11 ms·

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is

by qntty 8mo ago

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. > I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. I always have to go back to read this part again because I feel like it's so unexpected. You don't really hear anyone saying quite the same thing today.

roxolotl 8mo ago
It’s pretty classic civil disobedience. In my mind it’s really the founding principle of the states. There is a difference between what is legal and what is just. For the past 250 years what is just has continually evolved and expanded. > Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. - Civil Disobedience
verisimi 8mo ago
> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. When is it just in its application?
- dijit 8mo ago
  More often than not, I would argue. There's a reason that due process is a thing, it's more commonly upheld than it's not, no matter what rhetoric you've been spun by a fear-mongering media.
  - jakelazaroff 8mo ago
    As many as 98% of charges end with plea bargains [1]. That's not "due process" in a meaningful sense of the term. [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...
    - dijit 8mo ago
      Yes, it is. If you plead guilty to an offence you shouldn't serve the same amount of time as someone who shows no remorse. Also, included in those "plea bargains" are cautions, for children. edit; I'm getting flagged but I should definitely mention that I'm intimately familiar with how the law can be for the underclass, I was an underclass and I have a laundry list of a criminal record from when I was a child.
      - JoshTriplett 8mo ago
        > If you plead guilty to an offence you shouldn't serve the same amount of time as someone who shows no remorse. On the contrary, I think that's one of the problems that makes plea bargains so egregious: in order to take a plea bargain, you have to plead guilty, which prevents you from further defending yourself if you didn't actually do what you were accused of. That creates the scenario where an innocent person who is not confident in the system's ability to defend them may find themselves having to plead guilty in order to stave off a much worse penalty. The same thing applies to parole boards: maintaining innocence typically prevents you from being granted parole. This is a perverse incentive.
        dijit 8mo ago
        You're conflating "plea bargains exist" with "innocent people are systematically coerced into false confessions." The vast majority of plea bargains involve people who are, in fact, guilty and are receiving a reduced sentence for saving the court's time and showing contrition. That's not a perverse incentive, it's a reasonable tradeoff that benefits both the defendant and society. Yes, edge cases exist where innocent people feel pressure to plead. But the existence of edge cases doesn't prove the system is fundamentally unjust, it proves the system is imperfect, which no one disputes. Regarding parole: maintaining innocence after you've been convicted and exhausted your appeals isn't "defending yourself"; at that point, you've had your defence. The parole board's job is to assess rehabilitation, and refusing to acknowledge your crime is evidence you haven't been rehabilitated. If you genuinely didn't do it, your remedy is post-conviction relief, not parole. The burden is on those claiming systemic injustice to show that false guilty pleas are the norm rather than the exception. "98% plea bargain rate" doesn't demonstrate that.
dayvid 8mo ago
People have too much to lose nowadays. Having a jail or protesting history gives you a black mark if you're middle class and you have to pursue alternate avenues to provide for yourself and your family. It's a last resort and has allowed a lot of insidious things to grow in US gov't and outside
- pkkim 8mo ago
  Hmmm. When I was in college, I protested and went to jail multiple times in the US, though I was never convicted (the organization I was with provided for legal representation). I don't believe it has ever damaged my career. I'm curious if your experience has been different?
  - AngryData 8mo ago
    Well you weren't convicted, and a huge part of that is likely your free legal representation which would otherwise have cost you thousands of dollars that many people don't have to spend themselves.
    - pkkim 8mo ago
      Absolutely. If I hadn't been assured there would be a lawyer afterwards (he represented us as a group btw), I wouldn't have done it... I strongly recommend that anyone doing civil disobedience join up with an organization which can provide training, logistical support, and at least some degree of legal support. The first two are if anything even more important given that these situations tend to be chaotic and tense. The book Waging a Good War documents the intensive training that activists underwent during the civil rights movement which was crucial for their success. Of course the situation is much more lawless now in places like Minneapolis and ICE is much more undisciplined than the police, which makes civil disobedience much more challenging and dangerous. That just makes training and legal aid all the more necessary.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
    When were you in college?
propagandist 8mo ago
https://youtu.be/YKnJL2jfA5A https://youtu.be/YKnJL2jfA5A Kwame Ture talks about what it takes for nonviolence to work.
zer00eyz 8mo ago
> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. There is another side to this coin: jury nullification. The fact that, most Americans, are unaware of the concept, or that it is a choice they can make is one of the tragedies of the modern era. Adams had much to say on the topic, and his take is still valid 200 years later.
- massysett 8mo ago
  I think that when you put most Americans in a jury box, they will learn that whether they vote to convict is their choice. Ask the guy who threw the sandwich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sean_Dunn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sean_Dunn
AngryData 8mo ago
I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh and the best you can hope for is the state merely extorting thousands of dollars out of you and a life-long black mark for employment. Ive had jobs grinding raw castings in 100+ degree environments that full time that paid less than $30K which required background checks. Unless you got $10K+ to drop on a private lawyer before hand, going to court in the US is a HUGE risk that in most cases is going to cost you many thousands of dollars in court fees and fines regardless with the risk of more jail time and more fees if you can't pay it off on their schedule.
- baubino 8mo ago
  > I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh Civil rights activists, including King, lost their lives for daring to challenge injustice. The penalties are no more severe today than they were then.
  - AngryData 8mo ago
    The incarceration rate today is 4x that what it was in MLK's day. And im willing to bet the monetary punishments are similarly increased, if not even higher.
    - djeastm 8mo ago
      >The incarceration rate today is 4x that what it was in MLK's day. What percentage of that is from civil disobedience vs "the war on drugs"?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
Capricorn2481 8mo ago
> I always have to go back to read this part again because I feel like it's so unexpected. You don't really hear anyone saying quite the same thing today The landscape has completely changed. No authority in charge entertains the idea that the law should be respected, it's not surprising citizens reciprocate.
ncr100 8mo ago
And the "unjust" principle works in the opposite direction, nowadays, for ICE / certain US Federal employees. Justice is supposedly enabled / supported by the law against second-degree murder. And it's is unlikely to be applied to the ICE officer who shot Renee Good unnecessarily: - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/17/renee-good-ice-federal-agents-supreme-court/88177914007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/17/rene...
- estearum 8mo ago
  ICE is actually routinely breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech. A spokesperson for DHS just last week openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    I've been held ~24 hours by DHS under RAS, it is definitely a thing near the border where they don't need PC to jail you. They put me in jail but I was never under arrest, I later got my federal arrest record and there was nothing. Maybe that was what they were referring to? Jailing citizens with no warrant nor PC was happening to me under Biden so it's not new either.
    - hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
      What is RAS?
      - mothballed 8mo ago
        Reasonable articulable suspicion. In my case, an imaginary dog "alerted" an unnamed handler. So that gave them RAS to strip me naked, be jailed, and be made to poop in front of them to ensure there were no drugs that came out. Contacted several lawyers, nothing to be done, no chance of fighting it. Girl that tried before me, lost.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
watwut 8mo ago
> One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I would not say this one, because I simply strongly disagree. Simple as that. No, nazi opposition did not needes to let yourself be tortured in camp to be valid. Nor communist one. As a demand, it is absurd on its face. Yeah, you should weight the level of risk and loss. And you dont need to aim for self harm when opposing something bad.

