Laws when are they just and when are they unjust?

[Grimlock]

http://torrentfreak.com/it-is-everybodys-duty-to-defy-unjust-laws-110529/

After reading this i thought it would be a good little topic to start by asking this little question when is the Laws just and when are Laws unjust.

Because if we have a duty as Rick Falkvinge to defy unjust laws then we really need to make it clear to ourselves when are laws just and when are they unjust at what point does a law pas from being just to unjust and vice versa and is there a point where a law is neither just nor unjust, but simply is almost existing in a gray area?

 

[Welshidiot]

I found that opinion piece to be overly emotional in tone. It also has me wondering whether the writer's bias is engendering his emotion, or whether he is making a cynical appeal to emotion in an attempt to sway the reader.

TBH the distortions and red-herrings in that piece have damaged my ability to consider the topic in an unbiased way.

 

[Squawk]

In short, what a complete load of shite.

My considered and detailed response can wait until I've finished playing poker

 

[Case]

Ah, and who gets to say whether a law is just?

 

[Aught3]

No, you don't have a duty to defy an unjust law. I you think a law is unjust you can choose to violate it, if you want. I'm fine with civil disobedience as long as you don't moan about the punishment.If you choose civil disobedience then you choose to accept the punishment, that's the whole point. So if you think copyright protection is unjust and you choose to violate the rules in order to agitate for change, I don't want to hear about how unfair you think the million dollar civil suit is.

While I don't see how anyone could think not being able to download the latest Lady Gaga CD is unjust, I can see a case for the unjust application of patent protection on, for example, anti-retrovirals that can help treat HIV infection. While I don't consider it a duty for governments to violate patents in order to produce these life-saving drugs, but I do support it when they choose this action. There will probably be some consequences for these countries but as long as they accept them without much complaint - I don't have a problem with it.

Also I can't understand why stopping at a red light is dangerous and stupid?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Page summary: FUCK DA POPO

Civil Disobedience is fine - as long as you have something to legitimately grieve about. And, yes, there is a tier for this.
Egypt protesting a dictator, and violating curfew laws along with breaking their ban on internet > Civil Rights > Bans on Stemcell Research > Copyright > Buckling your seatbelt

The problem nowadays with people who advocate Civil Disobedience is that they typically are the ones that aren't doing shit and not going to jail.

 

[SatanicBunny]

No, you don't have a duty to defy an unjust law. I you think a law is unjust you can choose to violate it, if you want. I'm fine with civil disobedience as long as you don't moan about the punishment.If you choose civil disobedience then you choose to accept the punishment, that's the whole point. So if you think copyright protection is unjust and you choose to violate the rules in order to agitate for change, I don't want to hear about how unfair you think the million dollar civil suit is.

While I don't see how anyone could think not being able to download the latest Lady Gaga CD is unjust - -

I agree with you that whining about being punished is silly. There is however a valid cause to complain if the punsihemtn one receives is disproportional to the crime.

You took up the issue of downloading music, so I'll use that as an example*: I find it laughable and outright unjust that if you go to a store and steal some cds you'll get a small fine but if you downloand those exactly same cds from the net you could potentionally be sued for a million although the latter obviously causes way less damage/loss of property.

*I'm personally in favor for the lagalization of downloads as long as they are for personal use only but that point is irrelevant for the matter at hand and I agree that under the current legislation it's a crime that one gets punished for. I just don't agree with your notion that people who commit crimes should not be allowed to have their say/protest if the punishment they receive for their crimes is unjust.

 

[Aught3]

I agree with you that whining about being punished is silly. There is however a valid cause to complain if the punsihemtn one receives is disproportional to the crime.

You took up the issue of downloading music, so I'll use that as an example*: I find it laughable and outright unjust that if you go to a store and steal some cds you'll get a small fine but if you downloand those exactly same cds from the net you could potentionally be sued for a million although the latter obviously causes way less damage/loss of property.

Let's make sure to draw the distinction though, in countries like NZ and the US copyright infringement is a civil offense whereas theft is a criminal one. That's why they are treated so differently. I don't really have a problem with this distinction and most people who are pro-copyright infringement tend to agree (downloading is not theft, and so on). Also it's not the downloading that is punished with million dollar fines, it's allowing others to download from you (i.e., piracy).

Having said that I agree with you that it is valid to complain about disproportionate punishments. So it could be the case that one person is simultaneously protesting and unjust law and making a complaint about the extreme punishment. I guess my point was made to the people who are trying to wrap their copyright infringement in the cloak of civil disobedience when it's obviously just a post hoc rationalisation. I don't think most of them care about trying to improve the law - they just want free stuff without having to risk getting punished for taking it. When they take the stuff and then complain about the lawsuit, I find I have little sympathy.

 

[Grimlock]

http://torrentfreak.com/whos-the-police-and-whos-the-crook-anyway-110612/

He posted another article and after having read it i think he,´s basically asking the same question i once did on this forum When are you are freedom Fighter aka a Hero and when are you a terrorist aka a villain.

And i find myself agreeing with what he says so what do you think more bullshit or is there some truth to what he says?