As technology has advanced, civil disobedience has taken on new forms, particularly through the digital domain. Digital civil disobedience can be characterized as politically motivated online lawbreaking. It is of great political significance because it can cause false or classified information to spread in a rapid and serious manner. The utilization of social media by the common people has fueled quick spread of information and has enabled virtual acts of dissent, warranting an appropriate response from authority. On digital platforms, users often share content that aligns with their interests or fits certain narratives, leading to biased views (Pierre 11). Additionally, the use of social media facilitates the quick spread of fake news.  In the United States, principles of free speech and protest are encouraged to civilians, but this does not deviate from the fact that digital civil disobedience entails unlawful behavior. Moreover, this act requires significant punishment, equivalent to that of traditional law breaking, even if nonviolent, as it constitutes a breach of legal frameworks. 

This modern issue of digital technology and civil disobedience deems the question: to what extent should digital civil disobedience be punished in the U.S? Civil disobedience can be defined as a political act which is backed up by moral principles which correlates to the conception of civil society and the public good (Dominguez 1808). Surrounding this question, there exists a large range of perspectives to consider. Breaking the law and going against legal norms relates to personal morality, civic obligation, and the government itself  (Frankel). According to Charles Frankel, the founding director of the National Humanities Center, American philosopher, and Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, it is an extreme to believe that defiance to the law can never be justified in any circumstances. He argues that there have been several successful and peaceful acts of civil disobedience in U.S. history that have been planned out concisely and ultimately operated well. In some cases, civil disobedience has also been deemed justifiable by the American public. The American public’s perception of civil disobedience is defined by several key points. This includes non-violence, moral justification, respect for the law, and the acceptance of future punishment (LaBossiere 320). For example, influential activists such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have proven that civil disobedience can be carried out in an orderly, non-violent manner. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Mahatma Gandhi practiced nonviolent civil disobedience and openly challenged British colonial rule in India. He conducted campaigns, protests, and boycotts resisting oppression through peaceful means in response to the British East India Company overly taxing natives and extracting their resources by force. However, some authorities and the public fail to recognize the low chances of this outcome. Gandhi himself quotes, “Civil disobedience is  a civil breach of unmoral statutory enactments…it presupposes the habit of willing obedience to laws without fear of their sanctions. It can, therefore, be practiced only as a last resort and by a select few” (LaBossiere 319). 

The topic of moral defiance can be connected to digital civil disobedience, through its ability to inspire others to confront injustices through online platforms, despite risks. Thomas and Chaleff, authors of  “Moral Courage and Intelligent Disobedience”, write on the connection between moral courage and intelligent disobedience. It examines how moral courage is related to when and how it is best to disobey authority or governments. Specifically, this term is coined as “intelligent disobedience” in order to uphold morality in systems and to practice disobedience only when needed. The text analyzes a case of civil disobedience which involves Edward Snowden, where in 2013 he committed crimes by posting classified U.S. government files to the internet. Moral defiance can also be intertwined with the emotion of fear. The image “Confrontation on the Bridge” by Jacob Lawrence presents several individuals of the African-American race, closely grouped together, as they find themselves in a tense encounter avoiding a small canine which exhibits aggressive behavior. The dog’s sharp teeth are wide open in a bearing manner while the figure’s faces are filled with terror as they face this threatening experience. The fear expressed with these figures can be connected to digital civil disobedience. Those who practice this may harbor the misconception that these actions create less of a response from authorities due to the virtual nature of a digital platform as opposed to in person law breaking. Fear motivates users to engage in moral defiance online, allowing them to avoid risks and consequences that occur more commonly in physical law breaking. This however, is far from the truth, and highlights the relation between moral defiance such as digital civil disobedience and responses of fear. 

Next, digital civil disobedience’s primary form stems from the use of social media. Social media is defined as “an internet-based form of communication. Social media platforms allow users to have conversations, share information and create web content” (Dominguez 1808). When used in the right way, social media can be beneficial in professional settings to share information and to network companies. On a personal level, social media allows communication with loved ones and the ability to develop new interests (University of South Florida). However, social media often presents filtered views of different aspects. Social media managers cannot ensure full credibility of what is shared to the world and posted online. Users on the media tend to share specific elements that align with their interests or fit certain narratives, leading to a selective representation which develops unwarranted personal views (Pierre 12). Trending social media topics have emerged as a primary means for the spread of such information. Consequently, individuals observing certain posts may develop ideas of what is not factual or what is not their specialty to understand, such as the leaking of government files. In addition, on social media, anyone with access can become a “journalist, and anyone can post ‘“news.’” (Pierre 12). An important affair in which fake news was being spread on a higher level through the media was noticed in America’s 2016 election. In the past couple of years, America’s democracy has become a constantly changing and evolving system because of media technology. Lately, social media has become a bigger problem and is causing more worries because of the destruction it can create on even high levels. For example, platforms like Facebook and Twitter work differently from older media sources. Information which may be false gets shared between users without much checking or editing by experts. Even someone without an acclaimed name can reach as many people as big news outlets like Fox News, CNN, or The New York Times, in some extreme cases (Alcott and Gentzkow 1). This was an issue that occurred in the 2016 presidential election when false information was being spread on multiple social media platforms and on different political sides.  In 2021, Pew Research, a nonpartisan American company which provides information on social issues, conducted a study in 2021 which presents the percent of U.S. adults who prefer certain platforms for getting news. The study concluded 52 percent of adults preferred digital platforms, 35 percent television, 7 percent on the radio, and 5 percent print publications. Of the 52 percent of U.S. adults who get news from digital platforms, 53 percent gather their news from social media (Shearer). This number is dangerous because it shows that over half of the data size collects news just from social media and uses it as an information source. 

An article that writes on the nature of digital civil disobedience presents an event in which young hackers engage in defiance through the use of breaching security systems, motivated by a desire for free access to information. The creators of “Electronic Civil Disobedience”, the Critical Art Ensemble, a group of media practitioners specialized in computer graphics since 1987, write how with the charge of trespass against them alone, jailing these individuals seems slightly excessive; nevertheless, when considering the value of order and private property in cyberspace, severe punishment should be expected for the most minor of offenses. Extreme punishment is necessary to deter further disruption in cyberspace and maintain social order from further perceived threats as well (Critical Art Ensemble 15). Furthermore, it is crucial to impose strict penalties for trespassing in cyberspace because of the unique nature of digital platforms, where protecting private property is paramount. Even minor infractions cause disruptions to online operations, putting data security at risk. Thus, severe repercussions act as a deterrent against illegal digital behavior, preserving the security of online platforms while minimizing threats to social order. 

An important case which involved Edward Snowden can be seen by either an act of courage or an act against the law. In this case, Snowden revealed information which should’ve been kept private and which went against governmental law. In 2013, he went against the National Security Agency, revealing thousands of classified documents becoming a fugitive of the law. As details of the leak became public throughout summer 2013, the Obama Administration was quick to condemn Snowden, alleging significant damage and risk to national security. Later, on June 14, 2013 federal prosecutors officially charged Snowden with government property theft and violations of the 1917 Espionage Act (Pineda 1). Despite those who believe his act was moral, he committed several crimes against the government including the leaking of classified documents, stealing government property, and illegal disclosure of information significant to the nation’s defense (Thomas and Chaleff 10). While the public perceived this action as a stand against injustice and an act of bravery, it ultimately resulted in the violation of multiple laws.

Within the structure of U.S. law, there exist numerous regulations and statutes that safeguard digital platforms from unlawful conduct. The First Amendment serves as a foundational safeguard for the exercise of free speech, yet prohibits any endorsement for illicit behavior. However, different interpretations of freedom of expression may obscure the boundary between constitutionally protected speech and potential infractions of the law. The First Amendment provides, “that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (The White House). Christie Thompson, from ProPublica states how recently, “online activists have increasingly turned to computer networks and other technology as a means of political protest, deploying a range of tactics — from temporarily shutting down servers to disclosing personal and corporate information.” This increase in disobedient behavior warrants an appropriate response from U.S. law. Digital civil disobedience cases are prosecuted under the CFAA mainly to criminalize hackers (Thompson). The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, deals with fraud activity and electronic civil disobedience and writes on the characteristics of such conduct. The act includes unauthorized access to a computer, obtaining information that is protected by the US Government for national defense or foreign relations reasons, or restricted data as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Knowingly obtaining information that could be used to harm the US or benefit a foreign nation, or attempting to communicate or transmit it to unauthorized individuals or failing to deliver it to the appropriate US officer or employee is also an offense (Cornell Law School). Thus, these two laws are set in place to protect the safety of digital platforms and to still allow a voice for citizens.

To conclude, digital civil disobedience is an important matter that should not be dealt with lightly. The spread of unfiltered information on digital platforms tends to promote personalized perspectives, which can distort reality. Additionally, the seriousness of digital civil disobedience necessitates appropriate punitive measures similar to those applied to traditional breaches of the law. Aligning the response to digital civil disobedience with established legal norms, particularly within the United States, ensures a consistent and equitable approach. Hence, it is imperative to address digital civil disobedience within the framework of traditional laws due to the need to uphold legal integrity in the digital age and to follow the laws set in place in the U.S.

Works Cited

Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, no. 2 (2017): 211–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44235006 .

Cornell Law School. “18 U.S. Code § 1030 – Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 2014, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030.

Critical Art Ensemble. Electronic Civil Disobedience. critical-art.net/books/ecd/ecd2.pdf.

Dominguez, Ricardo. “Electronic Civil Disobedience: Inventing the Future of Online Agitprop Theater.” PMLA, vol. 124, no. 5, 2009, pp. 1806–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614406. 

Frankel, Charles. “Is It Right to Break the Law?; The Question Is Raised by Recent Incidents of Civil Disobedience in the United States. Here a Philosopher Examines a Fundamental Moral Problem as Old as Socrates.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Jan. 1964,www.nytimes.com/1964/01/12/archives/is-it-right-to-break-the-law-the-question-is-raised-by-recent.html. 

LaBossiere, Barbara B. “When the Law Is Not One’s Own: A Case for Violent Civil Disobedience.” Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, 2005, pp. 317–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441420. 

Lawrence , Jacob. “Confrontation on the Bridge America, 20th Century: Cleveland Museum of Art.” Home, 2023, apcontent.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/AP_Seminar_2024_locked.pdf. 

Loh, Wulf. “Anonymity, Fidelity to Law, and Digital Civil Disobedience.” Philosophy & Social Criticism, vol. 49, no. 4, Mar. 2022, pp. 448–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211072886.

Pineda, Erin. “Civil Disobedience and Punishment: (Mis)Reading Justification and Strategy from SNCC to Snowden.” History of the Present, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5406/historypresent.5.1.0001. 

Prier, Jarred. “Commanding the Trend: Social Media as Information Warfare.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 11, no. 4 (2017): 50–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271634 

Shearer, Elisa. More than Eight-In-Ten Americans Get News from Digital Devices. 12 Jan. 2021, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2021/21A720/21A720-1.pdf.

“The Constitution.” The White House, www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20provid. 

Thomas, Ted and Chaleff, Ira. Moral Courage and Intelligent Disobedience in the Military.” Interagency Journal, Vol 8, Issue 1, Winter 2017.

Thompson, Christie. “Hacktivism: Civil Disobedience or Cyber Crime?” ProPublica, 18 Jan. 2013, www.propublica.org/article/hacktivism-civil-disobedience-or-cyber-crime.

University of South Florida. “Introduction to Social Media | University Communications and Marketing.” Www.usf.edu, www.usf.edu/ucm/social-media/intro-social-media.aspx.