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."
No this the problem of the pseudo-patriotism that we have seen in the USA for the past few years. Is the "Patriot Act" really that patriotic?
I'm worried for a friend of mine who runs an informative site on Arab nations. It seems that excersise of First Amendment rights puts a big bullseye for Patriot Act and all sorts of unnecessary national defense matters.
(maybe i should have posted as anon. coward...!)
Sure, there must be a freedom of speech, but with freedom comes also responsibility. That's what you people over there seem to have forgotten. Inciting people into a violent revolt that thretens the stability of the entire society is not responsible. Talk like this should be dealt harshly with.
Glad to see the REAL criminals being put where they belong, hey aren't ALL the Enron executives still free?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
This to me is just scary. Yes he was giving instructions on how to make chemical reactions work. Whoopdeedo! We live in America, and in the america i grew up in we don't censor information from the public. And he wasn't realyl even giving instructions - he never (AFAIK) disseminated the information, he just linked to it. It's like being arressted for telling people that you KNOW how to make bombs....
But the most scary thing of all is this qoute from this website: "(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.), "
How can the courts do that? This guy has rights that cannot under any circumstances be taken away. Part of those rights are freedom of speech - expecially political freedom of speech - and policital freedom of speech again AFAIK is only when you want to try to change the government somehow.
This guy got shafted by a horrible judge who shouldn't be allowed to work. If i were president, or governer i would pardon this man becuase he doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for such a simple thing as disseminating information.
As a highschooler what am I to think growing up? Do we really have our Bill of Rights anymore? Every day i see more news about parts of it being chipped away - of course all in the name of protecting the country from terrorism. (since free speech, habius corpus, etc are an evil evil thing... ) BULLSHIT!
This is the problem with censorship.
No, your comment is bullshit. You think freedom-of-speech allows you to say whatever you want, but that's untrue, fortunately. If I write a document about how to kill the president, then that's not within the freedom-of-speech. Your freedom ends, when you danger another one's. Or else, it would be *very* hard to silence neo-nazi's and such, just because what they do is spreading their word (of freedom). So, be happy we've got limits for freedom-of-speech.
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?
Advocating change through violence - bad.
But this kid didn't just advocate change through violence, he also cr4x0r3d websites, which is how he got himself caught.
Advocating change through violence and being a skr1pt k1ddi3 - bad and stupid.
For once, I say good on the FBI for nailing the twerp. At least one skr1pt k1dd13 will finally find a whole new meaning to the term "raise the fist".
(Now if only I were sure that a certain executive of a certain Stupid Corporate Operation was gonna end up the same way, this woulda be a perfect day ;)
The federal government no longer believes in the "pesky" first ammendment any more. I'm surprised Ashcroft hasn't called for it to be repealed yet.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Any other opinions that you think should be illegal? Perhaps anyone who advocates breaking Microsoft up? Or SCO's assertion that Linux includes their IP?
Or is it just people who verbally advocate murder that you'd jail? Like, say, anyone who says we should kill Saddam Houssein if we find him?
Please post a complete list of the opinions that you believe it should be illegal to express.
Cheers
-b
I think simply advocating the overthowing of the government is under free speech. And if that was all, then I'd be greatly offended at this act. However, if you're advocating the overthrow of a government AND posting links about how to make bombs, then that's another matter. Then you're saying "Let's overthrow the goverment and kill people, here's how...!" Sure, the author might not have been saying "let's blow up a bunch of congressman's houses), but people could have taken it that way. Enciting violence is iffy, but enciting violence and purposely providing the means to do such violence (such as handing out guns or describing how to make bombs to kill people) is another matter.
I beleive his website was advocating violent action against innocent people.
He was also a violent protestor, and that was what he was originally arrested for.
If his site said "Kill all racial group X" and linked to pages telling people how to make and deliver bombs, I'd want it shut down and the owner in jail, too.
I wouldn't. People can spout of everything they want to. If someone uses the knowledge from him, he should be tried as an acomplice and also part of conspiracy to commit a crime.
