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.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:18PM
MIT have always been a bunch of overrated bootlickers in bed with Nefarious Government Agencies.
I nominate the Black Lives Matter movement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:59PM
i refuse to enter this contest...
did i win?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:23PM
- Nonviolence and taking responsibility for one's actions
- Black Lives Matter
Pick one.
I know it was a joke - whether you were serious about it or not.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:25PM
Or Gandhi? Or another revolutionary leader? Seems like they were the ones whose efforts benefited the largest swaths of society on multiple levels, and who from the beginning put their lives on the line for their cause.
I really don't like downplaying Aaron Swartz's contributions to make my point, but it seems like it could be associated with someone who took on a broader (sometimes national), more longitudinal (?) problem affecting people's lives. And if it's worth anything, I feel a sting every time I remember how the justice system railroaded him into suicide.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:39PM
In the 21st century, Internet Freedom issues ARE broad issues affecting large swaths of society on multiple levels.
Maybe not completely in the way you are thinking. But these issues affect almost everyone at some level. And most people are still unaware of just now much.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:46PM
Gandhi was willing to face prison time for his beliefs. Overall, he spent about 7 years in jail. I think that speaks to the "and taking responsibility for one's actions." bit.
Not to downplay the tragedy and serious issue of prosecutorial overreach but civil disobedience requires that willingness.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:23PM
Your description is better -- I should have rephrased "justice system" as "malicious prosecution". And it does burn whenever I think or read about it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 28 2016, @09:32PM
Or, instead of dead people, Edward Snowden?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:37PM
For my project I plan on downloading research papers and releasing them to the world.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:37PM
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.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:44PM
and boycotts are now considered "Economic Terrorism".
(Score: 4, Touché) by bob_super on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:01PM
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
Is there some sort of point you're trying to make here?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:56PM
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
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
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
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
Pretty sure if they tried to cram another instance of "by force" in there it's the law itself that would break.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by AssCork on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:54PM
How long till we see some "Time Magazine"-ish nomination like 'every [sex-worker|transgender|doctor] everywhere'?
Why don't they just call it an "Edgie Award"? (as in "Edgy", or hipster-like)
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:23PM
What's up your ass? The transgender caste have it harder than you ever will.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:17PM
What's up your ass?
A cork, obviously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:42PM
won't someone please think of the transgenders?!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:47PM
Caste?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @12:38PM
(Score: 4, Touché) by Dunbal on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:27PM
I nominate Hillary Clinton. Because deleting emails from your illegal server after receiving a subpoena isn't destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, etc. It's "disobedience".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:38PM
What, we splitting hairs here?
Shut the fuck up, donnie.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:12PM
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.
this would require them to admit that they did something wrong which they have denied to the bitter end.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @12:18AM
I refuse to use LinkedIn. That's right. I'm too disobedient for the Disobedience Award.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @06:34AM
Snowden.
Snowden is clearly the elephant in the room. While Swartz had admirable intentions, the immediate benefit to society is less obvious, and there's surely political resistance at MIT.
This might become a de facto whistleblower award, and it's conceivable that Assange and Swartz will be honorees in the future.