Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the as-good-for-society-as-Darwin dept.

TechDirt reports

Last week, Joi Ito, director of the MIT Media Lab (and a very sharp thinker on a variety of topics related to innovation) announced a really cool new award that the lab was putting together: a Rewarding Disobedience award, for $250,000, funded by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman:

This prize is a one-time experiment that, if successful, we will consider repeating in the future. It will go to a person or group engaged in what we believe is excellent disobedience for the benefit of society. The disobedience that we would like to call out is the kind that seeks to change society in a positive way, and is consistent with a set of key principles. The principles include non-violence, creativity, courage, and taking responsibility for one's actions. The disobedience can be in--but is not limited to--the fields of scientific research, civil rights, freedom of speech, human rights, and the freedom to innovate.

[...] I particularly like Michael Petricone's suggestion that the award should be named after Aaron Swartz. [...] One [thing] that becomes clear from the book [The Idealist] was the absolute disbelief by Swartz and his family of the fact that MIT refused to support Swartz after his arrest. The university basically turned its back on him completely. It's something that the university still ought to do something about, and naming this award after Swartz would be a step in the right direction.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:37PM (#381257)

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:44PM

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:44PM (#381259)

    and boycotts are now considered "Economic Terrorism".

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by bob_super on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:01PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:01PM (#381269)

      Only if you boycott Israel, or a US corporation.
      Boycotting Bad People is a proof of Freedom!!!

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:51PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:51PM (#381263) Journal

    Is there some sort of point you're trying to make here?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:56PM

      by JNCF (4317) on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:56PM (#381279) Journal

      I took the point to be that MIT is paying people to break the law. What Aaron Swartz did was illegal. In his name, MIT is going to award somebody money for civil disobedience. They are also going to encourage an unknown number of other award-seekers to commit acts of disobedience. Acts of disobedience, by definition, break the rules of society. I'm not opposed to people breaking those rules, but I am wondering how legally culpable MIT might be for this. I don't know how that language gets interpreted by courts, and I'm not claiming that the law quoted by OP actually applies here. It's a shame that NewYorkCountryLawyer never came over from the green site.

      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:05PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:05PM (#381285)

        Maybe someone should try to contact him. I checked out Slashdot a few weeks ago and the comment section was a complete train-wreck in the couple of articles I looked at.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @09:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @09:36PM (#381340)

          Here is a recent post by him,
                http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

          From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Beckerman [wikipedia.org]

          > In addition to his legal work, he writes several blogs: "Ohio Election Fraud" (formerly "Fairness"), which deals with the 2004 presidential litigation in the state of Ohio, "Recording Industry vs. The People", which chronicles the above-mentioned lawsuits between RIAA labels and individual defendants, "Ray's 2.0", about social media, and "Fairness", which deals with issues of social justice and human rights.
          >
          > He is a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A member of the Entertainment Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, he has previously served on that body's Copyright Law, Information Technology Law, and Civil Court committees. He is well known in the Slashdot internet community, where he posts under the username "NewYorkCountryLawyer" and in the Twitter community under the username "raybeckerman".

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:03PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:03PM (#381284)

    I think the "by force" part of that eliminates the categorisation of civil disobedience as "sedition".

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:15PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:15PM (#381292) Journal

      Pretty sure if they tried to cram another instance of "by force" in there it's the law itself that would break.