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."
Wilson said he also may not associate with anyone from a group that "espouses physical force as a means of change."
does that include the US government?
key word being "peaceably";
"links to bomb-making instructions, the site
caught the ire of the FBI for advocating the
overthrow of the U.S. government"
Last I checked...bombs weren't peaceful.
Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality
As I recall, this individual wasn't prosecuted for what he said. It was because he was trying to break into military computers. What did he expect to happen?
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Sherman said it in his narrative on the site:
"Remember, fascism and a police state doesn't come all at once, it comes piece by piece. How far will we allow it go until we are all locked up in concentration camps."
The government has basically forbid this guy from criticizing the system. I hope that this sends a message to everyone in the same situation to not plead down, and to raise as much hell as possible.
Why is it, that when someone describes in layman terms some basic exothermic chemistry, they are public enemy number 1? Should we hang the acedemics for teaching this chemistry? I am concerned about the wider scale of such generalized concepts in which people are categorized as criminals for learning and retaining knowledge that makes other's feel threatened. From cell phone cloning, to virus generation, to installing NOS on a car, and flying a non FAA Wright Flyer replica. People are increasingly punished for creativity, when they should be punished only for the dangerous and harmful actions they commit. I do not care that I was hit with a rock tied to a stick (tomohawk)only that I was attacked and hit in the first place.
The guy pleaded out for fear of an additional 19 years in the Pen. So the FBI gets their conviction, because of terrorism leverage.
Meanwhile, here in San Diego, enviro freaks burned down a $20 million condo project, and the owner is not going to get insurance because the policy didn't cover "terrorism." Probably 400 people out of work.
When gov't or anyone for that matter plays the terrorism card to its advantage, we ALL lose.
As long as you speak the new speak and waive your flag.
... like the guys who put up the websites with a hit list for abortion doctors and celebrating everytime someone nuked one of them?
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Inciting people into a violent revolt that thretens the stability of the entire society is not responsible.
Nor is inciting people into a passive complacency that threatens the stability of the entire society. Sometimes you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, especially if the little runt is a Hitler-baby.
But the US isn't European. It broke away from that through a violent overthrow of the current (European) government. The 1st amendment was put there because the people who wrote it knew that systems get stale and governments get corrupt. It's there specifically to protect the ability to criticise the government. While I don't personally advocate the overthrow of the whole system, I'm in favor of electing someone else to run the country right now. If enough people feel oppressed enough, they should be able to advocate that revolution. Meanwhile, this is the kind of oppression that does lead to a revolution.
I call troll...
Europe has been home of dozens of violent revolutions over the years. Just talk to the French to start with. You can move on to other countries when you are done there.
What is the end result of these revolutions? Social progress. The eventual overthrow of tyrants and the establishment of democracy has generally improved the quality of life.
Yes, people die during violent revolutions. People are jailed. In the long run, though, if enough people believe that a violent overthrow of the government is called for, it almost always means that the people will be better off after the revolution.
The U.S.'s freedom of speech was set up to allow all degrees of discussion, from political commercials to lobbying to advertising to calling for a violent revolution to overthrow the government.
Remember - the same people that wrote the First Amendment just got done with a violent revolution.
This does not mean that the government should stand idly by while people violently revolt. The government has a responsibility for self-preservation. However, talking about a violent overthrow should be completely allowed.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
I would find it disturbing if this guy was arrested for posting the information himself. Regardless of the information posted, he hasn't actually committed a crime, nor from what I understand was he in a position encouraging others to perform violent acts. I'll draw a parallel to the likes of the Ku Klux Klan - what they believe and stand for is reprehensible, and they most likely discuss desires to physically harm others of racial minority status. However, talking and doing are two different things. There's a distinction between having a violent impulse and acting on it. If the government launches pre-emptive strikes on our freedom of speech in order to prevent future crimes, they have effectively set a precendent for the erosion of personal freedoms and liberties; once the rust has an 'in', it's only a matter of time before it consumes the body of its host in its entirety. Now, without a doubt, such pre-emptive strikes do indeed prevent crimes and save lives. It comes down to a choice of the society we wish to live in. Would one rather exist in a country where the government keeps a tight fist on all of our actions and communications, secure in the knowledge that violence has been reduced to near-non-existant levels? Or does one value freedom over life and live in a country where occasional acts of violence occur, but the dissemination of information and unhindered distribution of ideas reign free? In this age of the Ashcrofts and Patriot Acts, our historic battle cry of 'Give me Liberty or give me Death' seems to have already rusted away.
I invite you to read that page.
Here's a quote that defines just how many of your rights have been looted from under your ignorant feet
Fourth Amendment? Who needs it, certainly not the helpful Government. They'll never abuse this power, only use it to fight Terrorists! Oh, and Drugs! Oh, and they'll use it to Save The Children!
So you think that a Disorderly Conduct and Unlawful assembly charge warrants a ONE YEAR sentence?
