All right I'll tell you what my beef is with your line of commenting.
You are well read, you have ideals and beliefs, your comments even betray a sense of faith in our species and individuals. I have no great desire to be an enemy of anyone I can have an intelligent conversation with. A military service record is also a laudable achievement (I personally believe Robert A. Heinlein governance system in Starship Troopers is our best bet for progress).
Yet despite the level of insight these qualities must endow upon a person, your comments betray (This time around because you've stated that your opinion will change [I sense that it would change based on the rhetoric being spouted by one side or the other of an argument e.g. More rhetoric on side A pushes you to the defense of side B]) a sense of resignation.
That sense of resignation I am never cool with. This generation needs it's voice just as the 50's and 60's did. I realize the need for caution and wariness of authority and the judicial system, and hey if you need to be that guy explaining the dangers of what people are doing, despite the fact they are doing it for morally justifiable reasons, then fine, be that guy. There is little separation between that guy and the fool who cheers as the powers that be crush those who demand change.
I believe a short story called 'The Lottery' by Shirley Jackson comes into play here. One of the standard questions asked to schoolchildren is; "Who was the most evil?" I got this answer wrong I recall. The standard answer was the old man who drove the ritual forward and called out those who began to question it. I believe the most evil ones were the couple who voiced concern as to the necessity of the ritual and despite misgivings stoned that woman to death anyway. To know something is wrong is one thing, to speak out against it is right, but to speak out against it and go along with it is pure evil.
So perhaps it's your comments similarity to the attitudes put forth by Old Man Warner that I find disconcerting, or that you would so quickly decry those speaking out that irks me.
Either or, it's as I said before this generation needs it's voice, if they choose to break the law in that process that's their prerogative. Is it your place then to be clucking your tongue at them and questioning their non-violent behavior as they fight for what they believe in?
Being called an idiot doesn't make me too happy. I believe I've responding by insinuating your ego is inflated and questioning your intelligence, these were mistakes and I apologize.

Let's have a beer then. I'll say these things to your face. C'mon down to Vancouver BC. Reply by message to my slashdot profile and I'll meet you anywhere. Your character needs a little attacking, lest your head continue to balloon.
Oh and by the way, you called me an idiot, rocket_rancher. I asked who cowed you, I have not called you names.

Yeah like I said morality is derived from history.
It's distressing you think yourself so wise and aloof.
"I would go so far to say that you are very, very, misinformed about Monsieur de Tocqueville's political and social philosophy"
Did I say I was informed? No.

"I like to cast a wide net to see what knowledge I can snare from the rapidly receding seas of wisdom on this planet"
Wow, what you're suffering from is called cognitive dissonance, it's where you judge yourself intelligent because you are not intelligent enough to make a proper judgement of intelligence.

"As a philosopher, I can, and often do, argue for one side of a moral issue in the morning, and then defend the other side in the afternoon."
This one is the real kicker. Well then I can safely put zero stock in what you have to say, for your opinions are as wishy-washy as the tides. So you've played devils advocate, invoked some historical figure and now you've stated that you would just as easily take the other side of the issue and fight tooth and nail for it. This is what one would call pointlessly argumentative.

Keep in mind the original discussion was about using a method similar to a sit-in to take down child-porn websites. So you opened your trap and squawked about 'mobs' breaking the law. To which the majority of responders set you straight about the value of resistance and protest, in spite of the authority driven consequence. You were 'touting' a line of buckle to authority and don't break the law you punk kid mobs. Three comments in a row had essentially the same ideas, then in this third and last comment you try to squeeze out of your position by claiming what 'philosophical right'?

It's not about safety in numbers, it's about standing up. There is a kids book you should read, Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes.
It's about bravery in the face of great might and terrible consequence. It's about (and this is the important one) defining morality and justice through the eyes of history.
People make right, and numbers bring change.
At least de Tocqueville understood that he must speak out in the face of great resistance to his beliefs. In fact from your own knowledge of de Tocqueville you should know that he would have been involved in both the civil rights movement and other non-violent acts of civil disobedience.
Do you tout this 'no safety in numbers' line because you fear the discomfort involved in standing up for what's right? Or do you repeat it so that you will feel justified at some future juncture when you do nothing and morally should have broke the law and protested?

