Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher (commondreams.org)
176 points by justinmares on July 30, 2011 | hide | past | favorite | 34 comments



This is an excellent read, although not initially recognizing his name I was expecting it to be about Anonymous/LulzSec, DDOS, digital sit-ins, etc. It is long, but extremely well constructed. It should also be taken as a lesson in how to respond to governmental oppression. Non-violent, not inflammatory, well reasoned, passionate, and maybe most important of all, not disrespectful of the law itself. By respecting to your opponent, it speaks volumes about your character.

DeChristopher is obviously a well-spoken man and he sounds like an absolute stand-up guy. In his speech he seems to address every pertinent matter of the case, use the evidence available to question their validity, and to any sensible person defend himself completely and utterly. Unfortunately, court does not appear to have been sensible on this day.

If we can see a silver lining, it's that this story will get more press because he's going to jail, and the more people that read this, the more people will be inspired. I think this essay will do exactly what DeChristopher wanted it to.


How often does someone get sent to prison for 2 years because they bid at an auction more than they could afford to pay at the moment they made the bid? Is it very common to prosecute this in a criminal trial, or is this completely unheard of?


not so, he was able and willing to pay for the land, but the BLM doesnt allow people to buy land w/o drilling for oil. So he was charged with "disrupting a lawful government activity" - even though in fact those BLM auctions are NOT lawful.


Wow, thanks, I didn't realize he even had the money but the issue was that he wanted to buy the land without drilling on it and that was enough to got to prison for two years. That is pretty amazing.


Yeah, even though oil companies bid for drilling rights and then sit on those rights, don't drill, and bid for more rights.


Could you provide some evidence for Mr DeChristopher's ability to acquire $1.8M in short order? The actual issue seems to have much more to do with the legality of the auction than with whether or not he honestly intended to purchase the land for development.


Using illegal methods to disrupt illegal activities is not legal. You can't shoot a guy to stop him running a red light. There are rules about Citizen's arrests, but they are pretty specific.

On the other hand, making a nuisance bid at an auction (especially when you are forthright about your actions, which he claims he was) doesn't seem like a serious criminal act.


> Using illegal methods to disrupt illegal activities is not legal

I don't know about the US but in the UK, it is a valid defence to say you were trying to prevent a greater crime. The textbook example is that you'd be allowed to steal a bicycle in order to prevent a murder. It's a defence quite commonly adopted by practitioners of civil disobedience, and there have been some notably successful uses of it.


As far as I'm aware, the closest US equivalent is jury nullification, which this guy apparently argued for. But the US government has waged a very effective PR campaign against jury nullification to the point where most people consider it immoral in all cases.


He didn't just make himself a nuisance, though.

He did two illegal acts: 1. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a legitimate buyer for the drilling rights. 2. He was unable to pay for the bids he won.

Both of which are pretty cut and dry fraud charges. Those are what he was found guilty for.

If he had just broken into the meeting and annoyed the people present, I would have a different opinion about his punishment, but what he did here was clearly illegal. If he's serious about this being a case of civil disobedience, he should accept the consequences of his actions. Trying to avoid the consequences just defeats the entire purpose.


Tsk tsk, you didn't read the article.

> 1. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a legitimate buyer for the drilling rights.

"The entire basis for the false statements charge that I was convicted of was the fact that I wrote my real name and address on a form that included the words “bona fide bidder.” When I sat there on the witness stand, Mr Romney asked me if I ever had any intention of being a bona fide bidder. I responded by asking Mr Romney to clarify what “bona fide bidder” meant in this context. Mr Romney then withdrew the question and moved on to the next subject. On that right there is the entire basis for the government’s repeated attacks on my integrity."

> 2. He was unable to pay for the bids he won.

"The other number suggested in the government’s memorandum is the $166,000 that was the total price of the three parcels I won which were not invalidated. Strangely, the government wants me to pay for these parcels, but has never offered to actually give them to me. When I offered the BLM the money a couple weeks after the auction, they refused to take it."

> If he's serious about this being a case of civil disobedience, he should accept the consequences of his actions. Trying to avoid the consequences just defeats the entire purpose.

"Despite my strong disagreements with the court about the Constitutional basis for the limits on my defense, while I was in this courtroom I respected the authority of the court. [...] disagreement with the law should not be confused with disrespect for the law."

It's really a very good speech, you should read it in its entirety.


Actually he COULD pay for the bids he won, he just wasn't intending to drill them.


This is a sad, sad commentary on the current state of government affairs. This is the kind of stuff that makes me think groups like Anonymous are more for the people than our own government


This just smacks of corruption. Sweet legal corruption.

