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

Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

[Bonker]

It has to be, or it doesn't work at all. It breaks done and ceases to protect anyone but those with 'popular' speech.

In this case, it looks like there's a possiblity that he may have committed crimes... real crimes... such as vandalising websites.

Everything else, posting bomb-making instructions, advocating the overthrow of the government, should be *strictly* protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of Speech, and threats against Olympics

[strredwolf]

Has anyone read through the article? The FBI's confiscated the computers, and they contain letters plotting to take on the Olympics, maybe in a form of domestic terrorism. They also confiscated some items they say were bomb-making materials. Free Speech doesn't cover making your point with explosives!

Re:Is this a Michael story?

[Chuut-Riit]

I agree, this guy is probably a script kiddie, and in this particular instance, he may deserve to be prosecuted. But you paint with a broad brush.
For one thing, not all anarchists are out building bombs and assassinating archdukes. Anarchism is not idiocy. It may not be viable, because it presumes that people will act as mature adults. But it does provide a useful counterpoint to the totalitarian police state that the U.S. is becoming.

Why is it foolish to defend someone's right to advocate violent overthrow of the government? Isn't that exactly what was advocated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence? Is the current government of the U.S., led by a President whose election was of questionable legitimacy, any more overbearing, unresponsive, and corrupt than that of George III?

He claimed to be a terrorist.

[Performer Guy]

Here's a quote from this little darling, read by the judge:

"Yeah, motherfucker, I'm a terrorist to the U.S. Government. I'm a terrorist to capitalism, not to innocent people. I'm a terrorist to the evil system that's terrorizing all of us. Fuck the Government.
I hope they burn in fucking hell right back where they came from, motherfuckers. You can't fool all the people. We know your fucking style."

Here is another quote read by the prosecutor:

"We don't gather weapons, plan extreme operation, and risk our lives for nothing. This is real."

So even if the guy isn't a terrorist, he is spectacularly foolish, why would anyone expect to write this and be ignored. It is a testament to his coddled spoiled existence that he thinks that this is acceptable behaviour.

He doesn't need protected from the FBI, we need protected from him. He's a NUT, with aspirations to acts of extreme violence, including grandiose fantasies of using weapons of mass destruction against governments. I don't care if he meant what he said, I don't need to waste time worrying about it, if someone says this kind of crazy thing they should go to one of two places, jail or the nut house. I don't care which, but this isn't about speach, it's about unbridled threats of violence.

Re:You're missing the critical point.

[NonSequor]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This basically says that the purpose of the United States government is to protect it's citizens.

When this twit decided to make bomb-making instructions available to anyone, regardless of how irresponsible they are, he was just trying to find someone else to blow up public buildings because he was too afraid to. Allowing people to do this in no way "promotes the general welfare." It only increases the likelihood of innocents being killed.

Lets look at it this way...

[rworne]

Shortly before an economic summit in NYC, the Feds raid an anarchist's website and home.

Said anarchist is unfazed and travels to NYC anyway and gets nabbed.

Summit is now over with no real "incidents". Suddenly, the FBI is all sorry for the inconvenience. (but good luck getting your computers, papers, car, and other misc. property back).

So what we have here are possibly pre-emptive raids by the Feds. Possibly to shut him up and intimidate him. I would not be suprised if this happens again to someone else when some more corporate/government bigwigs try to pow-wow in another American city.