by qntty 8mo ago

roxolotl 8mo ago

It’s pretty classic civil disobedience. In my mind it’s really the founding principle of the states. There is a difference between what is legal and what is just. For the past 250 years what is just has continually evolved and expanded. > Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. - Civil Disobedience

verisimi 8mo ago

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. When is it just in its application?

dijit 8mo ago
More often than not, I would argue. There's a reason that due process is a thing, it's more commonly upheld than it's not, no matter what rhetoric you've been spun by a fear-mongering media.
- jakelazaroff 8mo ago
  As many as 98% of charges end with plea bargains [1]. That's not "due process" in a meaningful sense of the term. [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...
  - dijit 8mo ago
    Yes, it is. If you plead guilty to an offence you shouldn't serve the same amount of time as someone who shows no remorse. Also, included in those "plea bargains" are cautions, for children. edit; I'm getting flagged but I should definitely mention that I'm intimately familiar with how the law can be for the underclass, I was an underclass and I have a laundry list of a criminal record from when I was a child.
    - JoshTriplett 8mo ago
      > If you plead guilty to an offence you shouldn't serve the same amount of time as someone who shows no remorse. On the contrary, I think that's one of the problems that makes plea bargains so egregious: in order to take a plea bargain, you have to plead guilty, which prevents you from further defending yourself if you didn't actually do what you were accused of. That creates the scenario where an innocent person who is not confident in the system's ability to defend them may find themselves having to plead guilty in order to stave off a much worse penalty. The same thing applies to parole boards: maintaining innocence typically prevents you from being granted parole. This is a perverse incentive.
      - dijit 8mo ago
        You're conflating "plea bargains exist" with "innocent people are systematically coerced into false confessions." The vast majority of plea bargains involve people who are, in fact, guilty and are receiving a reduced sentence for saving the court's time and showing contrition. That's not a perverse incentive, it's a reasonable tradeoff that benefits both the defendant and society. Yes, edge cases exist where innocent people feel pressure to plead. But the existence of edge cases doesn't prove the system is fundamentally unjust, it proves the system is imperfect, which no one disputes. Regarding parole: maintaining innocence after you've been convicted and exhausted your appeals isn't "defending yourself"; at that point, you've had your defence. The parole board's job is to assess rehabilitation, and refusing to acknowledge your crime is evidence you haven't been rehabilitated. If you genuinely didn't do it, your remedy is post-conviction relief, not parole. The burden is on those claiming systemic injustice to show that false guilty pleas are the norm rather than the exception. "98% plea bargain rate" doesn't demonstrate that.