This kid is a dumbass suburbanite whose parents didn't love him enough so he rebelled against the gubbmint. If we're going to rally behind someone whose rights are trampled on, lets pick a better candidate.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I don't know if anyone else picked up on this, but one thing that is mentioned by CNN is that the sentence given was actually more than the prosecution recommended. I don't want to read into it too much, but I do find it interesting.
No, because they don't espouse. They merely apply. Besides, they only attack windmills - sorry, typo, that should be "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Any change that coincidently occurs is purely, well, coincidental. Besides, if the US gets it wrong, it's all the fault of the [British|French|Germans|Russians]. (Delete as appropriate, but remember to blame Poindexter afterwards.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
isn't the word "peaceably" referring to the type of assembly?
And... it is saying you can gather in a group to address your government... it doesn't have to be one-on-one.
As long as the assembly is peaceful.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
People seem to like to quote the Bill of Rights, but none of the ammendments added since. The Bill of Rights is not a noose. Our country's founders knew they could not foresee every possible need of this country in the future. Our laws may not be perfect, but they are there for our protection.
People who promote violence against the innocent as a means of freedom are nothing more than disturbers of the peace who deserve their punishments.
I support anyone's right to complain about our government and call for change, but not the promotion of fear and violence.
Hell no! If you want to silence neo-nazis, who else do you want to silence? If I write a document about how to kill the president, who's to say that I don't want to improve the security system? That's some of what's wrong with the DMCA (I want to improve security, not break copyright law). I agree that harassment is not protected speech, but that's because it is actually a crime that hurts people. If this is the kind of limit we have for freedom of speech, then it really is time for a revolution.
Ahh, a fine tradition. Our Founding Fathers, the guys we're supposed to be so in love with and who supposedly knew so much about liberty, passed the Sedition act in 1798.
I can't remember the name, but I think there was another act prohibiting advocating the violent overthrow of the government passed during the Red Scare, around 1917.
The Patriot Act is only the latest iteration of this.
If he wants to argue against the government, fine. I agree with him there -- our government is pretty fucked up. Stealing from the people under the euphemism of taxes and inflation is wrong. If he wants to link to pages on making bombs, fine, so long as he does not actively encourage people to kill others (it is illegal to try to persuade others to take illegal action, or to incite a riot).
However, this guy did quite a bit more than that. He hacked into people's computers. He hacked into military computers. This constitutes a clear and obvious case of what is analagous to tresspassing -- violating another person's property (in the case of the military computers, violating the property of the US taxpayers).
This guy is clearly a danger to those around him. If he doesn't like some government policy, or the governmnet itself, fine. He can criticize as harshly as he wants. However, unless his rights are directly threatened, he can't take up force. What if this nutcase reads something one of you wrote, and decide that he doesn't like what you believe in, or doesn't like you, so that -- he thinks -- gives him the right to hack into your computer and fuck up your data?
So, why exactly is it that we're supposed to feel sorry for this guy? Maybe the punishment is a little out of line with the crime. 4 months in prison was recommended; the judge gave 1 year. But justice is an inherently subjective, not objective, matter. Trying to nail down the "just" sentence to within a couple of months -- or maybe even years, in the case of more severe crimes -- is a matter of art, not science.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Why is it that CNN wouldn't ever show pictures of the injured of 9/11, yet as soon as theres a blown-apart Iraqi kid, it's all over the place?
Maybe I am missing something, but what does that have to do with the left wing?
Oh, I forgot, CNN has a terrible left leaning bias, is that it? It was really easy for me to forget that they were on the left while they were cheerleading for the war in Iraq. If CNN was really left leaning, they would have spent the entire time talking about why what we were doing was wrong.
CNN did show pictures of the injured after 9/11, and they were no where near anti-war.
Cry about the media bias all you want, It will not convince me that it exists until I find the things that they are saying to be to liberal more often than once a month.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Well, oddly enough, he WAS arrested for being involved in a violent protest. On top of that:
He specifically admitted that his purpose for posting the links was a VIOLENT one. Inciting others to riot is an offense any way you look at it...
