Spain's Hologram Protest: Thousands Join Virtual March In Madrid

An anonymous reader writes Thousands of people marched past a parliament building in Madrid to protest a new law that they say endangers civil liberties. But none of them were actually there. From the article: "Late last year the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law, which will take effect on July 1, Spanish activists have staged the world's first ever virtual political demonstration. After months of massive flesh-and-blood protests against the so-called 'gag law', thousands of holograms last night marched in front of the Spanish parliament in Madrid."

Comments

UK solution

[abies]

Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).

Re:UK solution

[Chrisq]

Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).

If it passed a pub they'd have lost the other half too

Re:UK solution

[geekmux]

Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).

If people can be swayed by a sale tag, then I will gladly laugh in their damn face as to the "protest" being attempted.

I don't even know why they have to pass gag laws with the sheep being this easily distracted.

Nothing surpricing really.

[luvirini]

In too much of the world today other things than humans have more rights.

This ranges from corporations having many/most of the rights of humans in many countries, while at the same time only having to pay fines for crimes where humans would be put to jail. And ranging to things like the compensation values of different things you do when damaging humans compared to damaging property.

Re: Nothing surpricing really.

[Dutch Gun]

Surpricing: Unexpected news that affects a company's stock value.

Re:Nothing surpricing really.

[stealth_finger]

Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.

No, the purpose of those "rights" is to shield the STOCKHOLDERS from legal responsibility.

If stockholders were held liable for decisions by management, your 401K/IRA/whatever would be pretty empty, since a fine paid by the corporation would then be passed along to the stockholders....

And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?

Why would stock holders be held to account and not the people who made the decisions to, or did commit the act of whatever crime? If that happens and a company goes bust and a stakeholder loses their investment then, that's how it works. Maybe companies would be less inclined to commit crimes and flout the law if it affected their ability to attract and keep investment in themselves.

Re:Nothing surpricing really.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why would stock holders be held to account and not the people who made the decisions to, or did commit the act of whatever crime?

Assuming no Limited Liability (you know,the thing that makes corporations corporations), it's pretty well established that the owner of a thing is responsible for the thing - if your dog gets loose and mauls a child, YOU are liable. If your car rolls down the hill into a crowd, you're the one in trouble, not the car...

Same with being a stockholder - YOU own it, YOU are liable for its problems. Absent "Limited liability", of course.

Note that the whole "limited liability" thing was invented for that very reason - people weren't willing to invest in things they had no control over, so pre-corporate days, about the largest business you saw was a partnership (two to a few dozen people working together for some purpose (usually making money))....

Re:Nothing surpricing really.

[drinkypoo]

Assuming no Limited Liability (you know,the thing that makes corporations corporations), it's pretty well established that the owner of a thing is responsible for the thing

Only within reasonable limits. If you give your car keys to someone and they proceed to run someone down, you will likely be held partially responsible. If you leave your keys in the car, and someone steals it and runs someone down, you may be held partially responsible. If someone hotwires your car and runs someone down with it, that's not your fault.

Sigh

[Trogre]

No holograms showed up. This is a pepper's ghost illusion apparently performed with a projector and semitransparent material.

But I guess "hologram" nets more clicks.

Re:Sigh

[Al Al Cool J]

First, projection onto a semitransparent material is not a pepper's ghost illusion. Pepper's ghost is a reflection onto a 45-degree transparent screen.

Second, you are confusing implimentation with representation.

Full coulour video holograms are science fiction. The technology to create them doesn't exist and probably won't within our lifetime. But many representations of hologram individuals are commonly referred to as holograms, and nobody questions or challenges this.

For example, Arnold Rimmer on Red Dwarf and the EMH Doctor on Star Trek Voyageur are universally accepted as holograms, as is the projection of Princess Leia in Star Wars that was produced by R2-D2. I've never heard any nerd or pedant challenge this. But none of these holograms were made using holography. Rimmer and the EMH were just actors standing on set. Very occasionally they would use visual affects to indicate their hologram-ness. The projection of Princess Leia was also a visual effect. They weren't created using holograms. They represented holograms.

