Raisethefist.com Update

d33l0w3 writes: "It looks like Sherman Austin is off the hook for now. For those of you who missed the previous slashdot posting, Sherman was arrested on Feb. 2 for the contents of his website raisethefist.com. This comes as more of a surprise than the FBI raid on his house." Just a couple of days ago, the government was planning to transfer him to California to face charges there, but now according to Newsbytes, those have been dropped. Read that link I just gave - there's quite a lot of interesting information that came out during the hearing. The attorney's concern about Austin being jacked around in "detention" for an indefinite period of time says a great deal about our judicial system.

Comments

Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

[Lazlo Nibble]

Per my (IANAL) reading of 18 USC 842(p) they would have to prove his intent and or knowledge in publishing the information; that can be tricky to prove in court and may be part of why they dropped the charges.

(2) Prohibition. - It shall be unlawful for any person -

(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or

(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

It's always interesting to read the actual law when it gets cited in cases like this -- it really strips away the media bullshit. http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm is a good online resource...

still not right.

[ctimes2]

If you promise to car-jack the first black SUV on 5th ave and main street with a 9 mm handgun at noon, and are then caught standing on 5th ave and main at noon with a 9 mm handgun, your freedom of speech is kind of secondary to the fact that you're a dangerous moron with a gun.

The moron had a molotov cocktail in his car, along with a gas mask and shield, after he stated pretty clearly on his website what he intended to do with it.

The fact is, he promised or at the very least inferred that he was going to commit a violent act. The website is just testimony to that fact, it's not a freedom of speech issue.

Ctimes2

Mod this Moron Down!

[mr_don't]

Are radical anarchists all alike?

Surely you are too busy poking fun at your former high school classmates to attempt to understand where anarchist ideas of society are comming from. Try reading Chomsky, Emma Goldman, or Anarchist People of Color. These voices will probably expand your view of anarchy more than the image of your classmate. (By the way, what the hell were you doing in 9th grade cool guy? Were you the like Emilio Estevez in the Breakfast Club? Maybe you were like the Fonz? Naw, you were probably pimply and obnoxious, like everybody else that age!)

I attended the WEF protests and I can say (with much video to back this up) that it in no way was it out-of-control. In fact the police were acting in a completely unconstitutional manner, harassing the peaceful demonstrators (check out a Village Voice story about it here). Those people who were arrested at the Saturday were arrested because they were carrying toy police equipment, not because they were doing anything illegal. I think the police thought that the plastic Toys-R-Us batons were going to be used for terrorism or something.

By the way, if you knew anything about the WEF I am sure you would think twice about attending a protest against this unregulated group of businessmen. WEF members include BP Amoco, Exxon and Nike.

Here is a blurb I found about BP Amoco:
In addition to economically destroying the social structure of this once agriculture based society, BP financially supports the Colombian military which is notorious for its human rights abuses. Since 1987, 35,000 noncombatants have been murdered or 'disappeared' primarily by the BP backed military and its paramilitary allies. In 1997, BP admitted that it has provided the Colombian Ministry of Defense with $8 million.

And Nike?:
Nike pays workers less than $2 per day - an amount which is often significantly below a living wage.

Get a clue dude. Who cares if your friend was dirty in 9th grade. You were probably picked on too. Fight some real battles, against jerk-offs like the WEF members. For more info about the WEF read this article.

Re:Mod this Moron Down!

[guygee]

Yes. You are all alike. You all read fucking Chomsky.

If you don't read Chomsky, I guess that means you don't read much at all. Chomsky is one of the ten most cited authors in history:

"Many are the authors who may wonder is anyone is paying attention to what they write. Professor Noam Chomsky, MIT's preeminent linguistics authority, doesn't have that problem. Recent research on citations in three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years. In fact, his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that period and the eight most cited source overall -- just behind famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel. Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten cited sources during the period were: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero."

Also, even though he is a linguist and also known for his political commentary, Professor Chomsky is still among the top 1000 cited authors in Computer Science: ...721. N. Chomsky.

Maybe you should quit watching all thoe sitcom reruns and work on expanding your intellectual horizons. I recommend reading , including those authors with views you don't necessarily agree with. Chomsky is undoubtably one of the most brilliant intellects of our time, the father of modern linguistics, and regardless of whether you like his political views, if you have not read his work in linguistics you only cheating yourself out of a whole universe of wonder.

Police and "Molotov Cocktails"

[Wesley Everest]

Whenever a dissident is found with a big recycling container full of glass bottles (imagine that, an environmentalist who recycles!), the police always like to claim that it is bomb-making materials. Read the text of the hearing transcript and it is clear that the facts aren't exactly clear. He was alleged to have had a molotov cocktail. There were a lot of other allegations, too. The prosecution was happy to point out previous arrests, but they didn't say what they were -- conspiracy to fail to disperse and jaywalking, clearly non-violent misdemeanors.

As for the molotov allegation, if it actually is true that he had a molotov, then the prosecution would have no problem getting a conviction, given the evidence they claim to have. Apparently, though, they didn't feel so certain, since they dropped the case.

There is a very simple explanation, though. The FBI sent the kid's name to the police in New York, and when he was picked up when the police were clearing the streets of protestors, his name popped up on their list. They then concocted some bogus but serious-sounding charges so that they could keep him off the streets until after the World Economic Forum left New York. Now that the WEF has left, they dropped the charges. They also have the bonus that if he gets picked up at some other non-violent protest, they get to tell the judge about these very serious-sounding charges and he'll get screwed around with more.

They literally do this everytime there is a big protest, at least since the the early 90's and probably much farther back. In San Fransisco in 1995, several hundred protesters were arrested, and they were all released without prosecution or conviction. A class-action lawsuit was filed (and won), since it was clear that the arrest (and a few days in jail) was an attempt to punish protestors with no evidence and no intention of prosecuting.

In 1996, at the Democratic convention in Chicago, police targetted protestors with cameras, arresting dozens with no evidence (seizing the tapes and often destroying the cameras). Again, once the Democrats left town, everyone was let out of jail with no prosecutions or convictions.

Even in Seattle in 1999, where there were a few legitimate arrests, hundreds were arrested for no good reason and were later let go with no prosecution.

Bogus arrests, with charges dropped after dust settles is a standard tactic. Often most of the people are just held in jail for a few days without even being charges (in many states, it is illegal to hold people for more than 48 hours without charging them with something, but that doesn't stop them from holding people for a week or so). Nevermind that a week in jail, innocent or not, will usually get you fired from your job, and a week in a cage with various physical and verbal abuse is punishment without a conviction.

Repeat after me, "innocent until proven guilty." I know it's a bit unfashionable nowadays to talk about such outdated concepts, what with the "Axis of Evil" threatening to destroy our freedoms, but if Disco can make a come-back...

Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

[Silverhammer]

http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm [house.gov] is a good online resource...

This one is better because it lets you browse the entire USC and drill down through Titles and Sections as needed. Very helpful if you don't know exactly what you're looking for.

Re:Freedom of Speech, and threats against Olympics

[geekoid]

They also confiscated some items they say were bomb-making materials
all of which was in question by the defendants attorny, and from reading it, I doubt they existed.

Oh, and If I was going to a protest, I'd bring a gas mask.
It seems to me YOU didn't read the court report.