All that being said, the whole debate about legality, free speech, civil rights, etc. is a moot point - the 'gentleman' in question VOLUNTARILY gave up his right to a trial and plead guilty, so none of those questions could ever be addressed in a court of law. The punishment is based on what he plead guilty to, not the legitimacy of the charges. What did you expect the judge to do, force him in to a trial?
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
His speech was deemed harmful, something we haven't had the right to (and shouldn't!) before. To say something just to hurt someone is the same as hurting them.
... it may well turn out that supporting Bush's foreign policies will have been to support policies that result in far more American deaths than Al Q'aeda could ever achieve in its most ambitious dreams. Just think of the potential consiquences of his failures in North Korea and Iran, or the possible consiquences of a regime change in Pakistan.
Nonsense. Until fairly recently Americans did have the right to speech, harmful or otherwise. The 'fire in the theater' decision did not preclude, nor was it intended to preclude, discussions on setting fire to a crowded theater, or even discussions on how to orchastrate the event for maximum entertainment to bystanders (perhaps by playing a flute?), but to address a particular, very narrowly defined, immediate cause of immediate harm.
Attempting to extend that narrow (and at the time very contraversial) exception to include any speech that might, possibly, incite harm at some point in the future (as has been done here) is not just exceptionally harmful to freedom of speech in general and political discussion and dissent in particular, but absolutely lethal.
Are you engaging in harmful speech when you come out in support of Al Q'aeda?
Are you engaging in harmful speech when you support president Bush's foreign policies?
Don't be too sure about the answer to either of those
Ban 'harmful speech' and you will have essentially banned any and all speech, at the whim of whoever happens to be wielding authority at that point in time. Regardless of who that is (Bush, Chaney, or Howard Dean) you will have completely gutted the freedom the first amendment was intended to protect, in a way that will probably require 'harmful' actions in order to restore (if restoration is ever even a possibility).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"Why is it that CNN wouldn't ever show pictures of the injured of 9/11, yet as soon as theres a blown-apart Iraqi kid, it's all over the place?"
Perhaps because the average american gets physically ill when seeing another dead american, while watching children dying in some part of the world that they can't even point to on a globe is seen as a better version of Survivor(tm)?
...But, tellingly, he was only indicted on the count of sharing information on the construction of incendiaries.
Do you really think that, had they had *real* evidence to link Sherman to some of the other crimes he's been accused of here (vandalising websites, trying to incite racial violence, hacking military computers, etc etc), that the FBI and prosecutors would have only been recommending 4 months in prison, especially in the current political atmosphere? Doubtful, highly doubtful. I've read the complete sentencing recommendation information - if half of what they *thought* he *might* have done had been remotely provable, they would not have accepted a plea bargain.
Its also extremely easy to be charged with "disorderly conduct and failure to disperse" when you're at a political protest, whether you are committing a violent act or merely exercising your *right* to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. It happens all the time, and not just to "unwashed anarchists".
I have to admit, I'm biased - I'm a friend of Sherman's and know him to be not a frothing violent-tendencied lunatic, but one of the most gentle people I've ever known, who advocates self-defense against an increasingly-oppressive government. Considering his beginnings as a political activist (getting shot with rubber-coated steel shot while filming a MayDay parade turned police vs. civilian riot), I can't blame him.
No, I do not advocate violent overthrow of the state. My anarchism is simple idealism, a hope for utopia tempered with the knowledge that utopia means "no place" in Greek. But still - a girl can dream, right?
eventually result in laws requiring babies being surgicaly modified with helmets pre-attached and sheathed with bubble-wrap.
Getting there - The effectiveness of wearing pedestrian helmet while walking from home to school in elementary school children
I can understand why someone who has demonstrated a willingness to abuse weapons (I guess that would be abuse people with weapons) should be denied from having them, but I've never understand why they should be denied a vote. It seems like the right to vote should be one of those "fundamental" rights that cannot be denied to anyone.
