As far as I can tell, there haven’t been many developments in the case involving the murdered lawyer and his videos claiming the President is responsible.  As I mentioned yesterday, there have been some developments as it regards a Twitter user’s comments and his subsequent arrest.

The Twitter user was arrested under a law which prohibits inciting financial panic.  According to my local sources, this legislation was passed after coordinated rumor mongering led to a run on targeted banks.  It seems to me that if a government is a continual victim of these kinds of efforts to create panic and crisis in the financial markets, it is prudent to implement restraints which threaten consequences for this kind of ‘organized crime’.

Yes, I know that ‘freedom of speech’ is the First Commandment of Secularists everywhere, and if anyone wants to get patriotic and righteous let me throw down first:  I volunteered for the US military at a time when we were fighting unpopular low-intensity conflicts around the world and served under a President who I strongly opposed.  I think I’ve earned the right to voice my opinion about the just exercise of liberty.

With power and rights comes responsibility.  You may have the right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean you can yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.   In civilized societies, individual rights must be weighed against the common good.  This is how in the US we protect the freedom of speech but cities can require organizers to get permits before staging huge protests.  This brings us to the Twitter case, which has been well documented (in English) here.

Opinions on the twitter arrest seem to me to be rather unified, and my friend Rudy shares those sentiments.  However, this train of thought seems to ignore the fact that the law targeted this very kind of behavior, and with good reason.  Actions have consequences, as the original twitter comment itself acknowledges; jeanfer would not have urged followers to create a run on the bank if he did not think that a) it was possible and b) it would cause trouble for the bank.

Opponents would seem to believe that the law is unjust, and therefore jeanfer should not have been arrested.  However, the means for protesting an unjust law are made available through civil and political means, including public demonstrations.  It doesn’t seem justified to me to break the law in the name of demonstrating against it; this only invites criminal consequences.  In fact, jeanfer doesn’t imply this in his tweets, he merely calls for a run on the bank, tantamount to rebellion in the case of a state-owned entity.

On the other hand, one may violate the law to serve a political end, but this should be subordinated to a higher good.  Peaceful civil unrest in India and South Africa decades ago are examples of this, but these generally involved the breaking of some minor civil law to draw attention to a grave, pervasive injustice, rather than the specific targeting of financial instability for a government institution (BanRural is state controlled).

If a man unintentionally violates a law, he remains guilty of that law but may still have some culpability.  (Ignorantia legis neminem excusat).  By all appearances, jeanfer knew precisely what he was doing and the likely consequences and did it anyway.  Therefore the offense is greater, and he cannot reasonably expect leniency.  After all, the law intends to prevent precisely what he was trying to do, and further, he was trying to do it during a time of national crisis with the goal of destabilizing the government.

Put another way, by his actions he has in fact confirmed what the President has claimed in his own defense; the murder of the attorney is part of a pattern of events designed to destabilize the government (either his own administration or the current democratic government).  Colom need only point to the actions of the Twitter users now as proof.  Under the circumstances, greater enforcement of the law now seems likely.

I would admit that the entire episode casts Guatemala in a very bad light.  It’s not often that a democratically-elected President is accused of murdering anyone, and Guatemalans must feel shame that their country is in the headlines for this reason.  The arrest of the Twitter user will almost certainly lead to coverage in mainstream media outlets that casts the country in the light of a backwards, banana republic, also something which must be deeply hurtful to a people with a long history of suffering.

However, political activists must recognize and accept the likely consequences of their actions, even when the law they are breaking seems to them unjust.  I have friends who have gone to jail and been charged with violations of the RICO Acts because they insisted on sitting down on the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic.  Are the use of these laws against conservative political activists (who are comprised mostly of old church women and Priests with Rosaries) unjust, onerous and used as political revenge?  Of course.  But the activists break the law anyway knowing the consequences, and they should be prepared to accept them.

The twitter users comments were not simply an attack on the person of Alvaro Colom, they were an intentional, targeted effort to destabilize a financial system, specifically, the banking arm of the government.  Rather than seeming (to me, anyway), as a patriot and martyr, it just looks foolish.  If he were arrested for say, burning Colom in effigy in front of the Presidential palace, perhaps his fate would be different.

Keep in mind, the region is reeling from the US economic crisis and the Mexican Swine Flu.  Guatemala in particular is weighed down by a costly but ineffective fight against the narco-traffickers, decades of conflict and a history of weak political leaders and widespread corruption.  A prominent Twitter user advocating a run on the central bank must be considered in light of these circumstances.  It is a very different thing than for an obscure US Congressman advocating abolishing the Federal Reserve or a southern Governor advocating secession.  International opinion is important when it comes to tourism, exports and international investment.  Recent developments certainly don’t help.

I hope every Guatemalan Twitter user donates to a fund to bail jeanfer out.  In fact, I suggest setting up an account for this purpose at BanRural and recommend that every donation be in the amount of 64Q, drawing attention to Decree 64, the law he is accused of breaking.  The irony will play well in the press and demonstrate the savvy and civility of political dissenters.