Digital Dissenter

Online activism is often charged with making things too easy for people. Most commentators seem to want to cling to a notion of traditional activism as something that requires people to get their hands dirty, to put in the hours screaming the odds outside the headquarters of multinationals and to actually put a bit of sweat blood and tears into a cause. Being able to contribute to a cause by just a few clicks of a mouse just doesn’t seem to qualify as what many of would still like to believe activism should be.

But so what? Is it really that detrimental to activism as a whole to have some people support a cause without ever leaving their homes or their office?

In wanting to write a post about censorship online I have been reading up on a number of issues ranging from the Great Firewall of China, the proposed firewall in Australia to the legislation concerning the ban of so-called “crush-videos” in the US. The latter in particular got me thinking about the catch-22 involved in certain types of activism that require the distribution of content that contains explicit violence – especially towards animals. (Forgive me if just this once I actually use this blog entry which is meant for the discussion of digital activism for some of my own activism.)

If, like myself, you didn’t know what “crush-videos” are; thanks to the Web I now know that they refer to videos of women crushing small animals with their bare feet or stiletto heels. Apparently there is a (sick and perverted) market for such content. A ban was passed on the creation, possession and distribution of such videos in the US in 1998.