Slashdot Mirror
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.
I just checked, and of course it is...
Raisethefist was an idiot anarchist website advocating the violent overthrowing of the US Gov't. Therefore, defending this punk is foolish. However, he wasn't raided because of the website. Freedom of expression rights remain intact.
He was raided because he hacked into a number of US government webpages, replacing their front pages with a pointer to his own website. The government agents were heavily armed due to his presented stance on raisethefist. Hell, if it takes assault rifles to retrieve little Elian, it obviously takes a LOT of assault rifles to raid a soi-disant violent anarchist.
Really, now. Are probable 18 year old script kiddies really worth our time?
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
If you go back and read the previous discussion on this, most of the posts were in favor of this guy getting slammed. Why try and bring up support for this guy again? It's obvious it didn't work the first time and that most people here think he should be punished.
Poor Sherman has no reading materials, perhaps they should give him a copy of Atlas Shrugged or Eat the Rich.
Fortunately, they're only dropping the charge of posting explosives information (which is a crock, and definately a violation of his free speech rights), but hopefully they'll still send him up the river for his defacement of corporate websites. If I spray paint "Flander's sucks" on my neighbors house, I'm either going to pay a fine or go to jail. Same goes for someone's website. Of course, I wouldn't expect a "self-described" anarchist to give a damn about individual property rights.
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
That instead of reading the articles, you read the court hearing instead. It provides *both* sides of the story, as well as the Judge's comments.
I agree. And before everyone posts 'It's not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre,' I'll justify your statement. The theatre yell directly harms people by the act itself. The speech aspect is secondary. On the other hand, when dealing with instructions for committing illegal activities, the speech is primary. And we assume the harm will be carried out by readers, who will then go on to commit crimes.
But the speech acts as an enabler, so we should outlaw it, right? The problem becomes deciding which instructions for illegal activities should not be allowed. Fine, everyone agrees that bomb-making instructions are bad. But what about civil disobedience instructions? What about instructions for breaking an encryption? What about instructions for hiding money from the government? Which will we allow and which will we not?
The entire concept of the First Ammendment is that the government will never have the chance to make any of those decisions. The protection works by fencing off a whole area of public life from legislation. Sure, everyone could think of one or two laws that would improve society, but it is not worth tearing down the fence to do it.
1. They don't know fertilizer from potting soil.
2. They can't tell wires, a gas can and duct tape from implements of mass destruction.
3. They can't transport a suspect across the country in less than six weeks - not only could he beat that with a car, he could beat it with a bicycle for Pete's sake.
4. They can't arrange a change of clothes or a shower for a prisoner in four days.
5. They can't tell a snotty mouthy kid from a terrorist.
But don't worry - we're safe because these people are protecting us. Hah. And don't worry about them violating your civil liberties - these clowns couldn't organize a drunken party in a beer factory.
Your tax dollars at work. Sheeesh.
True, that is covered by the right to bear arms, also a constitutional right, covered in the second ammendment.
Please note that 'arms' is a generically unlimited term. The current focus on guns is a bit of legal slight of hand. Here in NY state I can walk down Main Street with a rifle and I am in within my legal rights, but the *possesion* of a wrist braced *slingshot* is a felony. This is unconstitutional, but who has the 10 years and $50K to fight it?
One also might wonder just how one goes about 'regeistering' a Molotov cocktail with the
FBI.
Comes to that, my local supermarket is crammed full of petroleum products and explosive devices.
What are they going to do next, ban exothermic chemical reactions?
KFG
for what he *did,* not what he said.
.$100 fine and 40 hrs. community service.
There is a distinct difference.
If everyone who ever said "I'll kill you" was guilty of murder we'd all be on death row.
Possesion of petroleum products would also see most of us behind bars.
Most of us have never defaced a website with malice aforethought.
He ought to get bitchslapped for that. Yes. And hard. Like. .
