Slashdot Mirror
Linking Dangerously
indole writes "Some /.'ers might remember the story of Sherman Austin, a Californina native who created the "anarchy" website raisethefist.com. Besides posting links to bomb-making instructions, the site caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Well, approximately 18 months later Sherman Austin, now age 20, has been sentenced to 1 year in federal prison. According to Austin, 'he took a plea bargain because he feared his case was eligible for a terrorism enhancement, which could have added 20 years to his sentence.' Doubleplusungood."
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.Raisethefi st.com
The internet archive has the site archived from many dates over the past several years.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Yup. The plea agreement is that the defendant will plead guilty to charge X, and (usually) the DA will recommend a particular sentence, or drop other charges. The judge has the final discretion, and he can (albeit rarely) overrule the plea agreement if he feels that it was unreasonable. In an extreme case, if a DA made a deal with a mass murderer where the murderer would serve 5 days for 100 murders, the judge could reject the deal and assign a different penalty. By the same token, the judge could reject a plea deal that carried a 50 year sentence for a jaywalking conviction. In this case, though, there doesn't really seem to be any reason for the judge to reject the deal.
Actually, it's NOT BS. If you look at all the OTHER issues in his case, convieniently listed here and here. His crime was NOT linking sites, but hacking other sites. The addition of "explosives" issues and call to action to use those links is akin to inciting to riot. The Feds had him cold, and he copped a plea. What's the big deal here ?
Four minutes after posting 10 replies are crying that the government has violated his first amendment rights... let's not forget that the dumbass cracked into several sites (including the army), defaced them, inserted nasty little cgi scripts and happily posted DoS tools. On top of all this he admitted that he did all this. He even said, "If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think..." The moron got what he wanted. They're sending him away on his actions, not what he thinks.
As for the scare bit about "an extra 20 years for the terrorism..." that's a troll for getting the story picked up. Even if he had gone to trial, the extra 20 years isn't a mandatory thing - it's a maximum sentence of up to 20 years. In the end he probably would have ended up in the same spot or gotten an extra year. I can't belive this is even worth digging up again, but hey, it's a slow newsday.
But the word "peaceably" is not attached to the right to free speech or press. It is only attached to the right for the people to peaceably assmble (ie, it's ok to stand outside Congress and protest something, but not ok to start a riot over it).
You could argue that the "you can't shout fire in a crowded theather" refinement the Supreme Court has added would also cover bomb making instructions, but I disagree. You can't shout fire because it would cause direct damage to people (stampeed). But knowing how to make a bomb and posessing instructions on how to make a bomb and even sharing those instructions/knowledge does not cause direct damage to other people. A person would have to choose to make that bomb and then use it to hurt others. Let me highlight that special word: choose. Having knowledge or sharing it is not the same as hurting someone directly.
Space for rent, inquire within
the site caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers on this nation, had to say about the subject.
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787.
" . . . forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William Stephens Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
Warning: IANAL.
First take a look at the search warrant issued against the home of Austin.
What we see here is that he's being suspected of breaking two specific laws.
18 USC 1030 - Computer Fraud
Austin is charged under this because he was suspected of being responsible for several defacements which are detailed in the warrant. Looking at what's in the warrant there seems to be more than enough evidence to support this charge.
18 USC 842(p)(2) - Unlawful Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, etc...
In the search warrant are several quotes from raisethefist.com in which information about explosives is provided along side some comments that encourage this knowledge be used against police officers.
Here's the exact quote from 18 USC 842 (p)(2)(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;
Clearly what Austin did, provide information about explosives within the context of causing harm to others with said knowledge, falls under this law.
From the information that I have available it seems very apparent that Austin did commit crimes under current US law.
Now had Austin removed suggestions for use of this bomb making knowledge and just presented it in a separate, straight-forward format, he could not be charged under 18 USC 842.
However, he still defaced some sites and thus is still in violation of 18 USC 1030.
Remember, IANAL, but this seems pretty straightforward to me. No freedom of speech issue here.