First, no where in the original post does it state a sit-in is illegal.
Second, civil disobedience is one of the cornerstones of true freedom, it's why you can drink alcohol in the states.
Your fear is palpable, I'm glad I will not ever see you standing up and promoting change with those 'mob' types that have built your freedoms and rights.
The American war of independence is the ultimate example of standing up and doing illegal acts with a larger group.
You wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for people risking their freedoms and live to promote change and equality.
What does your comment promote? Fear of authority? Fear of sacrifice for belief? Who cowed you?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/02/mediasentry-role-in-riaa-lawsuit-comes-under-scrutiny.ars

Idiot huh? Nice response.

Personal information gathered without an investigators license is against the law. Correlation of a skype phone number with an IP address and data mining for that correlation is acting as a private investigator without a license.
Your argument is what? That an IP is semi-public info?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

Um collecting and storing personal data without an investigators license.

I cannot imagine a bigger waste of HR, IT, or managements time to go chasing around data regarding their employees web usage.
If you hired intelligent, effective management you wouldn't need to go policing your employees after the fact.
Instead of asking; How can we find out which of our employees isn't working and then make them pay, how about finding out which of our employees is no longer being challenged or effective in their job and how can we help them.
You aren't their parents you're their employer, it's your job help them succeed, and if you cannot then refill the position.

What are you people, stuck so deep in the forest you cannot see the trees?
The american justice system provides you with fair warning about incriminating yourself.
The British justice system threatens you into speaking with a vague warning that if you don't you wont be able to later.

Honesty versus underhanded double-speak, yeah I think the Americans got it right.
In Britain your citizen rights are protected by a royal mandate, which protects the institution and allows for the citizen to retain some independence.
In the US (recent freedom reductions notwithstanding) it is part of the formulation of the core values of the nation that citizen rights be protected.

If your argument is that for a lawyer there is slightly more wiggle room in the British method of dealing with self-incrimination, I cannot count that as a good thing.

It's no different then realizing your father was a complete asshole to your family as you were growing up, stating that fact, and then reformulating your household so as to not end up being viewed that way.
Calling an American a xenophobe essentially is like admitting to everything your child feels about you.
An asshole-ish statement after being called an asshole just proves their point.
Way to fall directly into a poorly made and obvious trap.

I'm using a homeless person as an example of an emotionally and possibly mentally crippled (Such as the gentleman in the court case) with minimal social/secular education.
The question I pose isn't rhetorical either. Since this falls exactly in line with what the accused did in this case. A mentally/emotionally broken man, burst into an open funeral parlor and made obscene statements and gestures.
This sort of thing happens in meat-space too. It's why we have doormen at fancy hotel entrances, or ushers at a wedding. To keep those with poor self-management skills out, or remove them when they become unruly.
If they become highly offensive or violent the police are called.

Unfortunately this is a little bit of a Honey-pot situation. Using the logic given above, you could effectively lure someone into making a stupid remark in an inappropriate forum, then beat them silly for it (and maybe with good moral cause) and then claim emotional excitement of some kind.
Or, such as in this case, sue them for 'trolling'.

The reality of this situation is, poor emotional and scholastic education created an individual who would step to the level required here, to make light of another's loss.

Take a lesson from 'The Little Prince' though, do not expect more of others then they are capable of giving. Or translated for this situation 'If you give an Ass-hat an opening...'
How many years would you give a homeless person for bursting into a funeral parlor and doing something heinous, such as acting out the death of the deceased?

Wow I'm glad someone said something. That was seriously irking me.
Why even use that example of his 'trolling' and then fail to provide the terminology of an item correctly so that a correlation could be made by the reader.

I figure A: The contributor expects everyone to know what they're talking about when it comes to Thomas the Tank Engine lore
or B: It's just a stinkin' random omission (wow an irritating one though)

LOL, so angry! Except you fail to make a single point in your comment.
I don't poop in the ground because I have a toilet. If you advertise you have a toilet but then require people to have a subscription to toilets monthly to use the toilet well then you're not offering a toilet at all are you?
WoW is online online because it is designed that way.
Racing games have time trials so you can compete against yourself.
Quake II had single player modes because of the state of internet connections and gaming in general.
This company decided to make a single-player offering into a stunted MMO, but still wants the single-player moniker attached.
'Shut up, nutsack.'
It's obvious I just wasted my typing on you, but others find intelligent debate meaningful to read, and enjoy the opinions and concerns of others.
Go read a book, child.