issue of civil 
disobedience, a change which is extraordinarily unwelcome among governments 
and statists alike.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com