To me, being able to deny law-breakers the right to vote seems like a perfect way to disenfranchise a big chunk of the lower "class" of society. You don't want someone to have a voice? Define sets of laws that it is almost impossible for them NOT to break, then take away their right to vote. Justify it as punishing "bad" people.
Why not let convicts vote? If society is healthy, then there shouldn't be too many convicts, and their votes won't make a bit of difference in the first place. If there _are_ so many convicts that their votes regularly make a difference in voting results - well, that indicates more of a problem with society's legal system rather than an "unexplained rash of criminal activity". Requiring that convicts be allowed to vote would provide a form of electoral feedback which would keep legislators from passing ever-restrictive legislation which only benefits a smaller & more well-off part of the society.
I think the issue here is the link to bomb making instructions. After all, that is what he is being grilled about. Now I'm all for free speech and everything, and perhaps this judgment is a bit too extreme.
However, there is something to be said about responsibility with freedom. Perhaps it would be better to illustrate this point to Sherman by setting up a website dedicated to free speech and his life.
What better way to express responsibility and power then to have a 'harmless' website that gives 'harmless' instructions of when Sherman is home or not, what kind of locks and how secure his home is, documented instructions and pictures of where he goes, perhaps through the site of a targeting telescope. 'Instructions' on how easy it would be to anonymously 'pick' him off, steal his stuff, determine the maximum distance between he and EMS/Police services, etc. etc.
Privacy rights? Screw that, its all about free speech baby...Freedom!
That's a biblical reference. A quote from Jesus in one of the synoptic gospels. There is a related quote that goes a little something like this: "If they are not against us, then they are for us."
Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
This thing is reductible to a few simple points:
1. With few exceptions, all information (speech) is licit under our constitution--including things that would let you blow stuff up or overthrow the government.
2. So long as you do not get together with other and plan to *perform* a set of *actions* like assassinating someone at a given place at a certain time, you can talk about overthrowing the government to your heart's content.
3. Our notion of government is one where the people and the nation are in some sense the property of a ruling body; the ruling body serves the people and not vice versa.
In a population with a diversity of ideas, there will always be a number of people who will want not reform but revolution, and it is one of the functions of government to keep their numbers low by providing a free and prosperous society that is immune to revolutionaries because there are no viable, convincing arguments for a grass-roots revolution in such a society.
With this in mind, what the government did is like a crime against nature and it shows a sickening lack of understanding. In most cases, a few years of working a decent job and getting laid semi-regularly beats the anarchy right out of young men, instead, the government's activist stance here works to demonstrate that the kid's Anarchist, revolutionary philosophy is spot-on correct.
It says that our government can and does punish the dissemination of information it dislikes (mis-)using anti-terror laws to suppress free speech just like every modern dictatorship, from Hitler's Germany to the People's Republic of China. The only difference is one of extent--the placement of the threshold of action--and a prosecution sweetened by judicial blackmail does a lot to lesson the difference.
Another thing to consider is what it's going to do to the kid in the long run. It hard to imagine how much the kid is going to hate the system after spending what should be his sophmore year in college in a federal prison. Before, the kid wanted to talk about throwing bombs, in a year's time, maybe he'll end up wanting to do Timothy McVeigh one better.
You've gotta love it.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
I am always suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, because they are almost always used to defend radical positions. The "slippery slope" argument usually says "we can not allow these modest, sensible, and moderate restrictions to $FREEDOM, because they will surely lead to fascist, insane, extreme limitations of $FREEDOM," and is applied to gun control ("take away our rocket launchers, and our hunting rifles will be next!"), abortion ("require that abortions be performed by medical doctors, and soon nobody will be allowed to perform them!"), religion ("look, any government with the power to say that I can't perform ritual sex acts on children can turn arround and say you can't drink sacramental wine!"), and speech ("once they are done rounding up all the people trying to incite violent revolt against the government, the publishers of Reason magazine had better watch their ass!")