Naturally, raisethefist.com is pretty much devoid of content now. Fortunately for thos of us who like to know firsthand what the news is about, the Internet Archive has several backups of the site and what it's about.
"Austin was arrested with other protesters at the World Economic Forum in New York in February 2002 on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. "
WTF are you talking about? Oh yeah, you didn't RTFA. [snip] He wasn't just preaching.. he was practicing what he preached. Therefore, he posed a REAL threat, not a virtual one.
It has become increasingly difficult to practice our freedom of peaceful protest, so don't be so quick to write this guy off as a "real threat".
I was at the WEF protest in NYC, too. Cops were turning some people away from the protest, pinning other people behind barricades and not letting them leave the protest, packing hundreds into some pens while leaving other pens with only a handful of people. Numerous people who disagreed were arrested. One cop nearly pushed me over when he hit me in the back with his club when I stopped to ask another cop for directions (politely) as we were leaving. . .
Google on Sherman Austin and Hacking
Pick your own site.
"According to the FBI, Austin allegedly defaced at least five commercial Web sites since 1999 using the nickname "Ucaun." On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated."
"Austin has also admitted to hacking into a number of websites to post anti-government messages."
For those claiming this is a free speech issue alone, last I checked freedom of speech didn't include freedom of breaking and entering someone else's computer system in order to speak from their platform.
No Zen is good zen
France, Germany and the Soviet Union also played nice with Iraq, actually the three of them had closer ties than the US did.
The United States backed Iran through the 1970s, then Saddam took over at about the same time the Iranian Revolution happened so the United States started to back Iraq to keep them from falling to the Iranians. The whole goal of the West and Soviets in the Middle East at this time to keep no one from winning the upper hand.
The vast amounts of Soviet and French equipment being poured into Iraq shifted the balance of power and the Iranians/Americans/Israelis and rouge Saudis cut deals to get new Hawk-I missiles and parts for the Iranian UH-1s and F-4 operating then both the Iranians and Iraqis start attacking tankers.
When the Iraqis gased the Kurds there were two little things going on that limited a Western response to the gassing. The Cold War, Iraq is kind of close geographically to the Soviet Union and I'm sure B-52s and F-15s over Tikrit wouldn't fly in Moscow. And there was the Iran-Iraq war coupled with the fact that the Turks don't like the Kurds and they were an important part of the Southern Front NATO had to the Warsaw Pact. In short in the late 1980s international pressures and the Cold War paradigm kept anyone from acting out.
Now the United States and the West does have some dealings with the Iraqis in dual-use chemicals and technologies, but shit, if you ship someone the instructions on how to make Prussian Blue dye you are giving them the ability to make Zyklon-B poison gas. You sell someone some packing peanuts and gasoline and they can make napalm.
You know that in the 1950s the US and French were shipping nuclear reactors all over along with big tomes of stuff like "Atoms for Peace" is what gave Iraq and Pakistan the seed for thier nuclear programs?
GWB has used the phrase "with us or against us" several times.
Q Mr. President, does it appear that Iran is flexing its muscles in Western Afghanistan, and does that threaten the U.S. war on terrorism in that region?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror; that our nation and our fight against terror will uphold the doctrine, either you're with us or against us; and any nation that thwarts our ability to rout terror out where it exists will be held to account, one way or the other.
Source - vote-smart.org presidential speeches pageFirst, if you're ever arrested and read your rights, the person reading them will conclude with something like "Do you understand these rights as I have read them?" The correct answer to this is always, "No, I don't." This isn't being facetious either -- without a background in law and how the exercise (or not) of those rights will affect your legal position, you are in no way capable of understanding the full ramifications.
Secondly, if you're ever in a position where you're being interrogated, the answer to any question is always, "I want my lawyer." Never, under any circumstances, agree to anything unless you have first spoken to your lawyer. Oh, and here's a freebie... even if you have 25 heavily armed agents in riot gear storming your house, remember this piece of advice: right after you shit your pants, always ask to see their search warrant. No warrant, and they'll need to take that double-barrel shotgun elsewhere, thank you very much.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.