The Revival of Direct Action: From Sit-Ins to Digital Blockades

Scheduled Publication: Monday, November 3, 2025 | 11:00 AM CET / 5:00 AM EST / 6:00 PM PHST | WPS.News

By Cliff Potts

When Occupy Wall Street burst into public consciousness in 2011, it revived the idea of direct action as a method of protest. No petitions, no permits—just people showing up, together, to say “enough.” But the battlefield has shifted. Today, the sit-in has a digital equivalent: the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack.

Though controversial, the DDoS is a form of protest that belongs to the 21st century. It mirrors the classic sit-in: a collective action that temporarily disrupts the normal operations of a target. But unlike physical blockades, DDoS protests are often invisible, misunderstood, and brutally punished.

Digital Protest in the Crosshairs of the Law

In the United States, launching a DDoS attack—even with no intent to steal, damage, or profit—can result in felony charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Activists have received prison sentences and lifelong restrictions for acts that, in the analog world, would amount to trespassing or picketing.

This harsh legal framework is not just outdated; it is rooted in fear. Legislators and judges unfamiliar with the digital terrain treat these actions not as civil disobedience, but as terrorism. As one activist told us, “The old guard doesn’t understand bandwidth. They only understand bars.”

The irony? Many of the same governments that praise digital entrepreneurship and online community-building criminalize the use of those very tools when deployed in dissent.

Protected Speech in a Digital Democracy

Contrast that with Germany, where courts have ruled that DDoS attacks can qualify as protected forms of political expression. In a 2006 decision, the German Federal Constitutional Court found that a digital sit-in—essentially a coordinated refresh attack on a website—fell under the purview of free speech and protest rights (BVerfG, 1 BvR 2049/00).

This legal protection is more than symbolic. It sends a clear message: the right to protest must evolve with the tools of the age. Where governments suppress dissent by redefining code as crime, democracies must respond by recognizing code as communication.

Digital Blockades as Global Resistance

The stakes are high. From climate protests to anti-censorship campaigns, digital blockades have become essential tools for the modern resistance. They can spotlight the role of multinational corporations in environmental degradation. They can challenge censorship in authoritarian regimes. They can force media coverage when none exists.

And yet, Western democracies like the United States risk aligning themselves with repressive regimes by criminalizing peaceful digital action. The chilling effect is real, and it’s global.

Occupy 2.5 is not a hacker collective—it is a protest movement with deep historical roots and forward-looking methods. It demands that the right to assembly and expression extend into the online world, where our economies, our conversations, and our politics increasingly live.

Germany, We Need You

As one of the few nations defending digital protest rights, Germany holds a special place in this movement. With its strong constitutional protections and history of resisting fascism, Germany understands what’s at stake when dissent is silenced.

We call on activists, lawmakers, and everyday citizens in Germany to support the mission of Occupy 2.5. Amplify our voice. Share our content. Help shape the narrative that digital dissent is not cybercrime. It’s civil resistance.

The future of protest is borderless. So is the fight for digital rights.

---

References (APA Style):

BVerfG, 1 BvR 2049/00, Decision of March 10, 2006. German Federal Constitutional Court.

Sauter, M. (2014). The Coming Swarm: DDOS Actions, Hacktivism, and Civil Disobedience on the Internet. Bloomsbury Academic.

Samuelson, P. (2003). The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as a Threat to the Internet. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 17–21.