It is also frequently used by the big-government extremists to hold on to powers they should not have; such as with drug laws, "If we legalize marajuana, then it's just a matter of time before they will have crack cocaine in convenience stores!" environmental protection, "If the people who want to log these 200 acres are allowed to win, soon they will be strip-mining Yellowstone Park!" and again, with abortion, "if you allow abortions in cases of rape and incest, then every woman who wants an abortion will just claim she was raped, so it will be the same as allowing all abortions!" You get the idea.
My point is, you almost never hear the "slippery slope" argument applied to defend a position which can stand on it's own merits, removed from the political ideology for which it was chosen as a battleground.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Search warrants are not needed now that the 4th ammendment has been abolished, thanks to the Big Brother Act (AKA The Patriot Act)..
They can get the warrant up to THREE DAYS after the search, plenty of time to make sure they fill in the blanks with the correct information.
And they don't sign them anymore, they claim that they can not display the judges signature because of security concerns and because someone may forge it.
Yes, it's a brave new world.
Heres a few examples which spring to mind.
In my youth, I engaged in a few actions (locking myself to the houses of parliment and Malaysian airlines office) with 90% arrest chance. And yes I got arrested but not charged. Its a very different fealing being locked up for your beleif rather than for a crime or an injustice. Indeed its even empowering in a way.
This case is a little different. But I hope he will take it in the right way, with dignety. And realise that its part of the process of change. A year (six months with good behaviour) is not than long for your beleifs.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
Hypothetically, if a person performs a historical analysis of sedition, rebellion, guerilla warfare, populistic uprising, and the like, for the methods used, the effectiveness of the methods, and suggests that certain modern tools might find application based upon the findings of the analysis. And then publishes this as a guide for the defense against tyrranical governments oppressing their citizenry. Where or what threat is this sort of document to a government for by and of a people? My arguement is based in the censorship aspect of this article (not that the subject individual may have wanted to cause problems). Censorship of ideas because a government feels threatened raises fundamental questions about efficient application of laws and justice. The government whose sole task is to serve the citizens can have conflicting interests when it chooses to censor concepts from the citizens it serves. This sets up the general mode that the government is smarter than the citizens who it serves. Often such situations have in the past evolved into controlling and freedom robbing regimes the citizens regret to have created. Again, my arguement is not to justify the said individual's behavior, but to discuss the government's approach and tools. Censorship is a dangerous thing. I just ask for a vigilant citizenry.
Guys, don't forget Mike Hawash.
Anyone can pick up a chemistry book and make basic explosives. Anyone can set his mind to gaining knowledge and make bombs. Posting information on explicit bomb making is questionable, but is it really wrong?
What's next? "You were overheard talking about how a bomb is made, therefore you are arrested!"
Gotta love how all this works!
According to the following, I guess he can't associate with the President or any of the other members of his big Republican machine.
"as Wilson said he also may not associate with anyone from a group that 'espouses physical force as a means of change.'"
I guess poor Sherman will just have to leave the country and go somewhere where he has freedom of speech.
It is not just a search warrant. It is also a guilty plea. When a guilty plea is taken in federal court, the judge is required to determine that there is a factual basis for accepting the plea. The defendant is sworn in and takes the stand. The judge asks the defendant various questions to ensure that he has been competently represented by counsel, understands his rights, and understands the elements of the offense with which he has been charged.
Then, typically, the prosecutor summarizes the evidence that would be presented at trial. The judge then asks the defendant, who is still under oath, if the summary is accurate and if he committed the charged offense.
So, in this case, Sherman Austin swore, under oath, in a court of law, before a federal judge, that he not only told people how to make explosives, but that he did so either (a) intending that his "student(s)" use that information to commit one or more crimes of violence; or (b) knowing that his "student(s)" intended to commit one or more crimes of violence.
So, unless Austin lied, he basically tried to help someone commit a crime of violence with an explosive device.
Explain to me again why this should be protected behavior.
As I recall, this guy was arrested for hacking (or at least attempting it) federal sites, not for saying he wanted to over throw the US Government. While I agree that it speaks ill of our legal system that such a crime may count as terrorism, a year in federal prison is a comparitively light sentence when you consider what some other people have done for similar crimes.
