Hacker News Reader

Comment by mellosouls | Hacker News Reader

Note these are bail conditions (so presumably an alternative to a much more constrained existence in prison) for a charge that indicates potential for inflicting severe economic damage after organization via communication devices.

When compared to bail conditions for other charged crimes which may also be strict and context-related (eg. trackers or keeping distance from a victim of violence) it sounds tough (and right to be strictly monitored under rights laws) but not necessarily unreasonable.

Is it wrong/excessive/draconian? Possibly. But I don't think a knee-jerk assumption that it is any of those things is appropriate.

View on HN

All this was done in an effort to suppress non-violent protest of Australian climate policies, and in particular it's extreme coal exports, which are among the largest in the world.

So yes, this is a draconian bail condition that is meant to do harm against the few Australian that seek to prevent harm to come to you.

When will they arrest the heads of oil companies for inflicting severe economic damage?

Or the government itself?

The fact "causing economic damage" is a crime should be enough of a red flag by itself.

If I steal a car from a car dealership, what am I guilty of other than "causing economic damage"? Isn't economic damage the fundamental issue of any theft?

You are guilty of property theft. You forcibly took away something that belonged to another entity. The fundamental issue is property. No "economic damage" slips into the argument. If that was the case, market competition would be illegal as you cause economic damage to your competitors. Advocating for veganism would be illegal because you cause economic damage to meat sellers. Inventing new technologies would be illegal because you cause economical damage to the old guard. Leaving anything other than 5 star reviews would be illegal because you cause economical damage. Calling for boycotting of unethical companies or states would be illegal (all hail anti Israel boycotting laws in the US). Etc etc.

It's worth noting that merely "causing major economic loss" is not an offence in itself, it's just an aggravating factor for other offences.

The basis of the law disagrees with you - the likely consequence of me stealing something is being forced to compensate you for it. It's redress the economic harm. I'm not saying all economic damage is illegitimate, but I'm saying economic damage can be a legitimate cause for something to be illegal.

It's the way of the economic damage that matters, similarly to other offenses. It is not illegal to tarnish your reputation, for example. What is illegal is to do so through lies. Damaging a fellow human is not, in any of our current sociopolitical systems at least, a crime in itself. It is only a crime if you damage a fellow human outside the agreed upon rules, which also vary.

Agreed, you don't have access to a phone at all while in remand. Bail conditions can restrict who you live with, where you live, interstate travel etc. These are all huge losses of liberty that we accept as a society the same way we accept prison as a loss of liberty.

How is "blocking a road" a crime that inflicts severe economic damage?

If the road carries trade and blocking it prevents that trade, like for example if they block the only access road to a coal mine. How it would happen in a city where you can just go around I don't know.

But here I think they got nabbed on a city road protest and charged for the blocking of coal transport. Though it sounds like blocking the coal exports actually happened before the new law was in force, meaning the new charges are basically vindictive.

There was recently a canal blockage that caused severe economic damage to the entire world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com