Re: tolerable

".....a group of protesters disagreed with a company and smashed up a couple of training jets....." If you are referring to the 1996 break-in at BAe, where four protesters vandalised a BAe Hawk destined for Indonesia, IIRC, the protestors' argument was that they sincerely believed the jets would be used to kill people and therefore they were using minimal and reasonable force to prevent a lethal attack on others. The Indonesians had previously used their BAe Hawks for bombing civillians in East Timor and the jury accepted that it was highly likely the aircraft they had vandalised would have been used for a similar and potentially illegal role.

But that case is different in that there was a legal argument that their criminal act was justified in preventing a more serious crime, and was the last and minimal resort the group had. The Anonyputzs' action was a crime in itself, was not meant to stop any crime being committed by Paypal or any of the other targets, and the Anonyputzs involved had no intention of anything other than interfering with the business of PayPal and other companies due to the Anonyputzs' warped POV. So the comparison is simply invalid.

Re: tolerable

I'm surprised by your take on the BAe case. It's pretty schizofrenic to accept their reasoning while a govenment agency has granted export permits for the plane.

Re: foo_bar_baz Re: tolerable

"i'm surprised by your take on the BAe case......" It's to do with the English legal definition of assault, which includes that you do not actually have to be physically damaged but are assaulted if you reasonably believe you are going to be assaulted. This is in effect more than just threatening behaviour. This then reflects on the legal defence of acting in self-defence or defence of another - if you reasonably believe that another party is liable to be assaulted you can act in their defence with reasonable force. The protestors could show they had very reasonable grounds for believing that the plane would be used for a potentially lethal and possibly illegal assault on persons in East Timor, therefore their limited action - they did not kill anyone or blow up the building, just damaged the one jet without endangering anyone or other property - represented a reasonable use of force to stop the assault.

".....pretty schizofrenic to accept their reasoning while a govenment agency has granted export permits for the plane....." I never said I agreed with the argument, though I do admire the way the legal argument was put. It was the jury that made the decision in that case. The fact that HMG had accepted the guarantees given by the Indonesian government that the jet would not be used for oppressing the people of East Timor, does not invalidate the protestors' conviction that it was going to be used so as they put no value in the Indonesian guarantees. They could truthfully say and prove in court that they had reason to believe they were acting in defence of others, and since their belief was not unreasonable (anyone with half a clue about the prior actions of the Indonesians thought the jet was going to be used for bombing East Timor) their defence was accepted by the jury.

Re: Re: foo_bar_baz tolerable

".....The courts and the agency grating the permits represent the same body." No. The license was granted by HMG, i.e., politicians and civil servants, whilst the court was representing the legality of the issues. It is not illegal for you to challenge a government ruling in English law as the judiciary are independent of the political body. In the Hawk case, the defence proved that they are reasonable grounds to believe what they stated as their defence, which the judge decided was in keeping with the spirit of the law and the jury agreed. It helped to show that the protestors had tried legal means to stop the export first and only resorted to the destruction of property as a last resort. It is completely different to the Anonyputzs, who have no legal defence for their actions, and are simply dressing they're faux "cause" as an excuse for childish vandalism.

Re: Silly boys

"Just out of interest how could you make a stand, legally, which would even get noticed by the likes of Paypal, Sony, etc?"

You couldn't, because they had no legal reason to make one.

You don't like how a company does business? You take your business elsewhere. It is not for you to decide that other customers should be prevented from using them and to put measures in place to do that.

I don't like a few shops in town, but I don't have legal recourse to nail a bit of wood over their doorway.

Re: Re: Silly boys

"....how could you make a stand, legally, which would even get noticed by the likes of Paypal, Sony, etc?" There are legal ways to protest, such as trying to encourage an embargo of a service. As long as you stick to factual statements and not slander/libel, there is nothing to stop you trying to arrange an embargo. But that takes effort and thought, and getting sheeple to fire the LOIC is so much easier and "fun" for script kiddies.

Re: Wasn't this thing about revenge for blocking donations to Wikileaks?

"Does this work the other way round?....." No because the manner in which Paypal, VISA et al acted was both legal and in accordance with their own conditions of service. It was also driven by legal considerations - the worry of legal action against them by the US authorities - rather than childish rage.