SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-does-activism-become-terrorism dept.
I was saddened to hear that two individuals who released fur animals and vandalized fur farms across America were busted: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-activists-accused-of-releasing-mink/article_6c169b5d-dbbc-5dd1-adb0-534ee46af88b.html
But the arrest is sort of beside the point and there are two interesting tidbits in there. First and less interesting, is the ridiculous charge of terrorism under the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" -- seriously, what they did is just plain old crime. Before you know it, going 10 over on the freeway will be considered an act of terrorism.
More intriguing, despite a lack of details on how they got busted, is this tidbit:
The indictment states that they covered their tracks by avoiding phones or logging into known online accounts and email. Instead, they used public Internet computers and encrypted email and cash for purchases while traveling. They would allegedly withdraw hundreds of dollars while back home in the San Francisco Bay Area before another trip.
The FBI states that they drafted communiques and posted them online to publicize their actions on websites associated with "animal rights extremists."
I'm going to guess automatic license plate readers were involved. Pure guess.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Monday July 27 2015, @03:24PM
Which is better in a lesser evil sense:
-- Crime done for purely selfish reasons, e.g., for the money, for the fun of it.
-- Crime done in pursuit of correcting an ethical issue.
I realize there's a __lot__ of wiggle around "ethical", but somehow, I think that people who do crime from a point of principle are less dangerous and should be less culpable than those who do it for personal gain or just for the fun of causing mayhem. Statistically, one is far and away more likely to be harmed by sociopathic crime than ethically driven crime.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday July 29 2015, @07:42PM
So if somebody goes around shooting cops because #blacklivesmatter they would be less culpable? How about if they destroyed all the antibiotics in a major distribution center because they are PETA and believe that bacteria has rights? What about somebody targeting third wave feminists because they use #killallmen and thus are a threat to mens rights?
You see the problem with your "ethical" stand point is all attacks are ethical to the group doing the attack, from jihadists killing gays to that kid shooting up that black church they all believed their cause was just and so by your definition should be given a lessor sentence...see the problem now?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2015, @11:28PM
Not really. I wasn't saying which is good, I was asking which is worse, and I tend to think sociopathic crime, i.e. that done for personal profit or personal lulz, is worse than issue oriented crime. I totally get that people who don't share my ethics might engage in criminal behavior I find reprehensible, I'm just seeing these types as a lessor threat because there is some reason behind what they do which makes them much less likely to engage in random acts of violence, more easily avoided, and makes them more predictable and consequently more catchable. There are also fewer of them.
If I want to protect my personal safety, I know enough not to wear a fur coat to a PETA meeting or Star of David to a KKK rally. I can protect myself from violence in this way. With random crime though, I'm at the mercy of pure statistics, and worse, most crime is random rather than issue driven. So we spend a ton of effort going after the smaller problem -- a problem that is smaller in scale, smaller in danger, and more easily avoided.