Do you believe that the US WEF protesters were trying to commit sedition?
There is a huge difference between opposing certain policies of a government and attempting to overthrow it. ( A ridiculous possibility in the case of the US ).
That's a very valid point, but I think everyone has to admit that there is a slippery slope for freedom of speech. Our country has a tradition of civil disobdience, and it wasn't all peaceful. I'm wary of any government which is so worried about being overthrown. Earning the respect of the majority of citizens is the way to stay in power, not locking people up for distributing already widely available information.
It's pseudofascist morons like you that are ruining this country, not the kid in his basement. So, I must ask you, if you don't like the laws of this country, such as the first ammendment, why don't you move to a country that has a legal system more to your liking? I hear that Iran doesn't allow any of that pesky questioning of authority, I'm sure you'd fit right in.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Snuffing out pension funds are more than compensated by campaign contributions, in addition to handsomely paid do-nothing retirement consultancy postitions.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
It's all about context. He didn't say "here's how to make bombs, if you're interested", he said "let's overthrow the government, and a good way to do that is if you make your own bombs! Click here!"
I don't see how that isn't protected speech. Lets be clear here. He wasn't plotting with particular individuals to carry out an act of terror or violence. He was saying that this goverment sucks and should be overthrown -- by violent needs if necessary. And should anyone think that's a good idea, then here's some information on how you can forward those aims.
Now I don't think what he's proposing is a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a liberal democrat by persuasion, not a revolutionary anarchist. But the one thing I'd always admired about the USA was the way that political free speech is protected by the constitution and if anything counts as political speech, this guy's website does.
The effect is that he's not providing the information out of general interest but he's intending that the information be used to create tools overthrow the government. Big difference there.
Perhaps that's true, but it isn't a difference that I thought was prohibited by law. Americans in this forum often go on about how you need the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. This case makes it pretty clear that even if you actually *had* a tyrannical government, the right to bear arms would be somewhat pointless because the ability to discuss with others the need to use them would render you liable to arrest and imprisonment.
First of all, speech advocating "regime change" is obviously political speech, whatever else you may say about it. Second, the courts have been clear that "incitement to violence" is a pretty high standard; they have made the distinction between advocating violence and instigating it, or between abstract doctrine vs. action. The Supreme Court has said pretty clearly that the danger that is created by the speech has to be likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace. It is hard to see how a website could do that, no matter what it advocates. This case is a clear violation of the first amendment protection of political speech through intimidation of the defendant.
This kid was demonstrating illegally (not a big deal), and it turned out he was wanted by the FBI for his website (still probably not too big a deal). The kicker came when they searched his parent's house and found bomb making materials.
Once you start caching explosives, the equation changes somewhat.
Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus were all a) right :), and b) decidedly non-violent. This kid was a crackpot, pure and simple.
Disorderly conduct or unlawful assembly are not felonies.
.sig in here now, I could be arrested and convicted to 20 years in prison]
He was convicted for a felony.
Nothing I read in the CNN article said he was convicted for anything else but providing links to sites that, among other things, had bomb making instructions.
The CNN article did NOT say he was advocating the use of bombs against the federal government.
Now, in typical hack-journo way, the CNN article might have failed to mention all the facts about this case, but if I have to go with the information provided by the CNN article, he was convicted of expressing unpopular thought.
There's probably more to the story, but if you RTFA, as you instruct, one can only assume John Asscroft is yet again managed to stiffle the freedom of speech in the name of national security.
[I will resist the temptation of putting my usual
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
In case you don't realise, this is where the police make up some plausible sounding stuff, go to a friendly judge and get him to rubber stamp it. Then they execute the warrant in an attempt to find some real evidense that will stand up in an actual court. In this case despite removing all the computers, books, and documents in his house they found nothing. Which is why he wasn't immediately charged with anything. In the end they were forced to fall back on the linking to information on explosives (18 USC 842) and scare him with threats of 20 years in jail into pleading so they never had to present any evidense at all. He has only been convicted under 18 USC 842 and therefore I think we can safely assume that the computer fraud stuff was just something they used to pad out their search warrant with. This is purely an issue of free speach (linking to information the US government doesn't like) since that is the only thing he has been convicted of.
You're right that not all civil disobedience was peaceful. Its also true that there was a great deal of civil disobedience that was very noble in aim. There was also a great deal more that was, in the parlance of our Pres, evil.
In most parts of the country it is now illegal to burn a cross. This is because in most cases the burning cross was effectively a death threat. It was speech, and might even be considered protected political speech under some circumstances, but it is also intended to dissuade people from excercising their rights through acts or threats of physical harm.
