Hey guys. There was one topic I thought would make for an interesting debate that's been in the corner of my mind for a while and I thought that this would be a good place to get it.
So the subject is simply, Anonymous.
For those of you that don't know who Anonymous actually is, they are a "hacktivist" group that doesn't exactly operate inside of the law. They use their hacking talents to bypass corruption and bureaucracy in modern society as well as dedicate themselves to free speech and equality.

But I find one problem, which is the debate topic I want to draw up;

Who decides where the line is?

What I mean is, Anonymous break the law in the name of their beliefs which are mostly good. In fact, I agree with them on most things, but only recently when I saw their stance on gun laws was different to mine did I realize there was a problem (Yeah, I'm that narrow-minded sometimes). Who gets to decide what law you can break and what law you can't? Who gets to decide the moral rights and wrongs? Who gets to decide where the line is between "hactivism" and "terrorism", especially due to their infamy for heckling the FBI. These guys have unique skills that the world can't exactly deal with and the most recent case of them trying ended in the tragedy of Aaron Swartz's suicide facing a fifty year prison sentence for charges that were dropped by those that he committed the minor crime against.

So this is what I'm pitching to you guys, what do you think?

There is no line. What I mean by this is just that like with everything else, there is no way to give for certain a line or place where you can certainly say something is right or wrong. Opinions rule the world, and majority opinion rules society.

Well we can't really debate each individual thing that they've done, that would require a topic for each act. What do you mean by "the line"? Do you mean the moral line? Because if so then that differs from person to person, and is highly subjective. Do you mean legal line? Because if so then it's pretty clear they're always over it.

At the end of the day, it comes down to whether they're prepared to take the consequences. If you do something illegal, you better be willing to accept the consequences of breaking that law, should it come to that.

First, here's a quick problem with you question:

We are simply people who stick to an idea, not a group. Anonymous itself is an idea of freedom.


Now, here's the "line":
The line of the law is when you break it, you've crossed the line as we have many times.
The moral line is dependent on the person.

Quote from Automaton

highly subjective

^all that needs to be said

The law is the line.

You live in a democracy. If you don't like the law then write to your MP/congressman. You do not get to pick and choose which laws you like and which ones you don't; they are there for the common good.

So would you say that someone who engages in occasional recreational marijuana usage (or, more commonly, "SMOKES DA REEFAH") is over the line? I base my "line" on what I feel is moral, not what the governing body dictates is moral. Sure, we need collective rules, but that doesn't mean that our individual boundary of what is the right and wrong thing to do should be limited by those. To me, laws are there to keep society in order and to prevent what the majority see as immoral acts. However, individuals are free to decide whether or not they find breaking a particular law moral or not, and if so then whether or not they're prepared to take the consequences. I'm all for laws with strict punishments for prevention sake, and for criminals to get those punishments fairly, but I'm not for saying that breaking the law is wrong by default.

Quote from Automaton

So would you say that someone who engages in occasional recreational marijuana usage (or, more commonly, "SMOKES DA REEFAH") is over the line?

Essentially, yes, but not far over - note that there's basically no punishment unless you're dealing.

Admittedly there's a movement towards legalisation, but for the moment clearly lawmakers feel the evidence is that it does more harm than good and that it is right to ban it. If anyone has evidence to the contrary then it should be put before said lawmakers and they can change the law.

So you don't think that individuals should base what they consider to be "over the line" or not on more than the law?

Quote from Automaton

So you don't think that individuals should base what they consider to be "over the line" or not on more than the law?

That freedom has long been taken away from us.

Whether or not we choose to adhere to those laws which we see as unnecessary is another story, but then, again, the issue becomes entirely subjective.

Well that's what I mean.

I think this is confusing purely because of the broad usage of the line analogy.

As I said before, if the line means what's legal, then of course it's over the line. If it's what's moral, then that's entirely subjective. However, it seemed to me that Zed was saying the only line can be the legal one, or perhaps that the two are one and the same. It's this that I disagree with.

The legal line is the only clear-cut and well-defined line. Whether or not you are actually crossing it should be immediately apparent if you know the laws.

Quote from Automaton

So you don't think that individuals should base what they consider to be "over the line" or not on more than the law?

I think that if there is any line at all it is the legal one. If you disagree with the law then you're clearly in a minority, otherwise the law would be different, and who are you to say that you know better than the lawmakers? (I'm not using "you" to refer to you specifically btw). Admittedly it's less clear-cut when the internet is involved, since lawmakers and voters tend to be old and have a poor grasp of technology. Perhaps I should say that the law is the line in the long-run.

I think I still stick the notion of "the line" being too vague here. I mean, I agree that in the long-run, the law is the line, and it's a good overall line to be used as a basis for society. But, personally, when someone asks me what I consider to be "over the line", I don't even consider it's legality. The fact that that makes my view a minority doesn't necessarily matter to me.

The "line" between right and wrong is defined by what the community as a majority considers right or wrong. For example go back to the 20's in the USA, were alcohol was just as illegal as drugs now. Now it's perfectly fine according to the law at least to drink alcohol. It all changes with time.