So, I was thinking about the implication of Tuesday's digg revolt and have come to see it as civil disobedience in line with Martin Luther King's March on Washington.

http://www.copyrightings.com/2007/05/digital-march-on-washington.html

Wondering if you guys think that makes sense? Some see the events as a bad precedent for following the law...

<<... I think that there should be a deep moral or ethical disagreement with a law to act in civil disobedience.>>

Civil disobedience comes into play when the law is ridiculous. Not being able to mention a certain sentence (this string of digits) is ridiculous, IMO, and deserves the share of civil disobedience it got on Digg and elsewhere. Besides, there is also a law of freedom of speech – maybe the two laws collided here, and people had to pick *which* law they'd disobey?

I agree, Philipp. Ed Felton hits this point: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1154