Patterico is asking for bloggers to make a pledge of defiance against the FEC.
Yesterday I said that, if the FEC regulates blogs, I will continue to blog the same way I always have. Some have warned me of the dangers inherent in such a position.This led to me wonder how unusual my position really is. I suspect that my attitude is widely shared by bloggers, including those who have signed the open letter to the FEC.
I think it’s time to put the question to you directly. Who out there will make this pledge:
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
I'm somewhat torn. On one hand, as a Christian I'm generally a fan of obeying the rules, even when they're rules I don't like. As long as a law doesn't prevent me from carrying out God's will -- through evangelism, discipleship, ministry, fellowship, and worship -- then it's hard to spiritually justify disobedience.
On the other hand, freedom is great, and a powerful help in doing God's will. Many Christians over the centuries have given their lives for liberty, their own and others'. Many noble wars have been fought to change evil rulers, and God himself curses those who oppress the weak through government. Regarding the evil in Israel (the northern Kingdon) under King Jeroboam II, God said through the prophet Amos:
Amos 5:12-1512 For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
You oppress the righteous and take bribes
and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.
13 Therefore the prudent man keeps quiet in such times,
for the times are evil.
14 Seek good, not evil,
that you may live.
Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you,
just as you say he is.
15 Hate evil, love good;
maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy
on the remnant of Joseph.
Of course, verse 13 is instructive: the prudent man keeps quiet. The Hebrew word here translated prudent is sakal.
1) to be prudent, be circumspect, wisely understand, prosper a) (Qal) to be prudent, be circumspect b) (Hiphil) 1) to look at or upon, have insight 2) to give attention to, consider, ponder, be prudent 3) to have insight, have comprehension a) insight, comprehension (subst) 4) to cause to consider, give insight, teach a) the teachers, the wise 5) to act circumspectly, act prudently, act wisely 6) to prosper, have success 7) to cause to prosper 2) (Piel) to lay crosswise, cross (hands)
Being prudent is generally wise, and God extols the virtues of wisdom, but here he does not command it. Verse 14 indicates that we are charged with pursuing what is good and hating what is evil, regardless of our desire to avoid attracting the attention of evil-doers; it's obvious that fighting evil is an obligation of all Christians, but doing so in a prudent way seems laudible.
On the third hand, it's not obvious, that potential speech restrictions by the FEC actually qualify as "evil". Sure, speech restrictions lay along the path to evil and oppression, but as Eugene Volokh has often argued, the slippery-slope argument is over-used without justification. Early Christians were thrown to lions, and the apostles never told anyone to fight against Roman oppression. When Christians were oppressed, it was for spreading the Word of God, not over political issues.
I'm entirely in favor of resisting speech restrictions through legal means, but I'm not confident that disobeying justly enacted laws is within my God-given authority, except insofar as such laws prevent me from carrying out God's will or are directly evil. What are your thoughts?
Update:
Roscoe has a good perspective on evil and the law.
So, here is where I come down. In the unlikely event that the FEC promulgates regulations that impact little-ole-me, I intend to try to comply with them if I can without compromising what I am trying to do with this blog. I am sort of with Sir Thomas More (well, the character playing More) in "A Man for All Seasons" that one should obey even those laws with which you disagree, if one can:William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
How about the civil disobedience that led black and whites to go to "whites only" lunch counters together during the Civil Rights era? Should Martin Luther King, Jr. have left well enough alone?
As a secularist who agrees that it is generally immoral to break laws, I'm not sure I buy your analysis in this instance. Under our system, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes described ni the Bible, not everything a government official orders you to do is law. A regulation that contradicts a statute or exceeds its statutory authority is void, as is any statute that violates a provision of the Constitution. McCain-Feingold strikes me as a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment, even more so if it is extended to reach ordinary blogs like yours or mine. While most of the world's religions may agree that we have a duty to obey valid laws, I don't know of any religion that requires its adherents to obey "color of law." Do you disagree?
The Boston tea party wasn't legal either, but in hindsight it was a pretty good idea. Killin' Brits wasn't a nice thing to do, but it sure worked out well. I'm sickened by this thinly veiled attempt to silence us. We should not obey this law, because it violates the supreme law of the land. To obey this tyrannical law that violates our Bill of Rights when so much blood has been shed is cowardly and an insult to those who have given so much for our liberty. To obey such a foolishly unConstitutional law is simply UNAMERICAN. Blog away I say and let these villains be damned.
All the points on civil disobedience are good, but I had a few other thoughts.
What about the possibility for pro-lifers that repression of support for pro-life candidates could lead to less restrictions on abortion, and thus lead to more children being killed.
This also brings up other issues of civil disobedience. The rights of pro-lifers to protest are often trampled on by the law, but many of them refuse to give up their God-given right to do it, even if they have to deal with the consequences.
Also in regards to fighting evil prudently, it seems that breaking a law where the consequence is a fine rather than jail is more likely to be more prudent, depending on your financial situation of course.
Finally, I do think that my decision as a Christian as to whether to obey a law or not depends on the morality of that law. If this law is taking away my God given rights, as I think it is, then I think it's ok to violate it, so long as I do it prudently. But in the case of, say, a 30 mph speed limit on the highway...I may think it's stupid, but there's nothing immoral about it, so I should obey it.
BTW, the Roper/Moore quote is uncommonly silly. Devils don't obey laws.
X: I agree with your point about laws that exceed Constitutional authority, in principle. The SCOTUS isn't really limited as to how it can interpret laws though, so does a Supreme Court ruling that upholds a law as Constitutional settle the matter in your mind, or is each individual person morally required/entitled to obey only their individual interpretation of the Constitution and/or other laws?
The point of the Roper/Moore quote is that most laws are two-edged, and that they protect us from harm as well as restrict our actions. Over-zealous elimination of laws may lead to bad things.
Far be it from me to opine on your view of G-d's laws. Far, far, far be it.
otoh, I'm not sure that to relinquish one's rights just because some paid-by-the-opposition bureaucrat says so ever was, is, or ever could be a good idea. Or a life-supporting idea.
First they came for the political bloggers - and I said nothing, for it was a law.
Then they came for the bloggers who mention G-D.
Now what? Remember -- *no one* expects the Spanish Inquisition.
To the extent that violating a law is immoral, I think the individual's state of mind has to be key. Committing an act you falsely believe to be a crime is morally indistinguishable from committing an otherwise comparable act that actually is a crime. The Supreme Court has their interpretation of the First Amendment and I have mine. No law requires me to agree with them. For all I know, maybe God agrees with me!
Plus, even if I did agree with the Supremes, or concede in theory that The Law is whatever they say it is, it still wouldn't follow that any forthcoming FEC regulations are valid. Bear in mind that only five of the current Justices voted to uphold McCain-Feingold at all, which the other four regarded as unconstitutional on its face. It's not too far-fetched to presume that at least one of the other five will switch sides on an as-applied challenge that strays nearly this far from the tired "money is not speech" mantra into "but speech is money" territory. But if everyone is a good, God-fearing, unconstitutional-statute-abiding citizen, we'll never know.
It does all come down to "justly enacted." And I'm with Xrlq -- this law, and therefore any regulations pursuant thereunto (looka me, I speak lawyer!), is not "justly enacted."
The Supreme Court has been ruling mistakenly, and subsequently reversing itself, since before my parents were born, and everything I know about the First Amendment tells me SCOTUS, in upholding McCain-Feingold, has done it again.
Saint Augustine said that an unjust law is no law at all.
Was he not christian enough for you, Michael?