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?
I think that
you decide where the line is.
Your intentions decide when you feel that breaking the law will cause more good!
Example: (first example i could think of)
The law tells you that you must have at least 1 child when you grow up.
You feel that obey'ing this law would be better for everyone, so you follow it.
Some other dude thinks that its a stupid law and he decides to break it.
In his mind he hans't crossed any line.
In your mind you might feel he is crossing the line a little.
It all depends on the coices you make in life!