KFG
But the speech acts as an enabler, so we should outlaw it, right? The problem becomes deciding which instructions for illegal activities should not be allowed. Fine, everyone agrees that bomb-making instructions are bad. But what about civil disobedience instructions? What about instructions for breaking an encryption? What about instructions for hiding money from the government? Which will we allow and which will we not?
The critical point is that somehing that is violent in nature is prohibited. Look at your examples. Civil disobediance instructions are one thing. I'm assuming you're refering to tactics used by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi. Those aren't a problem, per se, and I doubt you would see a government agency trying to curb those type of instructions. Encryption is a diffucult issue, and I'm not going to dwell upon it, because that is a large can of worms in itself. Hiding money must be illegal, or you will have half the jackasses in the country not filing tax returns for "political beliefs", or some such bullshit.
What I really take issue with is when someone implies or says that everything should be protected, due to that fact that the judgement of others may be incorrect or go too far. Well, welcome to a democracy, Bub. It's easy to sit there like an armchair quarterback and cry "foul" whenever the line is crossed. Yes, there will be mistakes and problems. Laws written by people and enforced by people always will be, by definition, imperfect. But to suggest that teaching people to engage in patently illegal, and especially dangerous, activites should be protected is BS. What if the government did nothing to stop it? Morons who want to build bombs or chemical weapons because they don't like the government ought to have easy access to this information? Is that really what you're suggesting? Think about it: That information is provided for a reason. This idiot kid wasn't putting up bomb instructions because he thought it would be a good thing for someone to know if the question ever came up in Trivial Pursuit. He wants to see the violent overthrow of the government. I know, hell, let's let them. Let the overthrow the government, and if we don't like it, then we can overthrow that one. And so on and so forth, until we plunge into total anarchy.
Don't get me wrong, I think free speach is one of the most vital of our rights. But don't sit there and say that hard judgements and tough calls shouldn't be made, simply beacuse you fear the results. If you're really worried about it, join the FBI or the Justice Department and then someday you can be the one making the tough calls. Although, I suspect you'd end up explaining to a roomfull of reporters why a 6th-grader made mustard gas and unleashed it at his school with instrutions he downloaded from a website you didn't want to shut down. Your arguments are good ones, but you're not thinking to the next step: consequences. Thanks.
Which country do you live in?
It's not illegal to call for a revolution. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, remember "We pledge our lives and our sacred honor" "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots"? Doesn't Bush call for the spilling of blood every other day, in some manichean war?
It seems reasonable that if you have a (perfectly legal) website which includes describing molotov cocktails that you actually have made these cocktails and some are in your home. As long as they are not used, you have a right to do this. Do you have a gun in your house? A gun is far more dangerous than some petrol in a bottle. Maybe we should arrest all the groups who argue against excessive govt. powers and who also stockpile arms. They also call for revolution.
And all he did was protest -- the only charges filed against him were jaywalking, not dispersing, conspiracy to not disperse, etc. The FUD about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" amounted to nothing more than duct tape and potting soil. Unlike the FBI, he never committed any violence, did not lie about his identity, and did not hide from any courts. Moreover he is not a terrorist. Read the trial transcripts before you're so quick to shout "terrorism" in a crazed nation.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
You ever stop to think why the bus was filthy, given that it was filled with dozens of protestors that were not allowed to use a toilet for at least 24 hours, never mind how many hours since before they were arrested.
As for rocking the bus and breaking windows. Here in Seattle during the WTO protests, at least one bus full of bound protestors got the pepper-spray and tear-gas treatment. If you were in that situation, you'd be trying to kick some windows out pretty fast.
I notice nowhere in your post did you say that this guy was ever convicted of anything. As for him claiming about being detained for "absolutely no reason", did they ever even file charges against him? Here in Seattle, most of the hundreds of people arrested never had charges filed against them. You might say if you are arrested, that the charge against you is the "reason" you were arrested. If there is no charge, then, legally, there isn't much a reason, is there?
Some would say being a dirty hippy and disagreeing with the government is reason enough to arrest someone, I'd hate to jump to conclusions about your particular political ideology, though.