He was in a position to be able to purchase the rights to drill. He does not have to necessarily have to exercise those rights that he purchased.

Moreover, he is leasing those rights! It is in the governments best interests to have someone pay for the right to take a non-renewable resource and then not decide to use it!!!

Since there is a lot of talk about patents and copyright here, let's do a simple example. If I purchase the rights to 'Happy Birthday', can't I just not enforce the copyright? Will I be prosecuted if I don't sue every child getting sung 'Happy Birthday'?

If I purchase Lodsys' supposed patents and decide to not sue every indy developer out there, will I be persecuted for it?

Sexual orientation? You've got the right either way! If you go princess or bear is the government going to break down your door?

If you lease land for logging and your company decides it's not fiscally feasible to log this year, are you going to be thrown in jail.

No. No. No. No.

It's too bad his defense was hampered by the judge.

His only crime was trying to get in the way of the revolving door system of public property being given away to private interests. That's a big no-no.


He was essentially being punished, made an example of for political reasons. I'm not an environmentalist, but thats not right.


Why aren't you an environmentalist? I'm not suggesting it's the only philosophy one can legitimately hold, but I'm wondering where your disagreement with the core tenets of environmentalism (sustainable growth and concern for human health and ecological balance) comes from.


I can't speak for him either, but I'll speak for those of us who are against destroying the environment but won't use the word environmentalist as it, like the word organic and the word christian, have been co-opted by evil bastards with corporate control agendas. Screw all that. It is impossible to take "environmentalism" seriously as a movement when you have people like Al Gore respected, and the Goldman Sachs controlled Carbon exchanges the purpose of which is obvious and it's not to reduce needless consumption.


Is libertarianism defined by Ayn Rand? Is capitalism defined by Donald Trump? Let's put Gore aside for a minute, and focus on the core issues. An environmentalist is someone who, fundamentally, sees the protection of the environment (for practical and/or idealogical reasons) as one of our most serious responsibilities. To say that certain people who identify with the movement are wrong, therefore the movement is wrong, is to say you can't believe in animal rights without being a PETA supporter. It's just a terribly flawed argument. Flipping it on it's head, I could say that environmentalism is beyond reproach because it has people like David Suzuki [1] as its champions. Those arguments simply don't hold water.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki


The deal with this is that I am an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of "Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings. Therefore, it is foolish to apply these labels anymore to the cause or belief or movement or whatever you want to call it.

One can be or be not. Talk is bullcrap. "Environmentalism" is about talk and politics and taking control away from people and their lives, and it's about making money. It's not about reducing consumption and waste. Not at all.

You also bring up PeTA. Let's instead talk about the label "Animal Rights Activist". I am opposed to factory farms and slaughterhouses where animals are abused and tortured for profit. I'd like to see all of these either reformed or shut down. The abuse of animals is so severe that I consider it completely unethical to eat products from these places. As a result, since I am a omnivore and veganism made me sick, I have to raise and hunt my own meat because that I have control over and can do so in as ethical and humane a manner as possible. Yes it involves killing but I do so with respect for the animal and its life. Those I raise have a good life before slaughter. I would much rather just buy humanely raised meat, that would be less trouble, but it's not possible in the US. Few others do this, that is their own business. But am I an "Animal Rights Activist"? Absolutely not. That is a label of cranks who do things like set fire to cars and destroy perfectly good fur coats. PeTA kills 85% of the animals it rescues. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-eu...)

Likewise with consumption. Wow it would be nice to drive around and fly and use air conditioning. Does your place of work have air conditioning? Mine does not because I choose not do do so because it is wasteful compared to a fan. Do you drive to work every day? I don't because it is outrageous to think that personal gas combustion vehicles is sustainable, and electric hybrids with their batteries are even worse. Do you raise most of your own food? I do. Screw the environmentalists, driving from meeting to meeting in their gas guzzling leaded gasoline running VW busses, and their private jets, and their olympic sized heated swimming pools, their destruction of the soil with their ethanol gas, their wasteful solar panels, and their refusal to get control over their own waste while they dare to dictate to others. The world would be better off without any of those outrageous hypocrites. The term "Environmentalist" has become an insult thanks to their efforts.

Among these is Suzuki, a major leader of outrageous hypocrites. Rather than address his own wasteful consumption, he buys religious indulgences in the form of carbon credits to "offset" his waste. This is complete nonsense and those who participate in these scams are either deluded followers, or cult leaders trying to confuse their followers by example.