Likewise, this protest involved representations of holograms, created using non-holographic means (because there is no other way to do it). They are as much holograms as any character that is universally referred to as a hologram.

If this was a protest involving people waving toy lightsabers around, I don't think many pedants would complain if the media called it a lightsaber protest. You'd sound kind of stupid complaining that they weren't using "real lightsabers". So I don't know why people get so irrationally bent out of shape over representations of holograms.

May as well be honest

[wrmrxxx]

The Spanish government may as well be honest about the purpose of this law and add quote marks where they belong: "Citizen Safety" Law. I don't know whether to see this protest as a clever stunt (it got our attention after all) or as an admission of defeat. It's all very easy to say from the safety and comfort of my couch, but it does kind of give the appearance that the government has got their way here.

Re:May as well be honest

[myrdos2]

Check out this nugget: Organisers of unauthorised demonstrations could be fined up to €600,000, with further €600 fines for disrespecting police officers, and €30,000 for filming or photographing them.

Re:May as well be honest

[Anne Thwacks]

A protest is not a riot.

It is once the law enforcement agents start battering people with night sticks.

The truth is, as always, more complicated...

[luismontbau]

The Law is restrictive, for sure, but so are the reasons for its existence. Spain is afflicted by both an old-fashioned right and a just-right-of-Stalin left. We have nothing like the social-democrats of Nordic countries. When the left rules, there is absolute peace and nobody protests, no matter how badly the government is mangling the economy and destroying jobs. When the right wins, there are protests within the protests whether they're doing OK or not. And not peaceful, civil protests, no, violent and extremist ones. It's pure 'Agitprop'. The right, then, issued this law to take a powerful tool from the hands of its political enemies, and the left is enraged. Spain remains, sadly, as divided as ever...

Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated...

[Viol8]

The reason there are more demonstrations with right wing governments in power anywhere is that the sort of hard left types who demonstrate are usually young , angry and naive. Right wing voters are usually more mature and protest in other ways when a left wing government is in power.

Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated...

[queBurro]

a man can't serve 3 masters, he must serve only juan

Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated...

[St.Creed]

It may also have something to do with the attempts by the conservative government to remove peoples rights (said law is a good example), including abortion rights. And their economic policy is a mix of insane boondoggles (transporting water from one part of the country to another) and attacks on trade unions.

That doesn't mean the economy shouldn't reform, but the current proposals are, IMO, pretty one-sided.

Protecting the Mob

[mentil]

I look outside my manse window and see the hooligans shouting and pumping their fists into the air, and wonder, what is the benefit of it all? We've already bought the media, we control the message, so what do they think they're going to incite? The age of protest is dead, the age of tribute is begun. The ones who have the gold make the rules, as the richest voices get to shout loudest; of course, we make sure we're on the right side. And if we get to profit a bit from the arrangement, so what?

The Citizen Safety Law, contrary to its detractors, IS accurately named. The only thing protest is good for nowadays is trashing, looting, and injuries whenever it gets out of hand. Now bereft of purpose, the mob is only able to produce negative effects; this law simply dissipates the chaos before it can cause any harm.

/satire

slacktivism 2.0?

[Karmashock]

Politicians respond to anything that seems harder. Why they don't respond to emails so much as letters. You mailed a letter... it is harder then popping off an email.

So a virtual protester doesn't mean much. Just saying.

I'm sure this will virtually scare the government.

[Qbertino]

EOM.

Re:Fuck you, clickbaiter

[wonkey_monkey]

I really hate summaries that conspicuously omit the only thing that's really important in the whole article.

I hate comments that say that something is "really important" but don't explain what it is.

So, which "really important" thing in the article is missing from the summary?

Drat, their dastardly scheme was foiled

[Anonymous Coward]

And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!