Modern Protest

This post was initiated by an interesting article in today's NYTimes:

Legal Cost for Throwing Monkey Wrench Into the System

Briefly, a man is facing charges of fraud for intentionally placing bids for oil and gas rights on federally owned land near national parks and monuments.

This case is fascinating for a number of reasons. I recently met a young law student from Yale who wanted to become a federal prosecutor, partly because he wanted to make sure that he could sleep at night. He said that most of the defendants brought before federal court are guilty. (I did remind him that, while probably correct, the high conviction rate could mean other things.) Cases like this, where it is clear that the defendant broke the letter of the law, but the government's actions are also suspect and conflicting, do not lend themselves to easy moral resolution.

Perhaps less philosophically, and more practically, I think this is a fine example of how protest and dissent has evolved. In the last couple years, journalists noticed the difference between Vietnam-era protests by soldiers and today's professional lobbying, permitted by existing military regulation, used by active servicemen seeking an end to the Iraq War.

Every generation is heterogeneous. But I think enough of us see opportunities to use either (or both) Alinsky-esque tactics of disruption and reform efforts using existing institutions and structures.

Though he is guilty of breaking the law, I salute Tim DeChristopher for using an innovative, effective and nonviolent method of protest, and wish him well in his defense.