I'm done with the ideological purity tests of environmentalism; it's time for pragmatic engineering to take the helm. If you ask me, this guy should be the head of the new environmentalist movement: http://fora.tv/2011/06/27/Peter_Kareiva_Conservation_in_the_...


I stopped caring about the environment, when I saw that being an environmentalist meant stopping any and all human development.

When environmentalists get together and start building power plants and oil wells, then I'll know they're serious about saving the environment.


Wait, what? Why would environmentalists build oil wells? That's precisely the opposite of caring about the environment. Unchecked human development is recklessly irresponsible. But growth and development aren't necessarily evil - far from it. Understanding the ENTIRE impact of ones actions, rather than just the portion that affect you, is (imo) the most important tenet of protecting the world we live in. From that perspective, you can make intelligent decisions and grow, but not at the expense of everyone around you.


Umm, plenty of environmentalists do build power plants, solar wind etc. However, I can't see any way that drilling for oil is 'good' for the environment.


Can't speak for dublinclontarf, but personally I'm not too concerned for the environment simply because I'm fairly indifferent as to whether mankind makes it or not.

The Universe has been doing quite well without us for billions of years and will continue to do so if we are too dumb to keep our little rock habitable (which I suspect may be the case).

Oh and we're not planning to have kids :)


Whether "mankind makes it" in the end matters or not, our not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering. It's a little hard to care about anything without caring about that, which I think is what your parent was getting at.


> not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering

This premise assumes that in the situation where we "don't make it," the total amount of suffering by the end of the human race would be more than one in where we "do make it." Given that human suffering is caused by everything, I would say that if the race were to survive, there would be infinitely more suffering because we would have more time to inflict it. The premise seems to take for granted that the only way humans suffer is through harming our environment, which is of course not at all accurate. The only way to avoid human suffering is to immediately get rid of all humans; being in favor of existence, I have to argue that this is a fruitless position.

Likewise, if animals can suffer, then the existence of animals causes suffering. Animals attack each other, eat each other, steal each others' food source and offspring. The only way to prevent animal suffering is to have no animals. If plants can suffer, then the existence of plants causes suffering as they compete for sunlight and nutrients and the 'losers' wither and die.

I suppose my point is: any argument that involves potential existence causing suffering must ultimately come to these conclusions. I don't believe there is any other choice. Plants will never stop competing, animals will never stop competing, and humans will never stop competing.

Also, if the crux of your argument is avoidable human suffering, then I would be very interested to know what defines unavoidable human suffering.

[Just enjoying my Saturday morning by carrying out some debate]


I don't think I buy that the idea of "total amount of suffering" makes sense. That suggests that a world with more people, who are each suffering less, would be a worse world overall by virtue of having more "total" suffering. That strikes me as strongly counterintuitive, and very hard to justify rationally, though I'd be happy to see the attempt.

And in fact that seems to be the world we're living in. For example, in this TED talk[1] Steven Pinker makes the argument a person being born today — anywhere in the world, counting Iraq and Darfur — has less of a chance of dying at the hands of another person than at any time before in history.

So I'm a little skeptical of the idea that the only way to make the human race feel better is to have less of it.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...


You are aware that mankind has subjected itself to avoidable suffering for as long as we could swing a stick, right? We have hundreds of millions suffering (avoidably might I add) right now and even if we somehow managed to keep Earth squeaky clean - I see a lot more avoidable suffering for the millennia to come.

If anything, significantly reducing Earth's capacity to sustain humans may paradoxically result in diminished total human suffering (average suffering x number of humans) due to lower population.

For what it's worth I do care, courtesy to my overly empathetic neural wiring. I'd argue that I am doing a lot more than my peers to reduce future human suffering simply by not contributing to the overpopulation. Not that any of it matters in the grand scheme of things ;)

Keep fighting the good fight, I admire your zeal!


I just won't wear that label, sure I care about having a clean environment, nice land yadda yadda but I wont describe myself as an environmentalist for reasons that others have pointed out in this thread.


I don't agree with everything DeChristopher has to say, but that was a good read.

I find it really scary that lobbyists have the ability to destroy an individual's life if instigated. At least that's the impression I got.


Money greases the wheels of justice. Oil money is particularly greasy.

EDIT: spelling


The decision, the process and the background are an embarrassment.

It's interesting to me that there isn't even the slightest bit of damage control.

What was it Lou Reed said ... Stick a fork in 'em. Turn 'em over. They're done.


I'm so glad this made HN.


I cared, up to paragraph 682 in his article.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: