Returning to the cable 09Stockholm141, the Pirate Party was criticized for attacking the legislative process leading up to draconian laws, rather than attacking the actual wording of those laws. Intensifier asks — quite justly — whether the wiretapping and monopolization laws would be okay in the exact same wording, if the process of their development had been just, transparent and uncorrupt.
Of course they wouldn’t be okay.
I would argue that this is a case of realaktivismus: Rather than theorizing exactly where the fault lies, we chose the path of highest impact in order to get the public attention, creating an opportunity to educate the public about why the issues matter.
Because they do, tremendously, just like Christopher Kullenberg points out. It doesn’t really matter whether repression is initiated by the United States or from within the Swedish government; it’s still the same repression at the end of the day. But shining a light on the role of the United States in this affair makes people angry and makes the link fly from forum to forum — over 50,000 people have read the analysis of the cable — and creates an opportunity to explain the importance of this piece of information policy and its impact on people’s future everyday lives.
If the focus had been on theorizing around the technical concepts of messenger immunity, and why it is enormously important, the post would not have been read by a tenth of its readers to date.
It’s a hard day’s work both to get people’s attention and explain the issues in the same breath. Sort of realpolitik from the underdog’s activist perspective.