dayvid 8mo ago

People have too much to lose nowadays. Having a jail or protesting history gives you a black mark if you're middle class and you have to pursue alternate avenues to provide for yourself and your family. It's a last resort and has allowed a lot of insidious things to grow in US gov't and outside

pkkim 8mo ago
Hmmm. When I was in college, I protested and went to jail multiple times in the US, though I was never convicted (the organization I was with provided for legal representation). I don't believe it has ever damaged my career. I'm curious if your experience has been different?
- AngryData 8mo ago
  Well you weren't convicted, and a huge part of that is likely your free legal representation which would otherwise have cost you thousands of dollars that many people don't have to spend themselves.
  - pkkim 8mo ago
    Absolutely. If I hadn't been assured there would be a lawyer afterwards (he represented us as a group btw), I wouldn't have done it... I strongly recommend that anyone doing civil disobedience join up with an organization which can provide training, logistical support, and at least some degree of legal support. The first two are if anything even more important given that these situations tend to be chaotic and tense. The book Waging a Good War documents the intensive training that activists underwent during the civil rights movement which was crucial for their success. Of course the situation is much more lawless now in places like Minneapolis and ICE is much more undisciplined than the police, which makes civil disobedience much more challenging and dangerous. That just makes training and legal aid all the more necessary.
- hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
  When were you in college?

propagandist 8mo ago

https://youtu.be/YKnJL2jfA5A https://youtu.be/YKnJL2jfA5A Kwame Ture talks about what it takes for nonviolence to work.

zer00eyz 8mo ago

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. There is another side to this coin: jury nullification. The fact that, most Americans, are unaware of the concept, or that it is a choice they can make is one of the tragedies of the modern era. Adams had much to say on the topic, and his take is still valid 200 years later.

massysett 8mo ago
I think that when you put most Americans in a jury box, they will learn that whether they vote to convict is their choice. Ask the guy who threw the sandwich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sean_Dunn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sean_Dunn

AngryData 8mo ago

I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh and the best you can hope for is the state merely extorting thousands of dollars out of you and a life-long black mark for employment. Ive had jobs grinding raw castings in 100+ degree environments that full time that paid less than $30K which required background checks. Unless you got $10K+ to drop on a private lawyer before hand, going to court in the US is a HUGE risk that in most cases is going to cost you many thousands of dollars in court fees and fines regardless with the risk of more jail time and more fees if you can't pay it off on their schedule.

baubino 8mo ago
> I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh Civil rights activists, including King, lost their lives for daring to challenge injustice. The penalties are no more severe today than they were then.
- AngryData 8mo ago
  The incarceration rate today is 4x that what it was in MLK's day. And im willing to bet the monetary punishments are similarly increased, if not even higher.
  - djeastm 8mo ago
    >The incarceration rate today is 4x that what it was in MLK's day. What percentage of that is from civil disobedience vs "the war on drugs"?

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

Capricorn2481 8mo ago

> I always have to go back to read this part again because I feel like it's so unexpected. You don't really hear anyone saying quite the same thing today The landscape has completely changed. No authority in charge entertains the idea that the law should be respected, it's not surprising citizens reciprocate.

ncr100 8mo ago

And the "unjust" principle works in the opposite direction, nowadays, for ICE / certain US Federal employees. Justice is supposedly enabled / supported by the law against second-degree murder. And it's is unlikely to be applied to the ICE officer who shot Renee Good unnecessarily: - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/17/renee-good-ice-federal-agents-supreme-court/88177914007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/17/rene...

estearum 8mo ago
ICE is actually routinely breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech. A spokesperson for DHS just last week openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  I've been held ~24 hours by DHS under RAS, it is definitely a thing near the border where they don't need PC to jail you. They put me in jail but I was never under arrest, I later got my federal arrest record and there was nothing. Maybe that was what they were referring to? Jailing citizens with no warrant nor PC was happening to me under Biden so it's not new either.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
    What is RAS?
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      Reasonable articulable suspicion. In my case, an imaginary dog "alerted" an unnamed handler. So that gave them RAS to strip me naked, be jailed, and be made to poop in front of them to ensure there were no drugs that came out. Contacted several lawyers, nothing to be done, no chance of fighting it. Girl that tried before me, lost.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

watwut 8mo ago

> One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I would not say this one, because I simply strongly disagree. Simple as that. No, nazi opposition did not needes to let yourself be tortured in camp to be valid. Nor communist one. As a demand, it is absurd on its face. Yeah, you should weight the level of risk and loss. And you dont need to aim for self harm when opposing something bad.