Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Raisethefist.com Raided

Posted by michael on from the poking-the-anthill dept.

mfb and others wrote in about a raid on the operator of raisethefist.com last week. It was first reported on Indymedia.org here and here, followed by an LA Weekly article. By far the best news piece so far is this one from Newsbytes.

11 of 785 comments (clear)

  1. Internet Wayback Machine by Zach+Garner · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks to Archive.org, we can use the Internet Wayback Machine to view the site: Jan 23 or other days

  2. More info here at by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Carnegie Mellon University

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  3. This is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Advocating violence like this has always been illegal. Read a history book before you go off spouting inane "Why are they taking my rights away?" bullshit. It's ok to stand up at a klan rally and say, "These niggers are ruining our lives." It's not ok to continue by saying "So let's string em all up!"

  4. There is no such thing as overkill. by Jack_of_Hearts · · Score: 3, Informative

    Law enforcement agencies will always bring an incredible excess of force down on a potentially hostile target in order to apprehend him. This is done to ensure the safety of both the target and the officers involved. If the target thinks that he has no chance to defend himself, then he will usually give up without a fight. Personally, I think that this, and anything else that protects our officers, is a damn good idea.

  5. Kuro5hin.org by Forager · · Score: 2, Informative

    This story was front page on k5 a few days ago; I only post this notice because there was some interesting commentary along the lines of what we're already seeing here now. You might want to surf over there and see what the folks at k5 have been saying.

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/1/26/112847/742

    Cheers,
    -Aaron.

    --
    student of animation and the fine arts
  6. HE HACKED OUR SITE! by tcd004 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, i've got his troop.cgi program tucked away on my hard drive. On december 26th of 1999 he hacked our website ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com) and posted this page:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/12HOME.HTML

    I imagine that troop.cgi progam is sitting on more than 3 webservers out there.

  7. Re:Dumbass. by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Speech calling for the violent overthrow of the government of the United States is in a gray area. The current Supreme Court doctrine (Brandenburg v. Ohio) appears to be that it is protected speech as long as it not "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." So you can speak in an abstract way about "the revolution", just avoid saying that it is scheduled for Monday at City Hall.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  8. What the FBI Doesn't Want You to See at RaisetheFi by nstrom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Professor Dave Touretzky at CMU (the guy that runs the well-known DECSS gallery, has a mirror of the previous contents of the raisethefist website here. The content for which the site was raided was apparantly the Reclaim Guide, which contains detailed instructions on defensive and offensive tactics for rioters faced with riot police.

  9. Re:Because of his *opinions*? by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The issue is selective enforcement."

    You are confusing "selective enforcement" with "discriminatory enforcement"

    "Why is it that African Americans get stopped for more traffic violations than White People? Why is it that poor people get busted and go down for years on drug charges when private school students do the same things (to greater excess, I've seen it) and face no law-enforcement threat?

    These are arguably cases of "discriminatory" enforcement, where one Group of people is chosen for law enforcement action, i.e. the Govt. discrimates between groups (hence the name). And you are right - it's illegal.

    "Why is it that this guy went down and not the guys who DOS'ed Bill Gibson's site [grc.com]? "

    This is "selective enforcement." Prosecutors can choose who to prosecute for a crime on an ad hoc basis. The guys who DOS'd grc.com are still anonymous, or close to it, making them hard to prosecute. This fellow stood up and said "I did it, I did it", thereby making him easy to prosecute. Given limited resources, who do you think is going to be arrested?

    Oh, and selective enforcement is perfectly legal, and has been upheld by the Supreme's many times.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  10. looks like his host pulled it by sh0rtie · · Score: 2, Informative


    It was there at 10.14 PM GMT and its just been pulled at 10.16 PM GMT
    with the obligatory

    "This site may have been removed due to a violation of Freeserver's
    "Acceptable Use Policy".

    luckily google is still there :)

  11. Re:how to make bombs by andycat · · Score: 2, Informative
    No speech or press by a person can ever be censored for any reason, ever. Period.

    "Good reasons" or "bad reasons" or "good information" or "some information shouldnt be out there" isn't good enough.

    This is incorrect on a few counts. First, your speech may not, in general, be censored by the government in its capacity as a sovereign (as opposed to as an employer or a proprietor of an establishment like a library). The First Amendment only applies to the US government, and by extension (via the 14th Amendment) to the state governments. Once you get that far, there are more exceptions -- a few categories of speech not protected at all, a few that receive only intermediate protection, and then the vast majority that are totally protected. The exceptions are as follows:
    • Obscene speech, which must be patently offensive under contemporary community standards, appeal to prurient interests, and lack serious redeeming value. Child pornography falls under this category. This decision is always a judgement call. Merely indecent speech is protected: unless and until it crosses over into obscenity, you're free to do as you will.
    • Speech that creates a clear and present danger to the public interest, whether it immediately endangers public safety (e.g. shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater), incites immediate illegal action ("That lousy no-good so-and-so! Let's go burn his house down!"), poses a serious threat to the government (i.e. not just rhetoric), or threatens the President or his family. There is a fine line here: you are allowed to advocate a (potentially) illegal act, but not incite people to perform it.
    • Fighting words, namely denigrating speech likely to cause the average person to fight back or retaliate right then.
    • Speech that defames -- slander and libel go here.
    • False or deceptive advertising is not protected speech.

    Basically the government has to show three things before it can censor speech:
    1. The restriction serves a compelling government or public interest,
    2. There is no less obtrusive means available, and
    3. The restriction is not "unconstitutionally vague" -- your average Joe should be able to decide whether or not it applies in a given case.

    With very few exceptions, the government cannot restrict any other kinds of speech based on its content.

    (Thanks to Jeannie Walsh for the course slides I used for this. They're online at the web site for a Computers and Society course that I taught last summer.)