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

Is this a Michael story?

[legoboy]

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?

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?

What petroleum products, specifically?

[Tackhead]

> THE COURT: Were there completed Molotov cocktails found?
>
>12 MR. HOU: There were two Molotov cocktails that were in various states of finality. There was one which actually had the wick in it, I understand, from the FBI agent, and it was tested. The materials were tested to determine what was inside, and it was later determined -- the FBI determined that it did contain petroleum products.

Note that they don't specify which petroleum products were used.

With a name like "raisethefist", it could have been "petroleum jelly". Exactly what that petroleum product would be doing on a bottle is left as an exercise for the goatse.cx guy.

So he (ahem :) got off. He's still a skr1pt k1dd13. A lucky skr1pt k1dd13, probably the luckiest skr1pt k1dd13 on the planet, and a hell of a lot luckier than he has any right to be. But a skr1pt k1dd13 nonetheless.

Why this again?

[chrisw15]

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.

Cry me a river...

[nesneros]

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.

May I suggest

[SamBeckett]

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.

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...

Re:Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

[Henry V .009]

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

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.

Evidence of government incompetence

[pyramid termite]

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.

You're missing the critical point.

[kikta]

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.

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.

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:Uh...

[poemofatic]

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.

law against spectacular foolishness

[abe ferlman]

I wonder if you could point me to that portion of the U.S. Code? Then we'd finally have a way to unseat that idiot from Texas!