And by the way, overthrowing the US Government is one of those ideas that started with the brilliant Ben Franklin, who thought we shuold have a revolution once every 17 years or so.
[C]ertainly 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.
In an interview with Mike Tyson, he made a rather interesting quote, which I must paraphrase. Prison does not rehabilitate. Prison trains the inmate to be better at what got him in prison. So, will this fellow skew more towards the horrific in the future?
Or, is my quoting M. Tyson horrific? Both?
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
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.
Well, let us try a different set of circumstances. Imagine a web site where there are details on how to lynch a minority. Or, what if the site discusses how to bomb an abortion clinic or how to kill an abortion doctor? Would they be protected by Free Speech? If they added the purpose was "to overthrow the US Government," would that enter the site into hallowed protection? Whave if they said, "here's how to do it, but we do not advocate?"
There have been sites as I have mentioned above--sorry, no URLs to accompany. The owners of said sites were convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced to prison. This fellow met the same fate (or chose to waive his right to trial by jury and pled out). They all claimed a right, and were found not in the right. If he should go free, than so should they. I think the clause in the Premable "establish justice and secure domestic tranquility" has bearing. Looking at his site, I conclude he meant what he said, and sought to disrupt our tranquility.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Looks like a pretty standard ideaologically-confused anarchist/commie hissyfit thing. Upside-down US flag, red star, and a black flag. Overlapping each other, no less. The bomb links are just par. He doesn't even put those up until late '02. Probably just responding to how tough it is to pull off that "crazy Jew from Cryptonomicon" vibe without some of that these days. This kid's even a little behind the curve as far as the capital @ clique goes. I know trendy anarchist/vegitarian/communists that had most of that shit in their AIM profiles before Bush had even settled in.
I have him at slightly less dangerous than a camgirl, probably a big fan of Propaghandi. B+ for style though. Excellent use of Clash-tshirt-white on the splash page.
I have no sympathy for this individual, and this says little about the USA system of justice (please don't infer my feelings about general issues of justice or the direction our nation is heading, I'm only commenting on this case).
The prosecutorial side of the USA justice system seeks to prosecute. This guy copped a plea. He said, I am guilty of this offense. That's that. If he believed he was innocent, that his actions were protected free speech, he should have fought it.
The spectacle of a person who is advocating overthrow of the government by force complaining about his CHOICE to plead guilty to a minor offense because of his fear of what he might be successfully prosecuted for if he choses to defy the charges just makes me laugh. I love a person advocating actions when he is not even willing to RISK the heat for merely advocating them, let alone carrying them out himself.
I consider myself an anarchist: that is, I advocate a system of government that strives for the absolute minimum of hierarchical control necessary to maintain the level of order demanded by individual communities. In practice this is a complex concept with many, many degrees of realization, and I recognize that on a national scale such an ideal could easily degrade into thinly (and ironically) disguised totalitarianism, as did attempts to nationalize Marxism in Communist nations. I have grave reservations about the USA government's actions througout the history of this nation. Despite this, I do not see the wisdom of advocating the violent overthrow of a government in a nation where fair, legal elections are possible (and happen on the community level all the time, though money and the two party system have certainly corrupted national and state level elections to some degree).
Essentially, what this says is, we can't convince the majority of our views by peaceful means, so let's overthrow it by violence and FORCE them to see the truth. This point of view is identical to the ideology that resulted in the catastrophically corrupt system in the Soviet Union, a government unable to maintain order for even a century and thus by any measurement a failure.
Austin told the judge Monday he "wasn't really thinking" when he created the Web site. "I'd be devastated if someone used this information to harm others," he said.
Austin admitted posting links about bombs to enable people to build and use them during demonstrations against interstate and foreign trade.
Sounds pretty clear to me. He admits that he was providing information to enable people to make illegal actions. This is all about this individual's choices. And can I point out, a person chosing to follow the information he provided could very well be facing an eternal sentence of being dead. I think he came out better than he had any right to expect.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries