On March 5, internet hacktivists Anonymous hacked into the website of the Constitutional Court of Hungary, changing and rewriting passages of the country's Constitution. Here was one of their entries:
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Anonymous hacktivists rewrite Hungarian constitution - celebrate Guy Fawkes - National Anonymous | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/anonymous-in-national/anonymous-hacktivists-rewrite-hungarian-constitution-celebrate-guy-fawkes#ixzz1oILNFwsz
Needless to say, the rewrites were swiftly removed.Anonymous targeting the constitution of a sovereign state sheds light on the importance we assign to two things: laws and the Internet. But this isn't the first time a country's constitution has been changed dramatically via online editing.
In 2008, following on from the Global Financial Crisis, Iceland declared bankruptcy after its three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir declared bankruptcy and were nationalized and the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. Subsequent chaos ensued, with the IMF and the EU asserting their force much in the same way as they are now, particularly in Greece. But then, in 2010, this:
In 2008, following on from the Global Financial Crisis, Iceland declared bankruptcy after its three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir declared bankruptcy and were nationalized and the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. Subsequent chaos ensued, with the IMF and the EU asserting their force much in the same way as they are now, particularly in Greece. But then, in 2010, this:
For an excellent overview of Iceland's recovery, see: Why Iceland Should be in the News But is Not: http://warisacrime.org/content/why-iceland-should-be-news-not
Maybe re-writing Constitutions on the Internet isn't such a bad idea. Perhaps it's the easiest way to reach a consensus that is inclusive, rather than exclusive. After all, it's like what Steve Colbert said about Wikiality, here defined in the Urban Dictionary: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality)
Using definition number 1 that Wikiality is a reality defined by public consensus using a wiki-like system (such as Wikipedia), then couldn't one posit that Iceland's constitution was created in a similar way? With all this talk of Direct Democracy, the Iceland example shows how "wikialities" or rather, "wiki-constitutions" might be written in the present, for the present, hell, maybe even for the future, too.
And yet, as with all things popular, Wikiality is a very valuable commodity, as Colbert decides, when he revisits the notion of "wiki" with another wiki-word combination:
And yet, as with all things popular, Wikiality is a very valuable commodity, as Colbert decides, when he revisits the notion of "wiki" with another wiki-word combination:
Going back to Anonymous, maybe hacking into constitutions isn't the right way to go about things these days, considering how adept governments are becoming at blocking freedom of information and exchange online. Rather than re-writing other people's constitutions, maybe what Anonymous could do is try building a system that might allow populations to re-write their own constitutions, on their own terms.
Their own Constitutionality, let's say.
Their own Constitutionality, let's say.
Black Mamba for The Para-Institutional Archive