I have not read his website, but most descriptions in the articles listed here seem to indicate he was advocating the overthrow of the US government, and linking to bomb-making instructions. This could easily be interpreted as exhorting people to plant bombs to disrupt, what? Elections? Courts? I vote in a predominantly Republican area. If his friends, or some ELF or ALF types want to discourage people from voting GOP, would they set off a bomb in my precinct? (probably not, becuase mine is not nearly high-enough income to attract their attention, but its a useful thought experiment)
His motives are 'populist' and 'left-wing' and may be aligned with the motives of many here, but his actions are very similar to those of the folks out in western North Carolina who have just recently had to take down their 'Run Eric Run' signs from their front yards. He's not Eric Rudolph, but his actions are only different from some of Eric's supporters if you think along the lines of 'its OK for US, but not for THEM.'
This guy is in one of those nasty little gray areas that make public policy a difficult thing, but I do think its a bit easier to make these distinctions when you realize that 'those harmless kids who want to make the world a better place' are not so different from 'those neanderthal right-wing reactionary muther-f*$kers'. They use a lot of the same rhetoric that this guy uses. Just the book their quoting to justify their actions has a black cover, not a red one.
Remember, I'm not calling this guy Eric Rudolph. And certainly he shouldn't be given a 20 year terrorist sentence - indeed I think the judge was wrong for superceding the prosecutor's recomendation of 4 months. However, this guy was real close to the boundary between harmless and horrific.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
It is not against the law in the U.S. to advocate the overthrow of the government. REPEAT: It is not against the law in the U.S. to advocate the overthrow of the government.
And what exactly is wrong with violent overthrow of the government? Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be regularly watered by the blood of patriots." (to paraphrase) It is the tendency of government to become entrenched and intractable to the point where only violent revolution can make a difference. The USA was a "great experiment" to construct a series of rules (a constitution) that would hopefully prevent the need for violent revolution. Whether you count this experiment as a success or failure, I don't see how in good conscience you can forbid someone to advocate a solution to a problem they percieve.
Why for instance is it ok for GWB to advocate, and actually accomplish the overthrow of an atrocious government that he is not even a citizen of, whereas this fellow cannot even speak what is in his mind the only solution to repair the very government he lives it? The gov't must not have a monopoly on violence. Of all the groups, politicians are the least worthy to handle it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
(5) he cannot associate with any person or group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.)
That to me sounds like they're encroaching on rights to freedom of political expression, without fear of reprisal by those in power (going back to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).
It's in the same ballpark as some corrupt african states where people either support the government, live as a political exile or face the prospect of being torured and/or killed.
Ok, so nobody is being tortured or killed in the USA (that's what happens in Cuba at Guantanamo, and a whole other kettle of fish), but this man's right to change the government should still be respected. We all have that right, whether we know it or not, we get to vote in another government if the current one makes a right pig's ear of the job.
The right to political activism and peaceful protest should be a given in any country that truly deems itself "free".
I am NaN
Lets say, a few months ago, you were on one of those trams at an international airport, and you see some guy standing close to you who happened to look Oriental (or is the PC term Asian?), with luggage tags from Beijing on his luggage. This guy is coughing up a storm and not caring about who's around him. Would you suspect him of having SARS or would that be "racist"?
No, I wouldn't, because I would think logically and realize that SARS, even at its peak, was several hundred or thousand times less common than the common cold in Asia. It's called the "common cold" for a reason. The same reason why SARS was not called "common SARS".
You see two Middle-eastern fellows with a rented U-haul truck pulling up to a farming store and buying dozens of bags of fertilizer. Would you call the FBI, or would that be "racist"?
Why would I call the FBI? Two brown guys buying fertilizer, as well as having easy access to fertilizer, is a daily occurrence. The vast majority of the lawn care guys in my entire state are either dark Hispanics (usually Mexicans), Arabs (which, from my perspective, look a lot like dark Hispanics), or some other form of immigrant trying to find cheap work to support their families. Do you call the FBI every time you see a Middle Eastern man at a gas station, because he has access to large amounts of flammable materials that could be used to set fires all over town? I hope not.
SARS and terrorism are both very rare things that don't happen nearly as often as an Asian man having a cold or a Arab buying some fertilizer. Only through the eyes of media hype, racism, or stupidity does a man buying some fertilizer become an act of terrorism. I also find it somewhat suspect that you assume that two Middle-Eastern men buying dozens of bags of fertilizer is suspect, since the last man to commit a terrorist act in the United States using fertilizer was Timothy McVeigh, a white man who was assisted by other whites. Should we worry whenever ANYONE buys fertilizer, or just calm down and understand that ordinary occurrences like people buying fertilizer don't suddenly become abnormal or terroristic acts just because of September 11th?
Nowadays, everyone is so worried about political correctness and not hurting anyones feelings that they are putting themselves and their country in danger. Teachers are being told what words they can and cannot say because they might "offend" someone.
Instead of being told not to say it, did you ever consider that maybe they just think differently from you? I know that some people would like to think that they're in some sort of oppressed, secret majority that thinks that racism is alright and that the racist answer is always a more logical one than an Asian man just having a cold, but a lot of us really don't think that way. We don't jump to race as the first answer, and instead of not wanting to offend anybody by saying it, we just don't even think about it in the first place.