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."
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!
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
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.
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
...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?
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.
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.
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.